Copyright Modernization Act

An Act to amend the Copyright Act

This bill was last introduced in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session, which ended in September 2013.

Sponsor

Christian Paradis  Conservative

Status

This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.

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.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, provided by the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Votes

  • June 18, 2012 Passed That the Bill be now read a third time and do pass.
  • May 15, 2012 Passed That Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, as amended, be concurred in at report stage with further amendments.
  • May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 47, be amended by adding after line 15 on page 54 the following: “(3) The Board may, on application, make an order ( a) excluding from the application of section 41.1 a technological protection measure that protects a work, a performer’s performance fixed in a sound recording or a sound recording, or classes of them, or any class of such technological protection measures, having regard to the factors set out in paragraph (2)(a); or ( b) requiring the owner of the copyright in a work, a performer’s performance fixed in a sound recording or a sound recording that is protected by a technological protection measure to provide access to the work, performer’s performance fixed in a sound recording or sound recording to persons who are entitled to the benefit of any limitation on the application of paragraph 41.1(1)(a). (4) Any order made under subsection (3) shall remain in effect for a period of five years unless ( a) the Governor in Council makes regulations varying the term of the order; or ( b) the Board, on application, orders the renewal of the order for an additional five years.”
  • May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 47, be amended by replacing line 11 on page 52 with the following: “(2) Paragraph 41.1(1)( b) does not”
  • May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 47, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 51 with the following: “(2) Paragraph 41.1(1)( b) does not”
  • May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 47, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 7 on page 51.
  • May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 47, be amended by deleting lines 24 to 33 on page 50.
  • May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 47, be amended by deleting line 37 on page 49 to line 3 on page 50.
  • May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 47, be amended by deleting lines 17 to 29 on page 48.
  • May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 47, be amended by deleting lines 38 to 44 on page 47.
  • May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 47, be amended by adding after line 26 on page 47 the following: “(5) Paragraph (1)( a) does not apply to a qualified person who circumvents a technological protection measure on behalf of another person who is lawfully entitled to circumvent that technological protection measure. (6) Paragraphs (1)( b) and (c) do not apply to a person who provides a service to a qualified person or who manufactures, imports or provides a technology, device or component, for the purposes of enabling a qualified person to circumvent a technological protection measure in accordance with this Act. (7) A qualified person may only circumvent a technological protection measure under subsection (5) if ( a) the work or other subject-matter to which the technological protection measure is applied is not an infringing copy; and ( b) the qualified person informs the person on whose behalf the technological protection measure is circumvented that the work or other subject-matter is to be used solely for non-infringing purposes. (8) The Governor in Council may, for the purposes of this section, make regulations ( a) defining “qualified person”; ( b) prescribing the information to be recorded about any action taken under subsection (5) or (6) and the manner and form in which the information is to be kept; and ( c) prescribing the manner and form in which the conditions set out in subsection (7) are to be met.”
  • May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 47, be amended by adding after line 26 on page 47 the following: “41.101 (1) No one shall apply, or cause to be applied, a technological protection measure to a work or other subject-matter that is intended to be offered for use by members of the public by sale, rental or otherwise unless the work or other subject-matter is accompanied by a clearly visible notice indicating ( a) that a technological protection measure has been applied to the work; and ( b) the capabilities, compatibilities and limitations imposed by the technological protection measure, including, where applicable, but without limitation (i) any requirement that particular software must be installed, either automatically or with the user's consent, in order to access or use the work or other subject-matter, (ii) any requirement for authentication or authorization via a network service in order to access or use the work or other subject-matter, (iii) any known incompatibility with ordinary consumer devices that would reasonably be expected to operate with the work or other subject-matter, and (iv) any limits imposed by the technological protection measure on the ability to make use of the rights granted under section 29, 29.1, 29.2, 29.21, 29.22, 29.23 or 29.24; and ( c) contact information for technical support or consumer inquiries in relation to the technological protection measure. (2) The Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing the form and content of the notice referred to in subsection (1).”
  • May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 47, be amended by adding after line 26 on page 47 the following: “41.101 (1) Paragraph 41.1(1)( a) does not apply to a person who has lawful authority to care for or supervise a minor and who circumvents a technological protection measure for the purpose of protecting the minor if ( a) the copy of the work or other subject-matter with regard to which the technological protection measure is applied is not an infringing copy; and ( b) the person has lawfully obtained the work, the performer’s performance fixed in a sound recording or the sound recording that is protected by the technological protection measure. (2) Paragraphs 41.1(1)( b) and (c) do not apply to a person who provides a service to a person referred to in subsection (1) or who manufactures, imports or provides a technology, device or component, for the purposes of enabling anyone to circumvent a technological protection measure in accordance with subsection (1). (3) A person acting in the circumstances referred to in subsection (1) is not entitled to benefit from the exception under that subsection if the person does an act that constitutes an infringement of copyright or contravenes any Act of Parliament or of the legislature of a province.”
  • May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 47, be amended by deleting lines 21 to 40 on page 46.
  • May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 47, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 45 with the following: “measure for the purpose of an act that is an infringement of the copyright in the protected work.”
  • May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 22, be amended by deleting lines 30 to 34 on page 20.
  • May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 22, be amended by deleting lines 33 to 37 on page 19.
  • May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting Clause 62.
  • May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting Clause 49.
  • May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 27, be amended by deleting line 42 on page 23 to line 3 on page 24.
  • May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 27, be amended by replacing lines 23 to 29 on page 23 with the following: “paragraph (3)( a) to reproduce the lesson for non-infringing purposes.”
  • May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11, in Clause 21, be amended by adding after line 13 on page 17 the following: “(2) The Governor in Council may make regulations defining “education” for the purposes of subsection (1).”
  • May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting Clause 2.
  • May 15, 2012 Failed That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting Clause 1.
  • May 15, 2012 Passed That, in relation to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at report stage of the Bill and one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said Bill; and That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at report stage and on the day allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.
  • Feb. 13, 2012 Passed That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to a legislative committee.
  • Feb. 13, 2012 Passed That this question be now put.
  • Feb. 8, 2012 Passed That, in relation to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, not more than two further sitting days shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and that, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the second day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
  • Nov. 28, 2011 Failed That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, because it fails to: ( a) uphold the rights of consumers to choose how to enjoy the content that they purchase through overly-restrictive digital lock provisions; (b) include a clear and strict test for “fair dealing” for education purposes; and (c) provide any transitional funding to help artists adapt to the loss of revenue streams that the Bill would cause”.

