Bill C-32 (Historical)

Copyright Modernization Act

An Act to amend the Copyright Act

This enactment amends the Copyright Act to
(a) update the rights and protections of copyright owners to better address the challenges and opportunities of the Internet, so as to be in line with international standards;
(b) clarify Internet service providers’ liability and make the enabling of online copyright infringement itself an infringement of copyright;
(c) permit businesses, educators and libraries to make greater use of copyright material in digital form;
(d) allow educators and students to make greater use of copyright material;
(e) permit certain uses of copyright material by consumers;
(f) give photographers the same rights as other creators;
(g) ensure that it remains technologically neutral; and
(h) mandate its review by Parliament every five years.

Bill C-11—Time Allocation Motion

[James Moore, Conservative, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, I will address the first part of the member's question. He is right. We have tabled the exact same bill. It is not because we are not interested in having a parliamentary debate. We put forward the exact same bill and sent it to a legislative committee. His hon. colleague, the critic responsible for this, and I have spoken about this. We are sending this, not to the heritage committee nor to the industry committee which already have very busy agendas on their own, but to a stand-alone legislative committee, specifically on this bill, so that we can have exhaustive consideration of this bill and consideration of the amendments. We have been very open about that.

We tabled the exact same bill on purpose. We had a legislative committee on Bill C-32. We want to have a legislative committee on Bill C-11 to continue the debate. We want this process that began a year and a half ago to continue right through passage of updated copyright reform. We want to hear the opposition amendments. We want to hear what the opposition has to say. We want to continue the debate substantively, with actual amendments, at the legislative committee. We want to move it forward. It is time we get this done, and it is time the opposition stops delaying.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the identical bill that the House leader refers to is Bill C-32. I was involved on the legislative committee. Of course, after hearing about 150 witnesses and receiving untold written submissions, when it appeared in its new form as Bill C-11 under the new Parliament, not a single comma had been changed. This leads us to the conclusion that there was no intention to do anything with all that testimony that occurred before the committee.

The House leader mentioned that he invited the opposition to tell him how many speakers it would like to put up at second reading. We came forward, in the Liberal Party, and said we would like to have eight speakers. We were hoping that perhaps he was turning over a new leaf and was going to allow some proper debate. Then we find out today the time allocation is two days. We will be lucky if we get two or three speakers.

Is this an indication of the goodwill that the government is showing toward democracy?

Copyright Modernization Act

[José Nunez-Melo, NDP, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the second opportunity I have had to rise in this House and speak about Bill C-11. The Minister of Industry has reintroduced former Bill C-32 on copyright modernization, the purpose of which is to make long overdue changes. These changes will adapt the Canadian rules to technological advances, and harmonize them with the current standards.

I have noticed since the start of the session that it is often the ministers and parliamentary secretaries who answer questions. We will not stop reiterating the need to amend this legislation before seeing it pass.

This bill creates new and very powerful anti-circumvention rights for owners of content. These new provisions are backed by fines of over $1 million and sentences of up to 5 years behind bars. They would also create a situation where digital locks would practically trump all other rights. The exceptions do not adequately recognize the rights of creators.

The political issue is actually more of a trend towards meeting the demands of the big owners of foreign content, particularly American content. When will Canadians finally have legislation that meets their needs?

Our party believes that Canadian copyright laws can strike a balance between the right of creators to receive fair compensation for their work and the right of consumers to have reasonable access to content. We are going to review all potential amendments to the bill in order to create a fair royalty system for artists.

This bill grants several new privileges regarding access to content but provides no alternative method of compensation for artists. This will greatly affect artists' ability to make ends meet.

The copyright modernization act contains a number of concessions for consumers. These are undermined by the government's refusal to adopt a position of compromise regarding the most controversial issue at stake in the area of copyright in Canada.

We propose that the clauses that criminalize the removal of digital locks for personal non-commercial reasons be removed from the copyright modernization bill. We support reducing penalties for those found guilty of having breached the Copyright Act.

Our party, the NDP, believes it is high time that the Copyright Act is modernized; however, this bill contains too many blatant problems.

Over 80 organizations from the artistic and cultural sectors in Quebec and the rest of the country maintain that the bill will be toxic to Canada's digital economy.

These organizations caution that, if the government does not amend the copyright modernization act to provide for adequate compensation for the owners of Canadian content, it will lead to a decline in the production of Canadian content and the distribution of that content in Canada and abroad.

The Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, SOCAN, thinks that the bill should be amended to facilitate access to creative content using new media, and that a fair balance should be struck. Without that balance, creation of creative content will eventually decline because Canadian creators will no longer be able to make a living from their creations.

A law professor at the University of Ottawa said that the provisions relating to digital locks in Bill C-11 and in its predecessors, Bills C-32 and C-60, might be unconstitutional. He believes there are doubts as to whether Parliament has the necessary authority to legislate in relation to digital locks. That is an issue.

Similarly, even if there is an economic issue, it does not seem to fall under federal jurisdiction on trade and commerce, and consequently it falls under provincial jurisdiction. It is also by no means clear whether the federal government has the power to implement international treaties that would justify enacting the bill as it is proposed.

In general, the broader the proposed provisions, the more remote they are from federal jurisdiction and the more they encroach on provincial powers. At minimum, certain aspects of this issue affect the sphere of provincial powers. All of this suggests that the attorneys general and other provincial decision-makers should be actively involved in the discussion.

As for consumers, the "no compromise" provisions grant unprecedented powers to rights owners, which supersede all other rights. If Bill C-11 is enacted, it could mean that we will no longer have access to content for which we have already paid, and we will have no right or recourse. It is draconian and unacceptable to ask students to destroy course notes within 30 days of when the courses end, as this bill proposes.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, once again, at the risk of infringing my own copyright, I would like to answer his question with the illustration of a point or perhaps revert back to a popular ad that was played. The number of submissions on Bill C-32, hundreds; the number of changes, zero; political lip service, priceless. Absolutely nothing was done to change it. What is the point of having all of this input, all with great amendments, I might add, when none of it was even looked at?

