Bill C-11 (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.

Income Tax Act

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a couple of great speeches from my colleagues. I too am going to lend a few words to debate on this bill.

I have seen a lot of nonsense from the government, but I cannot believe why we are dealing with Bill C-377. It targets one group in our society and singles it out for unfair, onerous, burdensome treatment with no apparent reason other to make mischief, attack unions and drive them out of our communities. I do not understand.

I do not know where the sponsor of this bill comes from or if he remembers the history of his community, but I want to ask him and other members opposite to think about the freedoms that we cherish in our community and our country and to consider for a moment their history. I want to ask him as well to consider the role that working people have played in the establishment of those freedoms and of those important programs, and the work they have done to build our roads and public buildings and to ensure that we have goods and services in order to have a high standard of living. Health care, health and safety laws, workers compensation, unemployment insurance, pensions and all of the other things that have made our communities as strong as they are today have resulted from the struggles of working people and their organizations, trade unions. They do not deserve this kind of attack.

It has been said by my colleagues that this bill does not deal with other like organizations that are similar in structure, such as professional associations or law societies. It does not touch the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, for example. It does not deal with other organizations in the same way that it attempts to single out trade unions.

As has been stated by my colleagues, I have often said that trade unions are one of the most democratic organizations we have in society. The revenues and resources that unions have to deal with are as a result of dues and contributions by members, from the pay they receive for doing their work. How that money is spent is determined by those very same workers.

If members have any question about how these unions deal and make those decisions and hold themselves accountable, I would like to take them out to a general membership meeting. I would like them to come to any one of the annual conventions held by the trade unions in this country and see the scrutiny that the financial statements of those unions receive from their members. Members would recognize that there is far more scrutiny and transparency regarding the financial statements of trade unions than there is in corporations in this country.

We have never had any explanation from the government opposite for what has happened to the tens of billions of dollars that profitable corporations have received from Canadian taxpayers. Supposedly it was meant to create jobs, but since January, for example, when these corporations recognized an additional $3 billion, what we have seen in this country is a further deterioration in the number of jobs.

My point is that when it comes to accountability, trade unions are one of the most accountable organizations that we have in our society.

We also hear members opposite talk about the “big union bosses” as though they are a big entity and similar to one of the big banks that make tens of billions of dollars in profit every year.

Let me tell members that the largest union in this country is the Canadian Union of Public Employees, which has over 600,000 members. However, that union is made up of nearly 3,000 small locals. Those locals may consist of two people, five people, ten people. There may be upwards of 10,000 in some of them, but the majority of them are tens or hundreds of members.

Every single month, one of those union locals holds a general membership meeting. Whoever the fortunate or unfortunate person is, depending upon one's perspective, who has taken the secretary-treasurer role has to stand in front of the members and account for how those dues are being spent.

Let me tell members that there is not a treasurer I know of in a trade union who gets off lucky. They have to be able to account for every single penny, because working women and men know what it is like to be frugal, they know what it is like to be accountable, and they want to know how their money is being spent.

In fact, that is what drives me and that is what drives many members on this side: the concerns that working women and men in this country have about how the government is spending its resources.

Why would we not expect the government to be attacking unions through a bill like this? It attacks working people. We see now that we are dealing with back to work legislation for a dispute that has not even started. We have seen it with the postal workers and we have seen it with Air Canada ealier. We have seen that whenever the government has had an opportunity to put the boots to working people, it has taken that opportunity.

Senior citizens, whether they are seniors now or whether they will be seniors in the future, are going to be asked to shoulder a greater burden by having the age of eligibility for OAS extended from 65 to 67 years old. That is going to be a burden for low-income senior citizens. That is an attack by the current government on seniors.

It is the same with veterans. We talked in this House about how the government is attacking veterans and slashing the budget of Veterans Affairs.

Ninety per cent of the budget of Veterans Affairs goes to programs and services; the government is going to cut upwards of 10% out of that budget, and it says that it is not going to affect services to veterans and their families and to RCMP members, people who have sacrificed themselves and continue to sacrifice themselves for this country.

It is the same with voters. The government is attacking voters. We see every day a new revelation of what the Conservative government has done in terms of trying to suppress the rights of Canadians to vote for the people they want to vote for. That is another group that has been under attack.

The military post living differential is another example. The post living differential has been brought up to me by people in my constituency, who have said that the government is intending to cut the living allowance that compensates military families that have to move to different parts of the country or to other countries. It is going to cut it in half. That is another group that the government has its sights on.

Let me tell members that Canadians are getting sick and tired of the government picking out a group of people and deciding that it is next. They are wondering where the government is going to stop.

Our job in this House, whether in debating Bill C-377 or in dealing with the government's attack on Canadians' privacy through Bill C-11, will be to stand every single day and use every breath to fight the government, stand with Canadian families and ensure that the government backs off.

Then, in 2015, that is it. The Conservatives are gone.