Copyright Modernization Act
Government Orders

November 14th, 2011 / 5:40 p.m.
See context

NDP

Laurin Liu Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC

Mr. Speaker, we believe that copyright laws in Canada can balance the rights of creators so they can be compensated fairly for their work, while respecting the right of consumers to have reasonable access to content.

My hon. colleague cited the case of a student who would have to destroy documents 30 days after a course ends. On our side, we do not believe this gives students reasonable rights to access content.

Copyright Modernization Act
Government Orders

November 14th, 2011 / 5:40 p.m.
See context

NDP

Charlie Angus Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on my hon. colleague's last comment.

In this bill students who take long-distance learning courses are forced to destroy their class notes after 30 days. Does that not create a two-tier set of rights? If students go to a school in a city, they will have a certain set of rights, but if they are in a rural or isolated area trying to do long-distance education, they will be told that they have to destroy their class notes.

What does the member think the impact is on students across Canada who are trying to make the most of learning in a digital environment?

Copyright Modernization Act
Government Orders

November 14th, 2011 / 5:40 p.m.
See context

NDP

Laurin Liu Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC

Mr. Speaker, I do not think we have reached a balance within Bill C-11 between compensating creators for the work they have done and giving consumers rights to access the content that they have paid for and that they have the right to use.

I would also add that we have a lot of support for our position, notably from Michael Geist who is a renowned technology commentator. He stated:

The foundational principle of the new bill remains that anytime a digital lock is used--whether on books, movies, music, or electronic devices--the lock trumps virtually all other rights.

