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.

Copyright Modernization Act

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Minister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture)]

moved that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this morning at second reading of Bill C-11, the Copyright Modernization Act.

With the permission of the House, I will be splitting my time with the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Does the hon. minister have the unanimous consent of the House to share his time with the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, this is the second time that the government has introduced this bill. During the previous Parliament and for almost a year, the Copyright Modernization Act—then known as Bill C-32—was carefully examined and debated by parliamentarians and stakeholders.

We know how much time and effort members of Parliament, stakeholders and Canadians spent on this bill. The legislative committee created to examine the bill heard from more than 70 witnesses and received more than 150 submissions. All stakeholders were consulted, and the government received letters from across the country.

We fully expect that when the bill is once again referred to a House of Commons committee the work and testimony from the previous Parliament will be carefully considered and taken into account.

Over the course of the committee hearings on this bill in the last Parliament, there were two clear messages that emerged. The first message was that this bill balances the interests of the various stakeholders. The bill, a product of wide-ranging consultation and discussion, sets out a balanced approach to corporate reform in the digital age. While the government strongly believes that this bill delivers the best balance between the interests of consumers and the rights of the creative community, we are open to technical amendments that may improve the clarity and intent of certain provisions.

Second, we heard that Canada urgently needs to pass legislation to update the Copyright Act. By reintroducing this same bill, parliamentarians will be able to build on this previous work in order to enable the swift passage of these important legislative updates. Each year that Canada goes without modern copyright laws, the need for such modernization becomes more evident as technology evolves and new issues emerge.

The last time the act was changed, there were no MP3 players. Video stores were still full of VHS tapes. No one thought we would be able to take pictures with a cellphone and upload them onto computer screens around the world, or use a cellphone to download songs and movies.

The world has changed so much since then that the Copyright Act seems like a law for a different era. The time has come to modernize Canada's copyright laws and bring them in line with the demands and technologies of the digital age.

This bill must be passed in order to modernize Canada's copyright regime in accordance with the government's digital economy strategy.

Digital technology opens new markets and expands the reach of companies. It brings together people and ideas in a way that was still unimaginable only a few years ago. When individuals, companies and national economies create and adopt these new technologies, a number of important things are achieved. Productivity and innovation increase, and new products, processes and business models see the light of day.

The growth of the digital economy in Canada depends on a clear, predictable and fair copyright regime that supports creativity and innovation while protecting copyright holders.

The global economy remains fragile. This bill will help to protect existing jobs and create new ones. It will spark innovation and attract new investments in Canada. It will give creators and copyright holders the tools they need to protect their work and increase their business. The bill establishes clearer rules that will allow all Canadians to fully participate in the digital economy, both now and in the future.

One of the bill's main objectives is to balance the interests of all stakeholders in the copyright regime. Achieving this balance has become increasingly complex given the exponential growth of the Internet. Canadians can obtain protected works online, sometimes through revenue-generating platforms or services, but also through free services, both legitimate and illegitimate. Our capacity to use high-quality Web services to obtain, protect and create copyrighted works is essential to our economic success and our cultural presence in the world.

That is why, in 2009, our government turned to Canadians to get their ideas and advice on copyright reform in the digital age. Thousands of individual Canadians, companies and stakeholder organizations shared their opinions on the best way to adapt Canada's copyright regime to this new age. These consultations showed that Canadians were becoming increasingly aware of the importance of copyright in their daily lives and in our digital economy.

On the one hand, this bill seeks to reflect today's reality where the private, non-commercial use of copyrighted material is commonplace. The bill would authorize many of these uses and establish parameters for cases which, to date, were not well defined.

For example, Canadians could copy works legally obtained on their computers and mobile devices to enjoy them wherever they may be. They could store content in and retrieve it from the information cloud or use a network PVR service.

It will also be legal to integrate protected works into a work generated by a user for non-commercial purposes. That would include recording a home video of a child dancing to a song, or creating original mixes of songs and videos. This exception requires that the rights and interests of copyright holders be respected. There are many examples where copyright holders have benefited from exposure on the Internet owing to work done by users.

Finally, the bill updates the Copyright Act to reflect new technologies and uses by broadening the exceptions and creating new ones for educational and training institutions, technical procedures, the development of software, broadcasters and the disabled.

I would like to point out that great care was taken when drafting these provisions to reflect the needs and interests of copyright holders. The provisions do place limits and restrictions on the use of protected works.