Canadian Heritage

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

Mr. Speaker, that is why we made the commitment to this organization to protect our heritage. I know that the opposition has a number of questions on the table. I am pleased that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act has passed, because the Deputy Head and Librarian and Archivist is going to appear before the committee to answer these questions in detail and to underscore the fact that our government has made an unprecedented investment in a new building and programming in order to protect our heritage in the way that my colleague is talking about.

Copyright Legislation

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, being content with large corporations is fine, but we are talking about actors, authors and creators here. With their copyright reform, the Conservatives have demonstrated that they do not care one bit about creators and artists, either in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada. They are going to pass legislation that will deprive creators of $21 million, which is a lot of money.

With Bill C-11, the Conservatives are attacking the livelihood of Canadian creators. This is an attack on our cultural identity and an insult to our artists and the entire cultural industry. The Conservatives seem to believe that Canadian artists are spoiled kids. This contempt for artists—

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

Mr. Speaker, that is quite ridiculous. Our copyright legislation, Bill C-11, was adopted by this Parliament at the committee stage today, which I am very pleased about. It will put this country where it should be, which is at the leading edge of intellectual property law around the world. Our legislation has been supported by groups, individual citizens, consumer organizations, and creators across the country.

In fact, the Canadian Recording Industry Association backs our bill. The Canadian Anti-Counterfeiting Network applauds our bill. The Canadian Film and Television Production Association said that it applauds this government's copyright reform as it goes in exactly the right direction.

[Drew Olsen]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Lake, what I can do is explain to the committee what is in Bill C-11 in terms of regulation-making powers, if that's okay.

Proposed subsection 41.21(1) grants the Governor in Council the power to make regulations to exclude a TPM or a class of TPMs from the prohibitions that would be established in proposed section 41.1, which is the circumvention of TPMs, the offer of services to circumvent TPMs, and dealing in devices to circumvent TPMs, if it considers that the use of the TPMs in particular circumstances “would unduly restrict competition in the aftermarket” sector.

Proposed paragraph 41.21(2)(a) grants the Governor in Council the power to prescribe when proposed paragraph 41.1(1)(a), prohibition against the circumvention of access control TPMs, would not apply. The factors enumerated in that section must be considered, as well as any other relevant factor. These factors consider the restrictions on the use of protected materials caused by TPMs, and the effect that circumvention of the TPM would have on the market value of that protected material.

Proposed paragraph 41.21(2)(b) addresses the situation where a person who benefits from one of the eight exceptions to circumvent an access control TPM does not have the means to do so. To deal with such an instance, the provision would grant the Governor in Council the power to require a—

[Drew Olsen, Director, Policy and Legislation, Copyright and International Trade Policy Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage]

Thank you.

Statutory damages enable courts to award damages to copyright owners in a pre-established range without showing proof of actual damages. Under Bill C-11, copyright owners would be able to seek injunctions, profits, and/or actual damages against enablers, but the option of seeking statutory damages is not available to them.

It has been suggested that statutory damages should be available against enablers. The proposed amendment would make statutory damages available against those who enable copyright infringement.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

That's right. I couldn't have changed 29 if theirs had passed.

The motion is that Bill C-11 in clause 38 be amended by replacing lines 29 and 30 on page 38 with the following:

personal purposes and made for valuable consideration, if that use of the photograph or portrait does not have a substantial adverse effect, financial or otherwise, on the exploitation or potential exploitation of the photograph or portrait or copy of them, or an existing or potential market for it, unless the individual and the

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Our goal with this bill has always been to reflect the reality as closely as possible. And obviously, when we talk about photographs, clear factors come into play in terms of the distinction between commercial and private use.

The New Democratic Party would like clause 38 of Bill C-11 amended in order to clarify the term “personal purposes” by replacing it with the term “private or non-commercial purposes”. The amendment is a technical one intended solely to prevent future legal disputes.

The term “personal purposes” makes photographers quite uneasy, as the committee has clearly seen. Even though the bill does indeed clearly establish the notion of photographic property, the term “personal purposes” is much more open to interpretation than the term we are proposing, “private or non-commercial purposes”. Replacing the term in question would more clearly define the right to use photographs and copies of them without infringing on copyright. The reason is simple: the definition of “private or non-commercial purposes” allows people to use photographs as they please, so long as that use does not adversely affect the copyright owner's ability to market or sell the photographs in question.

Clause 38 of the bill pertains first and foremost to photographs or portraits commissioned for personal use. So it is appropriate that the use of the work in question pertain strictly to the person who decided to obtain it, as long as that person does not market the photograph for personal gain. This amendment would therefore protect the creator, as we would like to see happen in real life, while allowing the user to derive full enjoyment from the photograph on a personal, not commercial, level.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Yes, I will.

As with all of our amendments, this is a really straightforward amendment that we believe everybody can support. What it will do is bring additional clarity to the new rights accorded to Canadians with perceptual disabilities without undermining the core intent of this law or unduly disadvantaging rights holders.