This means that both the existing fair dealing rights and Bill C-11's new rights all cease to function effectively so long as the rights holder places a digital lock on the—

Copyright Modernization Act
Government Orders

November 14th, 2011 / 5:40 p.m.
See context

NDP

Manon Perreault Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to try and understand an ill-conceived bill that does not really fix the problems in the current law. The Canadian government wants to reintroduce former Bill C-32 in the hopes of modernizing the Copyright Act. After listening to many expert witnesses speak on this topic in 2009 and after consultations, this government chose to table a catch-all bill.

It is true that Canada needs new copyright legislation, but this one is confusing. It contains too many major problems and, in certain cases, creates problems where there were none before. The government has managed to alienate intellectual property expert Michael Geist, the cultural industries, the Writers Guild of Canada and SOCAN, the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, to name just a few.

Reforming copyright law in Canada is not simple. It is quite complex. I greatly fear that the government's proposal is not the right solution. On one hand, the government is allowing for fair use for educational purposes, but on the other hand, it is imposing strict rules with regard to digital locks, allowing them to supersede all other rights guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Writers Guild of Canada has been very clear about digital locks: adding a digital lock effectively blocks the creators' current source of income and denies consumers the same rights they are guaranteed in other clauses of the bill.

The United States adopted similar legislation 10 years ago, and we have already seen the major shortcomings of such legislation in recent years. Their bill has reduced fair access to electronic resources, limited individual freedom of expression, legislated contradictory terms, resulted in unending and expensive legal battles against the public and has hindered innovation. Why is this government proposing a bill based on that same model? Canada should be a leader in copyright law instead of repeating the mistakes of its neighbours. Canada has to move forward and show leadership in this area, especially given the astonishing number of artists here who are brimming with talent.

The Minister of Industry and Minister of State for Agriculture announced that Canadians would soon have modern copyright laws that protect and help create jobs, promote innovation and attract new investment. However, quite the opposite seems to be true. Over 80 arts and culture organizations believe that Bill C-11 will be bad for Canada's digital economy. Howard Knopf, a lawyer who specializes in copyright, raises an important question. He says that this bill does not encourage innovation and that, in fact, it inhibits it. He wonders how making it illegal to bypass a regional code in order to watch a legally imported Bollywood DVD that is not available in Canada is going to encourage innovation.

The bill could seriously affect artists' incomes, even though they are already underpaid. A Conference Board of Canada report found that the cultural sector generated approximately $25 billion in tax revenue in 2007. That is more than three times higher than the $7.9 billion that was invested in culture by all levels of government in 2007. We must also consider that the average salary of an artist in Canada is $12,900 a year, which is a pittance. This bill will deprive artists of million of dollars in revenue and jeopardize their market share.

Canada can be proud of its artists and creators. Why does this government want to penalize them? Does the government think that, with this bill, it can download additional costs onto artists, who are already underpaid? How does the government expect to create new jobs like this? It would definitely be more effective to examine the issue of job creation separately rather than trying to pass this incoherent bill off as a job creation strategy.

The Canadian Association of University Teachers was clear: this bill needs to be amended. The NDP is proposing that we delete the clauses that criminalize the removal of digital locks for personal, non-commercial purposes. This would easily allow people who have a print disability to change the format of electronic resources so they can access them.

What worries me is the impact that this bill would have on people with a print disability, which includes those with learning disabilities and those who are visually impaired. The accessibility of resources is clearly not a priority for this government. It is important to remember that, last year, the Federal Court ordered the government to make its websites accessible to people with visual impairments. The court gave them 15 months to fix the problem and we note that the government has only three months left. This is an example of the lack of consideration that this government has shown with respect to the accessibility of resources. The hon. members will understand my concern about the plans for digital locks.

What also concerns me is that the government held consultations on the accessibility of library resources. For three years, the government consulted experts on the issue and listened to people with print disabilities describe their experience in trying to access resources.

I have the clear impression that the government did not listen to anything they said. This bill may actually create obstacles for people with a print disability in accessing resources. We have to protect artists' and authors' creations but we also have to be careful not to create problems for people with visual impairments. We must strike a balance; such a thing is possible. Unfortunately, the government did not do the research it should have when drafting this bill. It would be preferable to consider any amendments that could improve the legislation and make it better reflect what is at stake for Canadians.