For example, many of these exceptions do not apply to works protected by a technological protection measure or digital lock. Copyright holders told us that their digital and on-line business models depend on the robust protection provided by digital locks. Therefore, the bill strikes a good balance. It allows Canadians to make reasonable use of content while providing creators and businesses, whose work depends on this content, with the tools and certainty they need to launch new products and services.

While our government knows that the overwhelming majority of Canadians are law-abiding, we are concerned about the threat of major penalties that hang over Canadians who infringe copyright for non-commercial purposes. Currently, those who have been found to violate copyright can be found liable for damages from $500 to $20,000 per work.

If people illegally download five songs, for example, they could theoretically be liable for $100,000. In our view, such penalties are way out of line. As such, the bill proposes to reduce the penalties for non-commercial infringement. Under its provisions, the courts would have the flexibility to award total damages of between $100 and $5,000.

However, while the bill reduces penalties for non-commercial infringements, it still seriously punishes those who profit from copyright infringement. Penalties of $500 to $20,000 per infringement will still apply to piracy for commercial purposes. In addition, the bill proposes new tools to target those who find techniques to infringe online copyright and it sets out serious penalties for those who make money by creating and distributing devices and services designed to hack digital locks. It will be very difficult to benefit from piracy.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague and I heard the word “balanced” being used time and time again, and yet the bill is very unbalanced.

We are not here talking about copyright, the right of creators and who has their copies. This bill is about corporate right, the right of a corporate entity to decide what right citizens have. It is a sleight of hand. It is very important for people to recognize that the bill is offering citizens' rights that they will not be able to exercise if a corporate entity puts a digital lock on the product.

Looking at how our WIPO compliant countries around the world have dealt with the issue of digital locks, and under sections 10 and 11 of the WIPO copyright treaty, it talks about the right to have exemptions of the digital lock as long as it is not being broken or infringed for commercial purposes, but in order to give citizens the right to access works to which under a legislative regime they have a right to access. However, under the bill, any rights that the citizen is granted in the bill are arbitrarily taken away with the digital lock provisions.

Will the government work with the New Democratic Party to fix the digital lock provisions to ensure they do not unfairly target students and consumers who are legally entitled to access works? If we fix the digital lock provisions, would the Conservatives be willing to work with us to ensure we are WIPO compliant but also responding to the needs that citizens have on this issue?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker would like to thank the hon. member for his question.

I was coming to the aspect of innovation. As the member so rightly said, we need to talk about balance here because that is what is reflected in this bill.

There are many interests at stake here: those of consumers, creators, authors and artists. It should be said that we have held thousands of consultations, and now we are presenting a balanced and complex approach. Digital locks are important for encouraging innovation. We cannot tell product creators that it is “game over”, not after they have invested millions and millions of dollars. There has to be some degree of protection.

Plus, the market is still doing what it is meant to do: consumers are still free choose whether or not to purchase products with digital locks.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, the hon. minister spoke about bringing forward a modern copyright law but what we see with the provisions on digital locks is that the government is going backward. It is a regressive position. He says that this is a balanced approach but allowing digital locks to trump the interests and rights of consumers is the complete opposite of a balanced approach. It does not make sense at all.

The Conservatives are saying that people can reformat it or copy it onto their iPod, or whatever, as long as there is not a digital lock. All the corporation has to do is put on a digital lock and consumers are out of luck. If a young mother wants to transfer a movie from a DVD onto an iPod, she cannot do it. How is this possibly a balanced approach?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, with respect, to position the problem at the very end of the spectrum, as my colleague just did, is inappropriate. We need to look at the innovation aspect. Canada is a leader, a real trailblazer, in the development of the digital economy, digital products and software, for example. A minimum of protection must be ensured. We cannot ask creators to invest millions of dollars without any protection. This is an aspect of balance that must be taken into account. Many products such as DVDs do not have digital locks and the market is doing its job in that respect. We have simply taken into account the interests of all stakeholders.

With this copyright legislation, we are finally entering the 21st century. The current legislation deals with VHS and other technologies that are no longer even on the market or being used by consumers. Thus, showing true leadership, we decided to introduce a balanced bill that takes into account the interests of everyone: consumers, creators, authors and artists.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be here with the Minister of Industry. I should also certainly give a great deal of thanks to the President of the Treasury Board for the work that he did on Bill C-32, which was last Parliament's version of Bill C-11, which we are debating today.