The member can sit there and pretend that he is listening all day. Some people build relationships on it. Nonetheless, I digress. Unfortunately, in this particular case I would suggest that he follow his own advice. He talked about The West Wing going to his town. As far as I am concerned, if he thinks that the production value is created by smaller communities such as mine or his and, if he is so concerned, he should worry about the artists who get the money directly to help ply their trade, not digital locks.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, when The West Wing, which was a popular TV show, was filming its last episode, it came to my home town of Stouffville. A number of local businesses were able to participate in the show; from the baker who provided the food and snacks for the actors and crew to the people at the local hardware store who supplied generators to the production. All these people benefited from having a production like this in my home town of Stouffville.

I would suggest to members opposite that when this industry decides where it is going to make such important investments that create hundreds of thousands of jobs, it will look to jurisdictions that, along with their international partners, will actually protect the work it is creating. When I talk about people, like hairdressers, seamstresses and set designers, those are the people I am talking about.

Could the member confirm for me if he was on the select committee that studied Bill C-32? I think I am correct in suggesting that there were some 7 hours of debate in committee, 32 hours of witness testimony from 76 individuals and 153 individuals and organizations who submitted written submissions. This is actually the second time the member has spoken on this bill.

I am wondering how much debate is required before we send this bill to committee and continue to hear from some of the people who have not had the opportunity to speak. I also wonder if he could explain to the NDP the concept of Hansard whereby people can go back and review some of the testimony and comments made in previous discussions on both Bill C-32 and Bill C-11.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I think he is right. I hope some of this is illustrated within the context of committee. Unfortunately, from what I understand, and I may be mistaken or at least I hope I am mistaken, the committee does not want to bring back anybody who was a witness during the last round when it was examining Bill C-32, which is a shame because all the new members in the House could have a good conversation about this.

As to the TPM measures, we must keep in mind that, as we say in legislation in many cases, there is nothing new under the sun here. Many countries have dealt with this and by way of example we should look at them, like what the U.S., New Zealand and Australia did. My hon. colleague makes a valid point.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, we want to take a look at the copyright modernization act in many respects.

I think there is some confusion over time allotment. I think that this question being put being means we cannot put any amendments in at this point. That is unfortunate. It is the last opportunity we get to put up amendments without running the risk of fundamentally changing the bill, its scope, and its principles because now when we vote on it, and I assume if every Conservative votes for this, then it would pass and go to committee. We are somewhat constrained as to where it can go.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage has already said that he will accept some technical amendments and some other amendments in general. However, the problem with amendments in general is that they will not be accepted at that level because we cannot fundamentally change that bill before saying yes to it in scope and principle.

So, I think that the door has been closed on that last opportunity for amendment. That is unfortunate. One of the issues that I want to talk about, and I did not have the chance to during the last part of the debate on Bill C-11 pertaining to copyright modernization, is an issue that could have been dealt with here but was not; that is, artist's resale right.

I had representation from several groups that talked about artist resale rights. The Conservatives have said time and again that they want to get on board with the times, as it were, change the Copyright Act so that it reflects the modern times. That this is what other countries are doing, which is always the refrain.

However, this is something that other nations are doing, as well: artist resale. I hope that the Conservatives will give it some consideration in the future, maybe as something stand-alone.

I will give an example just to illustrate my point.

Acclaimed Canadian artist Tony Urquhart sold a painting called The Earth Returns To Life in 1958 for $250. That may have been a fair chunk of change back then, but it certainly is not today if we are selling art. It was later resold by Heffel Fine Art auction house, in 2009, for approximately $10,000. Similarly, his mixed media piece Instrument of Torture originally sold, in 1959, for $150 and ended up receiving $4,500 in the same auction. Without an artist's right for resale, the artist would not benefit from the increased value of his work whatsoever.

So other nations have gotten on board with this, allowing the artist to receive a percentage of those sales as long as the painting exists. Of course, that is something we need to be talking about here, as well.

Nonetheless, back to the copyright here at hand. Bill C-11 mirrors what was Bill C-32 in that we expressed some great reservations and the debate has gone around TPMs, or digital locks. I will get to that in just a moment.

The reason I brought up artist resale rights, by the way, is because I received some input from people who say we are not talking about artists enough in this particular debate and a lot of it has to do with digital locks; albeit, important, but let us keep in mind here the impact on the artist.

My hon. colleague, the parliamentary secretary, talked about people involved in the movie industry, the seamstresses and the other occupations. However, my fundamental question to that would be, if these people wanted to make a better living, I do not know how digital locks are supposed to be the be all and end all for them to continue doing their trades for the rest of their lives.

Aline Côté is the chair of Association nationale des éditeurs de livres. She represents Quebec and French Canadian publishers. This is how she describes copyright, which I think is a very apt description:

In fact, nothing is simpler than copyright law: if you create something original outside an employment framework, it is yours exclusively; you can give it away, sell it, authorize a third party to sell it for you, etc. Copyright law simply acknowledges a creator’s exclusive intellectual property on his work upon its creation. Since the initial work exists as a single entity (a manuscript or print-ready for books, a master copy in the case of movies or music, etc.), this exclusive ownership right gives the creator the right to authorize the reproduction of copies (copyright).

That being said, I want to return to the debate regarding TPMs.

We are talking about a bill that the government says is fair and balanced, but unfortunately some of it just does not add up or make sense. In some cases it is black or white, but there is no grey matter to deal with these situations, and the digital locks regarding the education exemption is a fine example. Here is what I mean by that.

An education exemption is in place for people who want to use materials mostly in a structured classroom, but even that now has had quite a bit of debate. How do we know what a structured education forum is? Does the bill go far enough to explain that? Is it a technical amendment that we have to look at? I believe that it is. If a corporation provides some training material internally, does that corporation have to be part of a collective? Can it get away from that now because it receives that exemption? That is not a proper educational structure within a corporation. It is certainly nothing akin to a post-secondary institution like a college or a university. That needs clarification.