Right now, Bill C-11 could have a number of unintended consequences, which is why it is important to consider amendments to improve the Copyright Act. One possible effect of the bill would be to increase the current levies on cassettes, DVDs and CDs, for example.

The bill could also create grey areas that would be difficult to manage and would require an endless, complex and inefficient list of exceptions. For example, the bill allows users to record television shows to watch them later but does not allow them to create a library of recorded content. What is the difference? How do we know whether two or three recorded episodes of a television show constitute a library or not?

Furthermore, is it illegal to transfer the music that we listen to on a CD player to a computer in order to listen to it on an MP3 player? According to this bill, the answer seems to be yes. However, according to the Conservatives, we do not have to worry because it is highly unlikely that the artist will sue us.

This bill creates all manner of difficult situations where judges will have a very hard time giving a ruling. This bill does not tackle the real problems faced by today's artists and consumers. In fact, it runs the risk of making things even more complicated.

I am asking this government to take our objections to this bill very seriously. I am asking the government to work with copyright experts who have identified serious problems with the law and to improve their proposals for modernizing the Copyright Act by taking into consideration users, artists and persons with a print disability.

Copyright Modernization Act
Government Orders

November 14th, 2011 / 5:50 p.m.
See context

Liberal

Geoff Regan Halifax West, NS

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on her speech. She is perhaps aware that Conservative members shared their comments in a letter to their constituents stating that it would be acceptable to break the new law in order to circumvent digital locks.

Government members have apparently been saying that it would be okay to break the new law and to circumvent digital locks. The member for Calgary Centre wrote:

If a digital lock is broken for personal use, it is not realistic that the creator would choose to file a lawsuit against the consumer, due to legal fees and time involved.

In other words, he is suggesting not to worry about this, that the law can be broken and nothing would happen, that really we are encouraging consumers to break the law.

What does that say about the Conservatives' position, that they are telling Canadians to break this law that they have not passed yet?

Copyright Modernization Act
Government Orders

November 14th, 2011 / 5:50 p.m.
See context

NDP

Manon Perreault Montcalm, QC

Madam Speaker, I think I will quote Michael Geist, who said that the foundational principle of the new bill remains that any time a digital lock is used—whether on books, movies, music or electronic devices—the lock trumps virtually all other rights.

This means that fair dealing rights and the new rights set out in Bill C-11 are no longer in effect once the copyright holder places a digital lock on the content or the device.

Copyright Modernization Act
Government Orders

November 14th, 2011 / 5:50 p.m.
See context

Oak Ridges—Markham
Ontario

Conservative

Paul Calandra Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's comments.

I note that there are some countries around the world where TPMs are protected. We have not seen an actual decline in the availability of visual material in all of those countries, but we have seen an increase in it. I wonder if my colleague could cite one example for me of one country where there has been a decline in the availability of creative works because of TPMs.

Many opposition members have been focusing on the destruction of course notes for students. That is not actually in the bill. Students are not going to be required to burn their notes at the conclusion of their course work. That is simply not true.

I wonder if--

Copyright Modernization Act
Government Orders

November 14th, 2011 / 5:55 p.m.
See context

NDP

Charlie Angus Timmins—James Bay, ON

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would not want the member to mislead the folks back home, but it is in the bill. If he were to read the bill, he would understand that. It is on page 23 of the bill. If he were to read the bill--

Copyright Modernization Act
Government Orders

November 14th, 2011 / 5:55 p.m.
See context

Conservative

Paul Calandra Oak Ridges—Markham, ON

You are quite correct, Madam Speaker. It was not a point of order because the opposition is wrong on most facets of Bill C-11.

Could the hon. member cite one instance out of those 80 countries, where TPMs are available, where they have seen less creative work? Could she cite for me specifically where--

Copyright Modernization Act
Government Orders

November 14th, 2011 / 5:55 p.m.
See context

NDP

Manon Perreault Montcalm, QC

Madam Speaker, the NDP's position is clear. The NDP believes that Canadian copyright laws can balance the right of creators to fair compensation for their work and the right of consumers to reasonable access to content.