As the Minister of Industry said, the bill contains a number of provisions that Canadians, I think, will welcome and are welcoming. The bill contains provisions that will provide the ability of copyright owners to control the uses of their works to fight online piracy. This is about individual creators and creative industries, like the video game industry, the software industry, the movie industry, and others. It is having the tools to protect their art, their businesses and their jobs.

For example, the bill includes provisions to protect the technological protection measures and authorizes copyright holders to sue those who enable copyright infringement through such means as illegal peer-to-peer file sharing sites. Our government knows that the best way to deal with online copyright violation is to target those who enable this crime and profit from it.

More specifically, Bill C-11 introduces a new definition of civil liability for those who knowingly enable online copyright violation. Online piracy takes revenues away from creators and reduces the incentive to create. This measure sends a clear message that Canada is prohibiting piracy sites and giving copyright holders the tools to protect their activities. What is more, the bill also introduces new provisions to stop those who develop and sell tools and services for getting around technological protection measures.

Canada is among the first jurisdictions in the world, if not the first, to provide its copyright legislation with this very important tool to fight online piracy. At the same time, we are taking steps to ensure that Canadians are aware that they may be infringing copyright. Canadian Internet service providers have developed a unique model in which they tell subscribers when a rights holder notifies them that a subscriber has infringed on copyright material. This is known as notice and notice. The bill formalizes this practice into law. I would just point out here that this is one of the key elements that consumers have come to us and said they want as part of the bill.

We disagree with the American approach with regard to copyright. We have a notice and notice regime in our legislation, not a notice and take down regime as they have in the United States, for very good reason. These provisions are also on top of a wide array of legal protections already provided for in the Copyright Act that rights holders can use to assert their rights.

Educators, students, artists, companies, consumers, families, copyright holders and Canadians in general use technology in a number of different ways, and this bill simply recognizes that reality. It gives creators and copyright holders the necessary tools to protect their works, their investments, and to develop their business through innovative business models. It establishes clearer rules that will allow Canadians to fully participate in the digital economy today and in the future. More specifically, this bill gives creators and copyright holders the tools they absolutely need.

With this legislation Canadians will also be able to create new works incorporating existing publishing or publicly available works, as long as it is done for non-commercial purposes, as my colleague has said. The new user generated content cannot be a substitute for the original work or have the substantial negative impacts on the markets of the original material or on a creator's reputation.

Canadians with perceptual disabilities will be permitted to adapt legally acquired material to a format that they can easily use. Also, Canadian photographers will benefit from the same authorship rights as creators. Currently, photographers are not considered authors of commissioned works. This legislation changes that.

Consumers and users of content will also see their interests reflected in the bill. Canadians will be allowed to record television, radio and Internet programs to enjoy at their time and choosing with no restrictions as to the device or technology chosen or the time of day.

Under certain conditions, Canadians will also be able to copy for their personal use legally acquired works such as music, movies or other works, on the device or component of their choice. They will be able to make backup copies in the format and on the device or component of their choice.

I would like to close my speech by ensuring the House understands that this was, from the very beginning of the process that we initiated just prior to the summer of 2009, a good faith effort on the part of our government to get copyright legislation done effectively.

The member for Timmins—James Bay was engaged in debate on Bill C-61 when we tabled that legislation. Bill C-61, as it turned out, was not the balance that Canadians were looking for. We think this legislation achieves the balance that Canadians have come to expect. We tabled Bill C-61, there was the fall campaign, and then we came back.

We re-engaged Canadians from the beginning. We went back to square one. We did unprecedented consultation on this legislation. We heard from thousands of Canadians in the process. We went across the country to town halls and we did open, online consultation. We arrived at Bill C-32.

As a result of the participation of thousands of Canadians in that process, we thought we would respect that process--

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

And 141 in committee and you haven't changed a thing.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member over there, who barely won his seat and who thinks he is an authority on everything, is chirping at me.

We tabled Bill C-32 after unprecedented consultation and we respected the process, and we retabled this legislation. As the member said, we had 141 witnesses before the committee and it would be disrespectful to those witnesses if we did not allow the process to continue. The reason we tabled this legislation is to continue the process, to show respect to those members of the committee, and to all members who have been involved in this process.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have been in the House of Commons for 15 years and I think that the minister insulted my colleague. He talks about respect, but I would ask him to show some respect, to address his remarks through the Chair and to stop making personal attacks. I find that unacceptable.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I would ask all members to show respect and to wait their turn before speaking. That way, I think we could avoid unnecessary exchanges.