Let us say one is within a legitimate education area, a school, a university or a college, and providing material free of charge under that exemption. What if that material is digitally locked? A right to fair dealing, a right that one would acquire under this legislation, is there but also in this legislation there is a digital lock. The two conflict.

Many countries have gone through this already, including New Zealand, Australia and now the United States of America, which also has exemptions for education but is also very strict on the idea of digital locks.

The government, and the Minister of Canadian Heritage in particular, have talked about having to live up to their obligations under the World Intellectual Properties Organization, or WIPO. Living up to those regulations may be excessive. New Zealand, Australia and the United States of America worked on ways to provide certain exceptions to circumvent these locks for the sake of the education exemption. In other words, they found there was a problem and they fixed it by doing that.

In the copyright legislation there is also a provision that would allow someone to purchase music and share it among his or her devices, unless it is TPMed, or digitally locked. The individual has the right to use that music on personal devices, but if it is digitally locked, which would be allowed under this legislation and is being promoted, then the two conflict. Under fair dealings the individual would not have the right to that song.

My colleagues across the way look at the video gaming industry as a good example. A good example is the fact that I can understand completely, wholeheartedly, why digital locks work in that particular circumstance if they protect the business model they are in and they are correct. These digital locks will do that. The use of digital locks cannot be expanded from this one sector to all of the others.

This legislation has been done in haste. We have to look at it. I do not know that by accepting this in principle at second reading would give us the freedom to look at it even further.

Here is what we suggested in our amendment, which I think is right. It is a direct test to an exemption. There are two ways of looking at this. We could study exceptions to the rule that we have been talking about extensively. One is Canadian made from 2004, that is the CCH ruling as we normally call it. There are six steps involved there. The other step is more of an international standard which is the Berne Convention from TRIPS. That is called a three step test measure, and I will read it out, “The courts shall interpret any exceptions to copyright infringement or limitations on copyright in this act so as to restrict them to (1) certain special cases that do not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work, and (2) do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author number three”. It is pretty profound when we think about it. If this material is provided to a school or a particular individual a three step test like this must be applied so that fair and equal balance is created.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have one preliminary remark. I simply must comment on the fact that this important debate on the future of culture in Canada and in Quebec is mostly taking place on one side of the House. No Conservative members are rising to defend the government’s bill.

The New Democrats are standing up to defend creators and artists, but the Conservatives are sitting in silence, even though it is their bill. Since they are already aware of how damaging the bill is going to be for our creators and artists, they are remaining silent, and are not bothering to explain the objective of Bill C-11. So we will do so, and we will put forward as many arguments as possible.

I also wish to say that I am very proud to rise today to speak about this important bill. I am proud for two reasons. First, I come from a family where culture is extremely important. My father is a writer and my brother is a musician. Because of this, I know just how important the five cents or so for radio airplay can be. I understand the importance of photocopies in a school. I know how important it is at the end of the year for writers, artists, singers, and musicians. We are not talking about a trivial amount. And yet, copyright—the rights of authors—is being overhauled and turned inside out by the bill under discussion today. Artists in Quebec and Canada are making a heartfelt plea, and I think it is important to listen to them.

The other reason I am proud to rise today to challenge and debate Bill C-11 is that I have the opportunity and the honour to represent Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, an extraordinary riding where artists and craftspeople abound, where folks give things a try and have ideas, and where people want to express their point of view and their vision of the world. It is for them that I rise today, to stand up for their rights including their right to a decent life. I rise to stress how important it is to truly support artists and not pull the rug out from under them by cutting off their revenue streams, which are so important to these people who contribute to the soul of the Quebec and Canadian nations. Quite the contrary, they deserve a lot more recognition and respect.

In Quebec, there is an unprecedented outcry from artists, cultural groups and copyright collectives. I shall now list the associations that previously spoke out against Bill C-32 and oppose Bill C-11, which is a carbon copy of the Conservatives' former legislation.

Here is the list: the Association des journalistes indépendants du Québec, the Association nationale des éditeurs de livres, the Association des professionnels des arts de la scène du Québec, the Société de gestion collective de l'Union des artistes, the Association québécoise des auteurs dramatiques, the Association des réalisateurs et réalisatrices du Québec, Copibec, DAMIC, Artisti, the Guilde des musiciens et musiciennes du Québec, the Regroupement des artistes en arts visuels du Québec, the Société des auteurs de radio, télévision et cinéma, the Société de développement des périodiques culturels, the Society for Reproduction Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers in Canada, the Société québécoise des auteurs dramatiques, the Société professionnelle des auteurs et des compositeurs du Québec, the Union des artistes and the Union des écrivaines et des écrivains québécois.

Why is this Conservative government incapable of listening to the people who are mainly targeted by this bill and who are saying that it is threatening artists' survival as well as culture in Quebec and Canada?

Why is this Conservative government incapable not only of listening, but also of speaking to artists, explaining its objectives and explaining why it is risking potential losses to creators of $75 million in Quebec alone? That is serious.

The NDP condemns the 40 new exceptions in Bill C-11 concerning the free use of works. We cannot confuse free use with access to a work. It is important to provide access, but for it to be free represents the death of the artist, who would have to find a new job. That is significant.

The Conservatives have a vision of culture, but it does not include creators. Culture is important, and they will discuss it in speeches; they will say that it is nice, it is good, but when it comes to really helping people who have good ideas, who have dreams and who want to say what is in their soul and express their vision of the world, the Conservatives slash their funding and their income. What will happen? Creators are at risk of losing at least four sources of income.

First, the new private copying system is completely obsolete.

It offers no compensation for artists. That is the first source of income that is going to disappear for artists.