We propose the creation of a specific exemption under clause 36 in BillC-11 to clarify that it does not constitute copyright infringement for an individual with perceptual disabilities or someone working with a recognized non-profit organization on their behalf to break a digital lock for the sole purpose of making the material perceptible to someone with a disability.

The rationale for this proposed change is fairly simple. We've heard from groups like the Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, educators working with Canadians with perceptual disabilities, and individual concerned citizens about the potential for this flaw in the legislation to be exploited to wrongly criminalize work done on behalf of Canadians with perceptual disabilities.

The CNIB cogently makes the point that this committee should not be in the practice of enshrining in legislation business models based on technology frameworks that restrict accessibility. We agree and believe that this change can assist Canada in developing a more balanced, inclusive system of content distribution for blind citizens.

This is a relatively simple change that will provide better clarity to people working on behalf of the blind and open new opportunities for them to enjoy a relatively limited field of literature, film, and text adapted to the formats they require. It is our sincere hope, on their behalf, that the government will entertain and accept this modest but important change.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Good morning, members, ladies and gentlemen.

Welcome to the 11th meeting of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-11. I'd like to welcome our officials from yesterday, who will be with us until the end, and I'd like to welcome back all members.

Again, just a friendly reminder that we are televised and that where we left off yesterday when the bells occurred was on clause 35 and we were discussing amendment LIB-10. From what I can recall, the Conservatives were speaking at that time, so I could hand it back to you, Mr. Del Mastro, if you are interested in speaking a little more on Liberal amendment 10.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Honestly, it is a good thing that my mind has gone blank. I am speechless. Not recognizing that the bill has the wrong title is an incredible affront. It is called An Act to amend the Copyright Act. Clearly, all we are doing here is drying up the rights of artists and creators. I have nothing else to say.

[Gerard Peets]

Bill C-11 contains new exceptions to support activities related to software reverse engineering for interoperability purposes, encryption research, and security testing of computers, networks, and systems. These types of activities may require copying as part of that research or product development process.

A concern has been expressed that these new exceptions could challenge the ability of right owners to deter unethical activity, such as exploiting vulnerabilities in computer networks and mobile device systems. If exceptions were to allow this kind of behaviour, it could put information security at risk. This amendment would add new safeguards to avoid those unintended consequences.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Just for clarification, Mr. Regan, amendment LIB-2 would say that Bill C-11, in clause 22, be amended by replacing lines 9 and 10 on page 20 with the following:

“broadcast” means any transmission of a program by telecommunication

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With this bill, the Conservative government will have once again shown that it doesn't listen. It is interfering in many areas of the cultural industry, stirring up ill-feelings and breaking up systems that were quite effective. Rather than looking for "made in the U.S.A." methods, as it likes to do, the government should have drawn inspiration from several options that have, so far, created a nice balance in Quebec.

Quebec has a lot to say about the cultural industry, and with good reason. Quebec culture is neither folklore nor heritage; it is avidly consumed every day. We watch it on television, we read it, we listen to it, we see it in the movies. I'm not talking about a virtuous interest stemming from an awareness of the history, but a real living language, a deep and daily identification. What distinguishes the Quebec nation has generated the commitment of businesspeople and tradespeople who are behind these authors. These people have a market-based approach, and they have exchanged and created many links internationally.

It is with much enthusiasm that I will try to contribute to the efforts made by organizations, including the Canadian Conference of the Arts, to create even more links between the cultural stakeholders of Quebec and others across Canada. All of Canadian culture will benefit from the expertise of the Quebec entertainment industry.

The Quebec cultural environment has mobilized because the balance achieved is threatened by Bill C-11 in several ways. Quebec's cultural know-how wasn't considered in either the preparation of the bill nor in the hearings, including those on Bill C-32 and on Bill C-11. Furthermore, I'll note in passing that the Conservative members of this committee have never ever spoken in French!

Once again, this government has slammed the door on Quebec's face. This contempt has very concrete consequences. Bill C-11 doesn't repair the immense loss of revenues related to the technological development of private copying.

In proposed clauses 29.22 and 29.24, the general flow guarantees copying for personal use without framing the legitimacy or providing royalties. We all know that it is legitimate for consumers to digitize a CD they bought in a store so they can listen to it on whatever platform they own, and that if everyone filled their iPods with music from iTunes, as suggested by Apple, there would just be new distribution methods. But this new digital formal has led to an alarming statistic we all know: nearly 90% of the music on an average iPod is pirated.

So I call upon my colleagues from all parties to study in good faith the update of the royalties system on private copying, royalties that belong to the authors. Because the audio cassette and then the CD-R make private copying possible, this system of royalties must take into account new technologies that both facilitate the life of authors and make it easier to steal from them.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

Bill C-11 amends the Copyright Act to update the rights and protections of copyrights owners. The amendment attempts to insert into the bill various rights of resale, including royalties of the original author of a work, and as House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 766, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill”, it is the opinion of the chair that the introduction of resale rights for original authors of a work is a new concept that is beyond the scope of Bill C-11 and is therefore inadmissible.

With that, there is no further discussion on the amendment.

We have a point of order.