On another point of order, the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like the minister to apologize for saying that I barely won my seat in the last election. That has nothing to do with the debate today, and I think it is bad manners.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I thank the members for their comments. Indeed, it is not nice. I do not believe it can be considered unparliamentary, but I would ask the hon. minister to finish his comments and to make sure they are related to the bill. He has two minutes remaining.

I would also ask all members to wait their turn and to be recognized by me before speaking.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I only include this little interlude with the fact that since Liberal members of Parliament were heckling me during my speech, I responded to the heckling, and now they are saying that it was disrespectful for me to respond to their heckling.

I would note to viewers who are watching this debate that there are 103 New Democrats in the House who are participating in this debate. The member for Timmins—James Bay has not been heckling. There is a handful of Liberals over there who have been heckling every procedure in the House and then they get up and badger others for not participating. Quite an interesting approach by the Liberals, but that is why they are where they are.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister has talked about heckling when, in fact, he himself was heckling earlier this morning. It is very inappropriate for him to be talking about it. He is in no position to cast aspersions in this fashion.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I would agree there has been heckling on both sides of the House and I would ask all members to maintain decorum, so that this debate can proceed in the way Canadians expect members to debate.

The hon. minister's time has almost elapsed. He has 30 seconds to conclude.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, let us go back to serious leaders of the Liberal Party of past times. It was John Manley who said, “The government has struck an appropriate balance with this legislation about the rights of Canadian creators and the needs of consumers. The government is providing badly needed protection to Canadians who create music, films, games and digital works. This bill also recognizes the legitimate rights of Canadian families, schools and libraries to make use of copyrighted materials. To protect jobs and enhance Canada's ability to compete, this legislation goes in the right direction”. That is what serious Liberals think of this legislation, and we are happy to have—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague and I have clashed many times over the years, and have talked many times.

I would like to at least thank him for ensuring that folks back home know that the New Democratic Party is not engaged in the kids in the sandbox routine on the copyright debate that the Liberals are engaged in.

This is serious business. Updating our copyright regime is serious business. We have to treat this with the importance that it deserves.

I did participate in all the hearings on Bill C-32 and we heard hundreds of witnesses. There was a wide-ranging set of views on this. We came again and again to certain technical problems with the bill that had to be fixed.

One of those key problems has to do with the issue of long distance education because in a digital realm we have such incredible opportunity to educate and to have cultural exchanges across this vast country of Canada. One of the technical problems in Bill C-32 is the obligation that class notes have to be destroyed after 30 days because they are transmitted through a digital format.

We think that will create a two-tier set of rights for education, one set of rights for students in a normal school and a lesser set of rights for students taking long distance education.

Will the government be willing to work with the New Democratic Party to fix that problematic area of this bill, so that we ensure that we get the maximum benefit of digital education for the vast regions of Canada?

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I graduated university in 1999. The University of Northern British Columbia, which actually has satellite campuses on aboriginal reserves, was one of the first universities to engage in this kind of digital learning that my colleague is talking about. We certainly want to protect that kind of education.

The provision that the member refers to in this legislation was not arrived at by the government. It was arrived at after talking to educators, the council of ministers of education, which is every education minister in the country save for the province of Quebec, who offered this proposal that we have in this legislation that we think arrives at the right balance.

The reason for the 30-day limit, of course, is to protect those people, those professors and those educators who are involved in the publishing industry with regard to textbooks. We want to ensure that they will have a business and a business model.

This is the compromise that we have arrived at. We think it works. This provision along with the others with regard to fair dealing and education are the reason why the council of ministers of education across the country, including NDP, Liberal and Conservative education ministers, have endorsed this legislation as being what is best for education.

The member asked if we are prepared to work together. Certainly, this is why we tabled the same legislation as Bill C-32. We want to continue the study.

If my hon. colleague has an amendment he wants to draft and bring forward, we will consider that. We are not obtuse in the way that we are approaching this legislation. We have been open and transparent in the entire process of this bill, in the collection of information and feedback from Canadians from the beginning, through the committee process of the legislative committee, and now as we go forward with Bill C-11.

If my hon. colleague has an amendment that he has drafted and wants to talk about, our doors are open.

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

Madam Speaker, by way of illustration I just want to bring this subject up once again.