Second, since 1990, there has been a levy on blank cassettes and CDs. That is because when people make a copy of a song, they download it or they make a copy of a version they get from a friend or family member or neighbour. The artist who created and recorded the song and the people at the studio do not get anything more. That is it.

That is the method everyone had agreed on so that copyright could be shared and we could ensure that the artist and the creator earned something. Now levies on cassettes and CDs have become completely outdated. Who still buys audio cassettes today to listen to music?

Why is there no adaptation to new technologies in this bill? We are told we need to modernize. Let us modernize. Why are there no levies for MP3s or iPods? That is how young people and children use their music and listen to it now. Why are artists having this taken away from them?

In 2008, $30 million in levies was distributed. In 2010 it was only $10 million. Artists lost two-thirds of transfers, and there is nothing in this bill to compensate for the copies that will be made.

Royalties are being abolished for ephemeral recordings by broadcasters. In this case they will stop paying $21 million to artists and people in the music trades. This is serious.

As well, schools and universities have to continue doing their share to support writers, the people who supply the materials found in their libraries. That represents $10 million a year. This system has existed for a long time. It works well. We do not understand why there is a need to pick it up, tear it apart and throw it on the ground and offer no support or other compensation for artists in this regard.

So we are very concerned. The Conservatives have already cut programs that enabled our artists to go on international tours, to get exposure abroad and to take Quebec, Canadian or aboriginal culture around the globe. They have already cut that support. Today, they are cutting directly. The Conservatives are directly attacking the incomes of artists, writers, singers and creators. That is unacceptable to us.

I also wanted to stress the fact that by eliminating or jeopardizing the payment of significant amounts to creators, Bill C-11 also contributes to weakening all the copyright collective societies, and yet these societies are an essential link in the administration of copyright.

UNESCO has said of copyright collective societies that they are “one of the most appropriate means of assuring respect for exploited works and a fair remuneration for creative effort of cultural wealth, while permitting rapid access by the public to a constantly enriched living culture”. That is a quote from UNESCO. Obviously, once again, the Conservative government is refusing to listen.

Creators’ incomes, and the very existence of copyright collective societies, are thus jeopardized because of this government’s determination to promote a single business model: the digital padlock, the digital lock, putting locks on works.

Artists do not want their works to be locked. Artists want it to be possible to distribute them and download them, but they want something in return. They want their songs to be listened to by as many people as possible, but they want to get something in exchange.

In Quebec, Luc Plamondon has been clear on this. We thought copyright was recognized by people in our society. But today, copyright is being hurt. And all the artists are the ones who will be hurt. Culture as a whole is also at risk.

Once again the government has given in to the siren songs of big business, which seems to be the only winner with Bill C-11, a bill that is totally out of whack. There are winners—the major movie studios and the U.S. movie studios. Contrary to its claims, the government is not protecting creators; it is attacking them directly.

I will stop here, but I have a great deal more to say. I urge our colleagues opposite to listen to artists, to hear their appeals and to support culture by accepting the NDP amendments to improve this bill and make it a real bill that will modernize copyright by moving into the future and not returning to the dark ages, as Marie-Denise Pelletier said in Quebec.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I knew what the Conservatives have against this country's workers. After the tax cuts to large corporations, the subsidies to oil companies and all the inappropriate expenditures for the G8 and the G20—always with Canadian taxpayers' money—the government now wants to target our artists' income.

Many of the artists we love, admire and appreciate are not rich. The majority of them have a very modest income and, because of the nature of their occupation, it is not a stable income. They must accept contracts and work at many jobs to provide for their needs and those of their family.

In Quebec, the average income of artists is estimated at $24,600 per year, based on the 2006 census data. We are talking about $24,600 to pay for rent, food and transportation, to send one's children to school and look after their needs. That amount must also cover heating costs and the material needed to create. What makes things even worse is that, with an annual income of $24,600, Quebec artists are considered to be the richest in Canada. That same year, the average income for artists in Canada was estimated at $22,700 per year.

These numbers reflect the reality of our actors, painters and singers. Our artists are struggling to make ends meet. While all the evidence should convince the government to provide increased support to our creators, it prefers, as in Bills C-10 and C-19, to ignore the facts and please the cultural industry's big businesses. This bill is going to hurt artists and make them poorer. And they certainly cannot afford that.

The Union des artistes is worried about its members' income and so are we on this side of the House. How can artists continue to create if they do not have the means to do so? Copyright royalties are an important source of income for Canada's creators. This government must ensure creators receive their fair share and are paid for their work.

I wish this government would take out its earplugs and start listening to the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, which is asking that the bill be amended so that artists are compensated fairly for the use of their creative work in the new media.

I also wish it would listen to the Society for Reproduction Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers in Canada, which is telling it that this bill is going to have a significant impact on creators' income and that it needs to be amended in order to strike a balance between the interests of creators and those of consumers. Unfortunately, as with Bills C-10, C-13, C-18 and C-20, this government prefers to turn a deaf ear.

Passing this bill would have a very negative impact on our country's cultural industry, and it would have a direct impact on creators' income. Moreover, many people are worried about producers and publishers, who would not enjoy the same protection as holders of scientific patents.

We are not stupid. Canada's copyright laws need to be reviewed. Former Bill C-32 was reviewed in committee, but the Conservatives chose yet again to ignore the recommendations made by the witnesses who appeared before the committee.

This bill could potentially create more problems than it solves. That is why I cannot support it in its current form. Even the Union des artistes finds that some of the wording is ambiguous and that court challenges are inevitable. For example, they cite the concept of fair dealing for the purpose of education and that of reasonable grounds.

Why is this government still refusing to listen to opinions that differ from its own? Why does this government not want to work with all the players involved in copyright in order to reform it properly and adapt it to the reality of the 21st century? Such stubbornness would not be so bad if Canadians did not have to bear the consequences of the government's bad bill. Copyright in the digital age has to build on two fundamental principles: accessibility for consumers and remuneration for the artists.