In other words, the NDP wants to examine all the amendments that could be made to the bill in order to create a fair royalty system for artists, as we have now. This bill would wipe out millions of dollars in revenues for artists. That is what we are talking about.

Copyright Modernization Act
Government Orders

November 14th, 2011 / 5:55 p.m.
See context

NDP

Matthew Kellway Beaches—East York, ON

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-11, the copyright modernization act.

Without question, copyright is a very complex issue, and on that I think we can all agree. It is required as a balancing of competing demands of multiple interests.

At the root of this issue is the fact of unrelenting technological advancements. Therefore, I rise today to speak to this issue with some trepidation. I am not a very technologically sophisticated kind of guy. In the race to keep up with technology, my 15-year-old blew past me some years ago and has disappeared over the horizon. My 12-year-old has lapped me several times and now I simply marvel at my 7-year-old's facility with all technological matters. It seems like it is intuitive and, to extend or abuse the metaphor, I hear his footsteps right behind me.

My challenges with technology notwithstanding, I do realize and recognize that there are great possibilities and new horizons that open up to us on our current trajectory of technological development. These possibilities emerge from our ability to explore vistas that were not available or accessible to us before. Much of the broadening of horizons comes from our greater exposure to and easier access to the arts of all kinds, but performing arts in particular.

From this we all benefit. It gives us as Canadians a better sense of each other across this vast land with such tremendous historical, cultural and linguistic diversity. Collectively, it gives us a greater sense of our national identity and our place in this world. It gives us, as Canadians, an existential foothold. The reverse is also true. It gives others around the world a better sense of who we are as Canadians. For all of this, we should be thankful and understand ourselves to be in the debt of our Canadian artists. One asks where our creative Canadians are represented in the bill. Where in the bill do we acknowledge their role in our lives and acknowledge our debt to them?

In the answers to these questions, we discover the fatal flaw of the bill because artists are locked behind the digital locks that prevent the sharing of product and the opportunity to support themselves economically. What our artists need and what we all need is to take advantage of our technology to enhance access to creative products hand-in-glove with enhancing compensatory opportunities for our artists. The value of proceeding in this fashion is not just cultural but economic.

A 2008 Conference Board of Canada report found that the cultural sector generated approximately $25 billion in taxes for all levels of government in 2007. This amount is more than three times higher than the $7.9 billion that was spent by these governments on culture in that year.

The Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists, better known as ACTRA to many, estimates that Canada's arts and culture industries contribute $85 billion per year to our country's economy. This works out to roughly 7.4% of Canada's gross national income and 1.1 million jobs, equivalent to about 6% of Canada's labour force.

In stark contrast, the average earnings of a Canadian artist in 2009-10 was just $12,900, well below the poverty line. Far too many people in Canada's arts and culture community have no choice but to subsist, depending on the generosity of friends and family to get by. They are relegated to a state of quasi-survival that does not reflect the tremendous economic and cultural benefits that we all reap from their talents.

What we should be doing in the House is protecting the creator by providing him or her with a way to make a living and at the same time protecting the ability of Canadians, often called consumers in the language of this debate, to enjoy the creative product of Canadian artists. Instead, the bill seems to privilege or enhance the economic and legal position of content owners, not creators and certainly not consumers, because the bill does nothing to deal with the most troublesome issue confronting us under the present copyright regime, which is the digital lock.

Behind that lock is the artist's work with limited ability to get out. On the other side is the consumer who is limited by his or her ability to access the creative product. We should be facilitating cultural and economic exchange between creators and consumers, not placing barriers between them that will benefit almost exclusively large foreign content owners. It is backward and it needs to be reworked.

On the same theme that I began with, the democratic possibilities of new technology, I would like to talk about the implications of this bill for education. Our new technologies carry with them this tremendous opportunity for providing greater access to education by making knowledge and information available to a much larger audience. This technology is an equalizer of educational opportunity, not by limiting opportunity for some but by raising it for all.