The problem with this bill is the give and take, the balance that the government is trying to achieve is not there. A good example would be if I had downloaded a digital book on my Kindle. All of a sudden I decide I am going to buy the new version of the iPad, so therefore I have to shift from one to the other.

Now there is a provision in this legislation that allows individuals to do that because it acknowledges the fact that it is their own property and they can shift it. However, because of the digital lock, they are no longer able to do that.

That one pulls against the other to the point where it is not a balance, it is a give and take.

The second point, is the government willing to listen to the witnesses who appeared during the special legislative committee on Bill C-32, the ones who already appeared—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I will have to give the hon. minister time to respond.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is because we want to maintain the integrity of this process from the consultations in the beginning through the tabling of Bill C-32 and the tabling of Bill C-11, which is why we did not change anything in the bill.

We did that deliberately in order to protect the integrity of this process, so we could continue to have witnesses. Again, if witnesses want to come to the committee and offer ideas, we are more than open to it. This is why we have set up a legislative committee.

I am glad this member is interested in a serious approach to the legislation. I am very hopeful that this will continue on at the committee. We want to get this right. We want to get it done effectively. I am very thankful that the member for Timmins—James Bay and the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor are digging into the substance of this bill, so that we can have a responsible debate, not some of the stuff we have heard in the past.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very honoured to rise on behalf of the New Democratic Party today representing the people of the great region of Timmins—James Bay. It is my honour every day to serve them, respect their issues as constituents and bring their concerns into this venerable House of debate and legislation.

Copyright is a crucial issue for Canadians. We need to move forward with a regime of copyright reform that will bring Canada into the 21st century.

The word “copyright”, the right to make a copy, was created out of English common law. I like the alternate emphasis in French law, which is “le droit d'auteur”, the right of the author. These are both very similar perspectives, but there is a different balance in the equilibrium of it. It respects an interesting balance of how we develop culture within Canada in terms of the right to make a copy. Who has the right to make a copy and profit from it? That is a “copy right” that goes back to the book wars of the 1700s and 1800s in England as to who actually could control a work and the right of authors to be remunerated for their work and to have some say as to how their work is exploited.

This is a debate that went on long before the digital age and the Internet. The balance of the right to make a copy is not a property right. It has been argued over the years, and copyright lobbyists today will talk about their property and their right to protect their property. They will say they want to put a lock on the door to keep people from going in or to make them pay to go in, and that it is their property.

However, it is not a piece of property. Creativity is not a piece of personal property. It has been defined in Parliament and the courts.

I refer back to the 1841 debates where Lord Macaulay, who was a writer himself who had been ripped off and plagiarized many times over the years, fought within the English Parliament to separate the idea that it was personal property that copyright was created to protect. Macaulay at that time imitated much of the modern debate. He even talked about the pirates of that generation, the “knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men”, the people who would unfairly infringe on the copyright of the author and not pay for it as they should.

At the same time, he also called copyright an evil. It is interesting that he said that. He called it a necessary evil. He said that copyright should only exist for a period to ensure the author was paid, but it could not be used to interfere with the larger development of society. He said that the creation of ideas is not something that can be compartmentalized: that when a work is created, it is brought into a larger frame. Parliamentarians around the world have been trying to find the balance between people's right of access to new ideas and the right of remuneration of the creator. Those are the two fundamental balances, and they are the balanced principles that the New Democratic Party has articulated throughout these debates for the last number of years. The two fundamental principles in the digital age are the same as they were back in the 1800s in the book wars: ease of access and the right to remuneration.

We talk about le droit d'auteur and copyright, but this bill does not deal with either of those rights. It is about corporate right, which is different from copyright. The fundamental problems with this bill are the provisions on digital locks, which I will get to in a moment, and the direct attack on the collective licensing regime that has existed for artists in Canada for the last number of decades. The right of artists to have remuneration for their copies is under direct attack in point after point in this bill. I will go through the areas wherein the right of artists to be paid is being taken away and replaced by a false right, which is the right to lock down content.

The Conservatives are good about locks. They understand prisons and locks. We heard the minister say the lock will restore the market. I spent many years in the music industry and I never met an artist could feed his or her family on a lock. They feed their families on the right they have as artists to be remunerated through their mechanical royalties, television rights and book rights, and they fight very hard for mechanical royalties. It is a small amount of return for their efforts, but that return is crucial, so when the government comes along and would strike out, as it does in this bill, the mechanical royalty rights that have been guaranteed under the Copyright Board of Canada, it is depriving artists of the millions of dollars that actually make it possible to carry on the works.