Unfortunately, the Conservative government has not respected either principle. It is directly compromising the millions of dollars in royalties artists receive under current copyright legislation, and it is encroaching on consumer rights by adopting provisions on digital locks.

The fact is that this bill gives consumers rights they will not be able to exercise. The general provisions on digital locks will allow the companies to decide which legal rights can be exercised and which cannot. This unbalanced perspective will end up harming artists and educators. That is also quite worrisome.

I urge this government, the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, to review this bill in light of what was said in committee during consideration of the now defunct Bill C-32 and to listen to what the artists have been trying to get across, in order to ensure that this copyright reform is balanced and beneficial to everyone.

[José Nunez-Melo, NDP, Laval, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to commend the hon. members for Winnipeg Centre and Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel for their excellent remarks about Bill C-11.

I have the opportunity to once again speak specifically about Bill C-11, which was introduced to amend the Copyright Act. The Conservatives named it the Copyright Modernization Act.

In summary, the Conservative caucus once again introduced this bill, which proposes amendments that have been needed for a very long time. These amendments would adapt the act to take into account new technologies and to make it consistent with current international standards. However, this is a very complex issue because it involves the conflicting demands of stakeholders in artistic communities, universities, the technology sector, business and consumer protection groups.

Bill C-11 is identical to Bill C-32, which was introduced previously. It had the same name, the Copyright Modernization Act. Specifically, the bill creates powerful new anti-circumvention rights for content owners, preventing access to copyrighted works. In addition, these new provisions are supported by fines and prison terms.

In this bill, the Conservatives have deliberately avoided addressing the issue of a possible extension of the private copying exception, a measure proposed by the NDP several times and supported by a number of experts.

In this regard, the NDP believes that it is high time to modernize copyright rules, but that this bill has too many major problems. The NDP believes that Canada's copyright rules could balance the right of creators to appropriate compensation for their work and the right of consumers to have reasonable access to content.

We will study every possible amendment, including those mentioned by the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay, that could be made to the bill in order to create a fair system of royalties for artists.

It seems that all Canadian efforts to modernize the Copyright Act have really been attempts to meet the demands of big U.S. content owners. That is the situation. When will Canadians finally have a law that meets their needs?

We want to amend the bill so that it better reflects the interests of Canadians. Many organizations, individuals, lawyers and legislators share our position.

The list includes Michael Geist and more than 80 organizations working in the arts and culture, in Quebec and throughout Canada, such as the Writers Guild of Canada, the Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, and the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada. It also includes eminent lawyer Howard Knopf, the Society for Reproduction Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers in Canada, Jeremy F. de Beer and Cory Doctorow. I wanted to mention just a few of the people who have something to say about the NDP's proposals and support them.

Once again, I would like to point out that we should perhaps listen again to the excellent speech by my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel. She was very explicit in her speech, which clearly captures the need to make these changes to Bill C-11 introduced by the Conservative caucus.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. Indeed, that is what my recent speech was about. That is also what the Bloc Québécois has noticed, along with creators in Quebec, in particular.

Almost a year ago, on November 30, 2010, 100 or so artists came here to the House of Commons. The member for Winnipeg Centre perhaps met a few of them. They told us that Bill C-32 at the time—now Bill C-11, which is a carbon copy of that bill—made it possible for some people to take works belonging to creators and artists without their being compensated for their work. No one here in this House would want to work for free.

Furthermore, when artists are not compensated for their work, they do not have the motivation or ability to continue to create more works. It is not only artists who are penalized, but also consumers, because they will lose the artists they love if those artists are not compensated for their work.

The current bill allows just that. The bill does not acknowledge that there are new technologies that allow people to copy music without compensating the artists. At the time, when we had blank cassettes and CDs, the artists received a levy. That is not done with iPods and MP3 players. That is a huge flaw in this bill.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-11. I have been listening for some time to the speeches, comments and remarks made by members on both sides of the House. I feel like I am back in the previous Parliament, when the same legislation, namely Bill C-32, was introduced. Unfortunately, the government does not seem prepared to accept the proposed amendments.

The government often tells us, and members opposite like to mention, that hundreds of people appeared before parliamentary committees, particularly the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, regarding this issue. They say that everybody was heard. I do not think so, as evidenced by the fact that, in the end, the government came back with a cut and paste version of Bill C-32. It sure did not listen much to those who spoke on this issue, because no changes were made.

Yet, as my colleague mentioned a few moments ago, it would have been possible to make the necessary changes to this bill. Many people, including composers, are currently experiencing problems because of the new ways used to record music. After expressing their views, they would have liked to see some changes in the new Bill C-11, so that copyright is truly respected and artists, who do not work for free, can be paid based on the fair value of their artistic or creative work.

It is the same thing with piracy. Some witnesses who appeared before the committee when we were dealing with Bill C-32 told us that this legislation did not really deal with what is happening now with the new technologies, which allow people to steal works at will. Obviously, this is also not an issue that was examined when Bill C-11 was drafted because, as I said, it is a cut and paste copy of Bill C-32.

Consequently, there is no way the Bloc Québécois can support Bill C-11 in its present form. It was the same thing with the previous legislation. Our position was exactly the same.

Since I am short on time, I shall limit my comments regarding the Conservatives' bill to the issue of copyright. I do wish to say, however, that a fundamental principle has been forgotten in this bill, and that is that artists need an income to survive and to continue to create. Had this simple principle been upheld—a principle that undoubtedly in the eyes of everyone here is nothing but common sense—we could perhaps have talked business, so to speak.

I would like to remind the House that almost a year ago, on November 30, about 100 Quebec artists came to Parliament to express the opinion I just stated. The brother of our acting leader, Luc Plamondon, was in attendance. Robert Charlebois, Michel Rivard and Richard Séguin were also there. I met someone from my riding, the artist Dumas. All of these people came to Parliament Hill to tell the heritage and industry ministers, as well as the entire Conservative caucus and every member of the House of Commons, that they wanted nothing to do with the copyright bill that the government was bent on introducing.