However, this bill, again primarily through the mechanism of the digital lock, places in front of students obstacles to their education. This is most obvious in the case of distance education. It should be noted that distance education or learning is an important issue, not just because of the sheer vastness of Canada but also because of the intensity with which so many of us live our lives and the convenience that distance education offers. It is also a huge issue because of the need for so many Canadians to pursue continuous education to keep up with new technologies and shifting labour market demands.

This bill would require that digital copies of educational materials for the purpose of study be made to self-destruct within five days. This would pose obvious problems for those pursuing long distance education, among others. In the case of long distance education, people in a remote isolated community would have to destroy their course materials within 30 days after the conclusion of the course of study. This is hardly an appropriate use of copyright law as these people would be effectively prohibited from having future access for reference or other purposes to content they have already paid for.

Further, with this bill, as presented, digital locks supersede other rights guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, such as changing format in the case of a perceptual disability. Again I would argue that this is hardly an appropriate use of copyright law.

Under the terms of this bill, any removal of digital lock information would come with punitive fines of up to $1 million and five years in jail. This measure is based directly on the United States' controversial digital millennium copyright act model.

In conclusion, I will point to some principles that should not change over time and should inform copyright legislation. One is that we need to value, treasure and protect the creative people among us. Their gifts are gifts for all of us and this needs to be recognized socially but, and very important, materially with appropriate remuneration for those in the arts and cultural community.

A second such principle is that education is critically important to us individually and collectively and, in all that we do, we should enhance access to education not limit it.

A third and very serious principle is the inviolable rights afforded to all Canadians by our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

On all three of those principles, this bill fails and requires, as a result, significant amendment.

Copyright Modernization Act
Government Orders

November 14th, 2011 / 6:05 p.m.
See context

NDP

Peter Julian Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

We heard earlier, Madam Speaker, from a Conservative member of Parliament, a very intelligent person, who denied that what we all know to be in the bill was in the bill. I want to read page 23 of the bill, clause 30.01(5), which states, “the student shall destroy the reproduction”, that is the textbook, “within 30 days after the day on which the students who are enrolled in the course to which the lesson relates have received their final course evaluations”. That is black on white.

Very clearly, from the questions that we have been hearing from Conservatives, it appears that none of the Conservatives have actually even read the bill. This is quite tragic when they are supposed to be representing the interests of their constituents.

Could the member for Beaches—East York comment on the fact that the retroactive book burning is in the bill and on how surprised he may be that Conservatives have not bothered to read the legislation that is before the House?

Copyright Modernization Act
Government Orders

November 14th, 2011 / 6:05 p.m.
See context

NDP

Matthew Kellway Beaches—East York, ON

Madam Speaker, it is in the bill and, as the member noted, I commented on it in my speech. I think it is an egregious part of the bill.

I may be a bit of a nerd but I have retained and actually found quite useful for my speech earlier today my notes and papers from my course work back in university. I know there are others in this caucus who have commented on having that same habit of retaining these materials for a long time and finding them from time to time quite useful.

For all students, being able to retain notes, course materials, et cetera, that they have paid for is a tremendous advantage and only right having taken the courses. We all know that education is not inexpensive these days.

The provision read by my colleague about having to destroy these notes is something that I would like to see removed in amendments in committee.

Copyright Modernization Act
Government Orders

November 14th, 2011 / 6:05 p.m.
See context

Liberal

Scott Simms Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL

Madam Speaker, a lot of the conversation earlier centred around the issue of the iPod tax, as the government likes to call it. We like to call it essential revenues for many of our artists and musicians.

One of the situations that we had just prior to the last election dealt with that. A lot of the media put that out as being just a myth.

What ends up happening here is that there is a relinquishing of revenues as a result of technology change. One of the things that we wanted to do, as part of the Liberal Party, was to provide that funding through general revenues.

Is that something that the NDP would consider in light of the fact that we keep talking about this levy? Sometimes a debate gets misconstrued.

Copyright Modernization Act
Government Orders

November 14th, 2011 / 6:10 p.m.
See context

NDP

Matthew Kellway Beaches—East York, ON

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the levy has existed on other forms of technology that are now, in a sense, timed out, such as cassette tapes, et cetera.

We would certainly support moving that private copying levy onto new forms of technology so that we retain those levies for the benefit of arts and culture in Canada.