There is no balance there, and this is what we need to restore a good copyright regime in Canada: a balance of the rights of artists and the rights of access.

The New Democratic Party has spoken out time after time in this House on the need for a long-term digital strategy so that Canadians can fully participate as digital citizens in a digital public commons. A public commons is a place where people, not just from Canada but from around the world, can exchange ideas and art.

It is certainly fraught with many problems. We have seen that with downloading and with piracy, but it is essential for cultural development in the 21st century that Canada have a long-term digital strategy. We in the New Democratic Party see the need to codify net neutrality so that the large telecom giants and BDUs are not deciding for us what kind of content we can access.

We see establishing a national benchmark for broadband access, including in this latest spectrum auction. What provisions are there to ensure that the regions of rural Quebec and northern Alberta are given the same chance to develop in a digital economy as downtown Montreal or Vancouver? A broadband strategy that looks at the totality of our country is essential. This is the new national dream that we need to be pushing. We have heard dead silence over on the government benches in terms of a digital strategy for broadband, but for the New Democratic Party it is essential. We want to see within the programs of the Canadian government support for the enhancement of digital cultural products, because more products are moving away from the old models. Those old models worked well for us in the 1970s, but this is 2011, and we need to move toward that.

The other crucial element, which we have asked for again and again, is a copyright reform that will address the needs of Canadian consumers, artists and students in a digital realm.

Does this bill do that? No. In its present form, it does not.

What we need to do is to restore the balance. As it stands now, we cannot support this bill, but we are willing to work with the Conservative government to get this bill to committee. If we can make the vital technical changes to ensure that balance, then we are more than willing to bring our efforts as a party and to work with the government to ensure that this bill restores the balance.

I will grant that the government made efforts in Bill C-61, which was a dog's breakfast. Bill C-61 died as soon as it was born because it was the ugliest child of the backroom lobbyists, and they could never sell that publicly. Bill C-32 shows that it is obvious the Conservatives heard there were problems with Bill C-61, but we are not there yet. We have to see whether or not the government is willing to move forward.

I would like to talk about some of the major problems with this bill. There are three areas that are fundamentally flawed: the issue of the attack on collective licensing and the removal of artists' rights to be remunerated for their work, the issue of education, and the issue of digital locks.

I asked my hon. colleague, the heritage minister, about the fundamental problem with the education provisions, which is if students in Fort Albany on the James Bay coast want to take a college course, they would be obliged to burn their class notes after 30 days. As well, college professors who were teaching long-distance education courses to students in northern Canada would have to destroy all their class notes after 30 days because that is an infringement on copyright.

That requirement would mean the creation of a modern book-burning regime. As well, we would see the creation of a two-tier set of rights. There is one set of rights in the analog and paper world that would allow students going to school in Toronto to keep their class notes. Those class notes are important, because year after year students keep them to build a body of work towards getting their degree. However, students on a northern reserve trying to get long-distance learning do not have that same set of rights. They have a lesser set of rights.

I was absolutely shocked to hear from my hon. colleague, the heritage minister, where this crazy idea of modern book-burning had come from, this idea that after 30 days students would not have the right to their own class notes. He said it had come from the ministers of education.

I have met with the ministers of education many times, as well as people throughout the education sector, and I have never heard anyone say that the best idea for the digital development of Canadians is to make kids or adults going back to school burn their notes after 30 days.

That provision is unacceptable. It is backward thinking and it is needless. It is not protecting any business model, but it would have a major detrimental effect, so in terms of education, that provision has to go.

In terms of the digital locks, there is an important right of creators to protect their work. We can think of the amazing work of the gaming industry in Canada, particularly in Montreal, and the millions of dollars that have been invested in creating the games that people all over the world play. We want to make sure those products are not ripped off in their entirety and that business model made to disappear, so there is a provision for digital locks to protect those works.

However, the digital lock cannot override the rights that Parliament guarantees.

This legislation is going to create certain rights. An example is the right to extract the work for satire, parody, or political commentary. We all support that right, yet if there is a digital lock, we would not have that right. We have the right to access a work and move it into a new format; we are told we can do that, but if there is a digital lock on it, we cannot.