I do not think I would be far off the mark if I were to speak on their behalf today and say that they still hold this opinion, since the bill has not been amended.

We know that no one can work for free. If we stop paying artists royalties for their copyright, if we literally take away their livelihood, consumers will also lose out, as they will be deprived of new artistic creations.

We know how things work today. I am a good example of this. I am no whiz kid when it comes to technology. My younger brother is more technologically minded. He is perhaps more of an expert in technology than I could ever be, but what I do know is that I bought a little iPod to jog with. I have a second one that I carry around with me and use in my car. I download music legally. I make purchases, pay the charge, and then I enjoy the music that I have downloaded to my iPod. The upshot is that I am no longer a big consumer of CDs. My wife always asks me what I am going to do with the hundreds of CDs I have collected over the years. I am a little nostalgic and, I guess, conservative—this is perhaps the only area in which that is the case—but I want to hold onto my CDs. They are more of a souvenir than anything else.

Even if there is a compact disc player in the car and at home, people always end up plugging in the iPod. Given that artists are selling fewer and fewer CDs, they have to be able to receive payment for their work in return. If I do not pay them, the artists will no longer produce music, having no resources to do it. So I have just penalized myself because I cannot listen to them any more. I referred to Dumas earlier. I have bought his CDs and I downloaded his last one to an iPod. I have done the same thing for Vincent Vallières. I did not buy his CD, I downloaded it. But these and other artists, France D'Amour and company, have to receive royalties for that.

Nowhere in Bill C-11 do we find solutions to this problem. At present, creators are not receiving their due. The Conservatives refuse to let them have royalties for the use of their works on new media: MP3s, the Internet, iPods and so on. I do not want to be advertising for anyone here, but everyone has them these days. The Conservatives are engaging in enormous demagoguery when they say we want to tax purchases of those devices. In any event, royalties are already being paid. We used to pay them on blank discs and cassettes. That is another problem my wife and I have. I have kept my old cassettes in big boxes. We paid royalties on blank cassettes so the artists could receive their due. Today, those media have changed to MP3s, iPods and so on.

We are in favour of a reform of the Copyright Act, but not the reform presented by the government in its Bill C-11. With this bill, the government claims to be protecting creativity. But creators themselves do not share that opinion, including all the ones I listed earlier and many others who returned to the charge on the Hill some time ago. Nearly all MPs had an opportunity to meet with artists who told them the same thing.

Artists’ associations have come out against the bill in its present form; they include the Association des professionnels des arts de la scène du Québec, the Association québécoise des auteurs dramatiques, the Conseil des métiers d'art du Québec, the Regroupement des artistes en arts visuels du Québec, the Société des auteurs de radio, télévision et cinéma, the Société professionnelle des auteurs et des compositeurs du Québec and the Union des écrivaines et des écrivains québécois. There are also associations of performers like the Guilde des musiciens et musiciennes du Québec and the Union des artistes. And there are copyright collectives like the Society for Reproduction Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers in 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. And that is just for Quebec. There are other associations elsewhere in Canada that have said they are dissatisfied with the bill as it now stands.

I want to get back to users and consumers. All of these groups, collectives and organizations work directly with artists. We could say that the users and consumers watching at home who are less familiar with the bill—Bill C-11 is rather technical—will be happy with Bill C-11, since they will be able to more freely use any works they have acquired. At least that is what the government claims. But I want to tell the government that the Canadian Consumer Initiative, which includes the Union des consommateurs and Option consommateurs, has spoken out against the fact that with its copyright bill, the federal government is once again abandoning consumers by giving in to corporate demands.

We are told that the consumer rights provided for in the bill to strike a balance could be restricted or even denied by the entertainment industry. This bill causes problems for both creators and consumers. It must be amended before the members of the Bloc Québécois will support it.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know my friend from Saanich—Gulf Islands has put some effort into learning about this issue.

I was first elected back in 2004. I sat on the heritage committee. We heard at that time that Canada had signed the WIPO agreement back in 1997 and yet in 2004 it had not complied with what it had in fact signed. We are now almost 2012 and still we are not compliant with WIPO.

I chaired the special legislative committee on Bill C-32. We heard from 100-plus witnesses. A lot of work has been done on this.

I know that the hon. member has spoken about some very positive aspects in the bill. There is one aspect I want to ask her about because in one part of the bill there is a provision for a mandatory five year review.

The digital economy is changing rapidly. Is that something the member sees as a positive aspect of this bill?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, joining other colleagues who have found some of the aspects of this bill problematic.

I am going to approach this bill a little differently from the way some other members have. I think we need to recognize the context of where we are at second reading. This bill is going to go to committee. What I would like to do is dedicate my remarks and focus on a rather direct appeal to members on the government benches to take the opportunity to seize a victory that they could have by putting forward a bill that would have the support of all the groups that are now being critical. I do not think that is impossible at all.

We recognize that there have been some improvements. There is general agreement by all knowledgeable people in this area that we need to modernize the Copyright Act and that we have significant challenges with new technologies. I sometimes think about this place, this room, this House of Commons, and try to imagine our predecessors in Parliament in the 1930s trying to grapple with what we are speaking about today. It is all new, and it changes fast.

Almost as quickly as we might legislate this bill, we will find that we need to make additional changes to deal with new implications and new ways in which copyright becomes recognized and the way in which copyright is challenged creative rights need to be protected.

What I would like to do is concentrate my remarks not in attacking the bill so much, although I do have to attack sections of it, but with a goal of hoping that when this bill goes to committee, amendments will be allowed.

We have seen a worrying trend in this 41st Parliament; it is as though amendments to legislation after first reading are somehow incremental defeats of the government of the day, whereas in fact it is common practice in Parliaments around the world, and certainly in the Canadian Parliament, to recognize that a bill at first reading is not perfect. It can use improvement, and using the committee in as non-partisan a way as possible will bring improvements to the legislation.

When I look at this legislation and what the government has said, I see in the preamble, which always guides statutory interpretation:

...the Government of Canada is committed to enhancing the protection of copyright works or other subject-matter, including through the recognition of technological protection measures,

—and this is the important part—

in a manner that promotes culture and innovation, competition and investment in the Canadian economy;

It goes on to say:

And whereas Canada’s ability....is fostered by encouraging the use of digital technologies for research and education;

A tremendous balancing is being suggested here and is being aspired to by the government in its preamble. It falls short, but we do not need to be condemnatory; there is much in the bill that is an improvement. The problems that remain tend to focus in one specific area, and that area has been referenced a good deal in the debate today: digital rights management and the use of devices and technology such as digital locks.

That is just a preamble to my point. We also see in the very beginning of the bill, in the preamble, that the Government of Canada wants our legislation to meet new global norms. It specifically refers to the World Intellectual Property Organization, which I will just refer to as WIPO. That WIPO treaty is one to which Canada wants to adhere.

However, numerous commentators have pointed out that the legislative approach in this bill exceeds anything required by WIPO. I am hoping that the government can pull back slightly--in a significant way, actually--from the parts of the bill that members on the opposite benches find unacceptable. Really, the government has accommodated a lot of concerns and has improved the bill. I know it is virtually the same as Bill C-32 in the last Parliament, but it has gone through some improvements from its first iterations. We are close.

Government members on committee, with the direction from the Prime Minister's Office, I am sure, taking a keen interest in this bill, could actually accommodate the different concerns of critics and emerge with a bill that would earn praise across all parts of the House of Commons.

Professor Michael Geist has been referred to in the debates this afternoon. He is a professor at the University of Ottawa and is the Canada Research Chair in Internet and e-commerce law. I found his comment quite appropriate to my own sense. He criticized the bill initially as flawed but fixable. He still holds to that view--flawed but fixable--so let us fix it.

What he said he finds problematic is that as he sees it, the bill is an omnibus bill that combines two different pieces of legislation.

The first piece is the part that I think I can speak for all members of other parties, but I think it is fair to say that most members in the House find the first bit, which he described as the copyright modernization act, to be quite acceptable, generally good. Maybe some of the restrictions go too far, but overall, it is good progress in copyright modernization.

He describes the other part of the law, which we find unacceptable, and he has given it a title, “The reduce U.S. pressure copyright act”. The problems have emerged in that area.

The problems are in two areas, and I will refer to the first. Briefly, it is constitutional. The constitutional problem is simple to describe. Copyright is clearly an area of federal jurisdiction, whereas property rights are provincial. To the extent that we have intruded into property rights, we have a problem. This has been described in a learned article published by professors Crowne-Mohammed and Rozenszajn, both from the University of Windsor, in the Journal of Information, Law and Technology in which the authors describe the problem this way:

The DRM provisions of Bill C-61 represent a poorly veiled attempt by the Government to strengthen the contractual rights available to copyright owners, in the guise of copyright reform and the implementation of Canada's international obligations.

Let us de-link them. Let us protect the rights and protect copyright reform without acceding to pressure from U.S. interests, which want to have excessively restrictive controls in the form of digital locks. That is setting aside the constitutional issue.

The next set of concerns I would like to raise really relate to public policy concerns. One of the very strong groups of critics on this matter is the Public Interest Advocacy Centre. I should confess that the Public Interest Advocacy Centre was the organization that initially brought me to Ottawa in 1985. I left a law practice in Halifax to become senior general counsel to the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, not really a conflict of interest but a convergence of my history. I wish to quote their legal position:

Consumers enjoy certain rights to use content without infringing copyright. The presence of technological measures doesn't change that, and neither should anti-circumvention laws. Consumers must be able to circumvent technological measures, like DRM, providing that their access to the underlying content does not infringe copyright.

It goes on to say, “Anti-circumvention laws shouldn't statutorily undermine the values that are invoked in public policy goals such as consumer welfare, free speech, and innovation”. That is a public policy concern that comes from the Public Interest Advocacy Centre.

As members throughout the House will know, the bill has been criticized by many groups, but those criticisms are not in multiple sections of the act. They focus very clearly on the problem of digital locks.

Another group that has taken the digital lock section in its crosshairs is the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, also based at the University of Ottawa. They point out:

Unfortunately, the bill also succumbs to U.S. pressure and makes fair dealing--including the new exceptions for the many ordinary activities of Canadians--illegal whenever there is a “digital lock” on a work. A digital lock will trump all other rights, forbidding all fair dealing and keeping a work locked up even after its copyright term expires. Overall, these digital lock provisions are some of the most restrictive in the world.

This again is an issue where we are exceeding what is required of us to meet international norms under the WIPO Treaty. The digital lock provisions go too far.

We have heard from members opposite on the government benches that the bill needs to do all these things because we must protect Canadian jobs. I just want to speak to that.

The Canadian arts and culture industry, as we realize, is a very important part of our economy. It is a $46 billion industry annually. It employs over 600,000 people. The government should take note of the fact that most of the professional organizations that represent the creative force in the arts and culture community collectively and separately have called on the government to amend the legislation, have urged it to amend the legislation.

I will not read out all the names of the organizations, but there is an organization to which I also confess to belong, the Writers' Union of Canada, but beyond that there is also the Royal Canadian Academy of the Arts, Société québécoise des auteurs dramatiques, and the Writers Guild of Canada.

Therefore, I ask the government to consider, why would it be that just about every organization in the country representing creative people appreciate some portions of the bill and find others go too far? With that, I ask the hon. members opposite to please consider amendments, improve the bill--

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House as a representative for the people of Scarborough—Rouge River to join this debate. The issue of copyright modernization is on the minds of many of my constituents and I am happy to bring their concerns forward today.

Copyright modernization is definitely required to bring Canada into the 21st century and to catch up with the technological advances that we have seen since the creation of the existing copyright legislation. We need to reform our copyright legislation in a way that will create a balance between the two fundamental principles that drive copyright legislation: ease of access and the right of remuneration for the creator.

Bill C-11, which is exactly the same as Bill C-32 that was brought before the previous Parliament, does not create balance between the ease of use and the right of remuneration. Instead, the bill is about corporate rights, which is different from copyrights.

The right of artists to have remuneration for their copies is under direct attack point after point in the bill. Instead, there are areas in the bill where the right of artists to be paid is taken away and replaced by a false right, the right to lock down content.

The Conservative government is very partial to locks. We know that. It really understands prisons and locks.

In the introduction to the bill, we heard the minister say that the digital lock would restore the market. I am very skeptical about that. Through my conversations with constituents and friends in the music industry, I have never met an artist who could feed his or her family on a lock. Instead, these artists feed their families on the right they have as artists to be remunerated through their mechanical royalties, television rights and book rights. Mechanical royalties provide a small amount of return for their efforts, but that return is crucial to them, especially to young aspiring new artists.

Therefore, when the government comes along and attempts to strike out, as it does in the bill, the mechanical royalty rights that have been guaranteed under the Copyright Board of Canada, it deprives artists of the millions of dollars that actually make it possible to carry on the works. How is this restoring the market? I do not understand.

The other crucial element, one which New Democrats have asked for again and again, is copyright reform that addresses the needs of Canadian consumers, artists and students in a digital realm. This element is one of huge importance to my constituents.

The bill poses a fundamental problem with its education provisions. The restrictions it would impose on students and teachers are extremely problematic.

Copyright has historically been based around the idea that creation and knowledge must be shared. Historically, copyright law has been designed to facilitate education. Actually, the first piece of copyright legislation ever adopted was Britain's act for the encouragement of learning. Canada's original copyright legislation was designed with similar intentions. The reforms in the legislation proposed by the bill do not, unfortunately, maintain the same founding principles and completely ignore the original intent of copyright legislation in Canada.

The Scarborough campus of the University of Toronto and the campuses of both Centennial College and Seneca College border my riding. The restrictions imposed by Bill C-11 are of great concern to the instructors, professors, students and administrators of these colleges and university as well as other colleges and universities across the country, as I speak to them as the official opposition's critic on post secondary education.

The legislation would require students to dispose of their digital class notes after 30 days, as well as destroy course plans and course notes by professors and instructors after 30 days of the completion of their course. Failure to do so would mean that these students would be infringing copyright legislation. This raises a number of red flags for me. How does this facilitate education?

With advances in technology, more and more students are accessing their post-secondary education in a variety of new ways. Through the use of technology, we can now offer programs in distance learning. This means that students in remote locations, or in locations where their course of choice is not available, can access courses and course material online. With the changes to the copyright legislation that are proposed in the bill, this course material will only be available for 30 days. After such point, the students will be required to dispose of the material at the end of their course.

This change would not only pose a problem to those pursuing their education online, but to virtually all students. Anyone who has been enrolled in a post-secondary education program or who knows someone who is enrolled in a post-secondary education program recently understands the shift in the digitization currently being made by professors and instructors at many institutions of post-secondary education. I recently attended three of them.

More and more instructors and professors are not only posting their notes, their course outlines and their lesson plans online, along with an array of the supplementary course materials, but they are also providing online forums that encourage the sharing of notes and the continuation of discussion once the lesson is completed for the day.

With the reforms proposed in this legislation, posts that students have put up would now have to be deleted or removed after 30 days. This would be problematic for many reasons, as many of my colleagues have mentioned.

First, this creates a modern book-burning regime, whereby countless sources of information and new thought will be lost forever.

Second, it creates a two-tired rights system between an analog and paper system versus a digital system, whereby students who keep written notes are not be forced to destroy those after 30 days and students who keep digital notes are be forced to destroy them. The mandatory destruction of course notes and material is detrimental to all students. Students routinely keep their notes to allow for them to go back and use these notes for further study and completion of related courses. Also, students keep these notes year after year to build a body of work toward getting their degree, certificate or diploma program.

I kept notes from my second and third year courses to use in my masters program and textbooks from my undergraduate degree for my masters program. Now I would not be able to do that.

Last, it creates an unfair barrier to students with different learning styles. This legislation does not allow for an exemption to organizations that provide educational resources in alternative formats to increase accessibility and success of those with learning disabilities. It discriminates against people with learning disabilities.

Related to this, many students are not capable of taking notes, for a variety of reasons, and have notes taken and provided to them by note-takers. Note-takers are of huge importance to the success of many students. Without these note-takers, post-secondary educations would not be accessible to these students. Note-taking also provides a small income to those who attend these extra courses and provide others with notes.

How would the notes of note-takers be affected by the proposed legislation? Would this not hurt them along with the students they provide the notes for if they have to be destroyed?

It is completely shocking and absurd that after 30 days students would not the right to access their own class notes that are made digitally. I have met with many people throughout the education sector and I have never once heard that the destruction of class notes after 30 days is a good idea. In fact, I have heard the complete opposite. This provision is unacceptable. It is backward thinking and it is needless. It would not protect any business model, but it would have a major detrimental effect on students and on education in our country.

Therefore, for the betterment of our society, that provision has to go. I implore the government to look at this and ensure that it is removed.

The other issue that is of great importance to me and my constituents is that of the digital lock. There is a very important right of creators to protect their work. One of the ways to protect this work is through digital locks. While the protection of a creator's work is extremely important, the anti-circumvention rights for content owners included in the legislation would create a situation in which digital locks would supersede virtually all other rights, including fair dealing rights for students and journalists. Because of this, a situation would be created where digital locks would supersede other rights guaranteed in the charter, such as changing format in case of a perceptual disability. It would also pose a very real danger that consumers would be prohibited form using content for which they had already paid. This would be problematic for many artists and many creators in my community.