My colleague, the heritage minister, said that if we do not like the lock, then we do not have to buy the product. That is kind of a bullish way of talking. I wonder if this guy has lived in the digital world at all. How many times do people buy a product in a store? They will get it online, so if we make restrictive provisions with digital locks, people will just bypass them. That is problematic.

It is important that Canadians believe in the copyright regime, because the copyright regime is fundamental to creating a strong economy and a strong creative community. However, I would say there is not a six-year-old kid in this country who does not know how to break a digital lock, and people would break them with impunity. Should they be criminalized for that? I do not think so.

We need to look at why Canada is putting restrictive digital lock provisions in place. Under the U.S. DMCA, which is the most backward-looking copyright legislation on the planet, even the Americans have recognized the right to extract certain works.

I will give an example to show just how boneheaded the digital lock provisions are. If a journalist on the evening news wanted to show an excerpt from a movie that was being discussed or debated, the journalist would not be able to show that excerpt because he or she would have to break the digital lock to do it. The journalist would have to show a picture of the screen. Can anyone explain to me how having a shot of the screen somehow protects the copyright and the artist when a journalist is trying to extract it for a program?

It is the same with the documentary film producers. The documentary film community is very concerned about the digital lock provisions, because they would impede their ability to extract, which is their legal right under the bill. They have all those legal rights, but if a digital lock is placed on it, they would no longer have those rights.

The government is saying that the legislation of Canada should allow U.S. multinational corporate interests to decide what rights we have. If they decide we have no rights, then we have no rights. It does not matter what the bill says or what the House of Commons says; the government is saying that it would hand over all those rights to corporate interests. That is fundamentally wrong, and it is flawed.

It is also flawed in terms of our obligations under the WIPO treaties. We are signatories to international conventions about intellectual property and we can look at how other countries have dealt with the digital lock provisions. In particular, as I said earlier, sections 10 and 11 of the WIPO copyright treaty states clearly that limitations to technological protection measures may be supported as long as they “do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work”. That is within the WIPO treaty.

I remember that my Conservative colleagues used to always say that they had to put the digital lock provisions on to be WIPO compliant. However, WIPO itself is saying that countries could decide what those exemptions and limitations are, the limitations being the technological protection measures and the exemptions being the rights that consumers and students should be able to employ.

All those rights are erased under this, so it actually puts us at a disadvantage in comparison to many of our European competitors, which have much more nuanced provisions when it comes to the digital lock provisions.

As it stands now, we have asked a fairly straightforward question on whether the government would be willing to work with us to amend the digital lock provisions to ensure that the normal rights that Canadians should legally be able to access would not be overridden by corporate rights. It has said no. Unless the digital lock provisions change, the New Democratic Party will not support the bill because it is not balanced.

We need to change the education provisions. We need to change the digital lock provisions. We also need to change the issue that the bill, time and time again, attacks the existing collective royalty rights of Canadian artists and that will not build the kind of cultural regime that we need in our country.

We have come through some of the most bizarre copyright wars of recent memory. In the United States we have seen the $30,000 to $50,000-plus lawsuits against kids. The large Sony, Warner, EMI companies are going after kids who download Hannah Montana songs, hitting them up with million dollar lawsuits. We have seen what is called the John Doe mass lawsuits, extending across the United States and moving into Canada, if individuals downloaded the movie Hurt Locker. Mass emails are being sent, suing people based on their IP addresses.

That model of attacking consumers is probably the most dead-end business model on the planet. I was so pleased to hear Canadian artists, all the great Canadian groups that came together under the Creative Music Coalition, say that they did not sue their fans, that their fans were what made them survive. The American model of suing kids, grandmothers and even dead people for copyright infringement is a dead-end model.

We have heard all this talk about piracy and the pirate bays. It is interesting that the very first pirate bay was in Los Angeles. We think Hollywood is the natural place to make movies, but it is not. Why, in God's name, when the vast majority of the U.S. population lives on the eastern seaboard, would filmmakers go to the dessert outside Hollywood to make films? It was because they were escaping the copyright rules of the day. They could not make movies in the eastern United States because Edison controlled the copyright on the camera. However, there was not the same copyright rules in California, so Hollywood was the original pirate bay.

It went on through the years when the VHS came out. Jack Valenti, the defender of the Hollywood industry, called the VHS the Boston strangler of movies and begged Congress to shut it down, to make it illegal because VHS was a threat.

The big pirate company at that time was Sony, which is suing people all over the planet for corporate infringement now, because it had created the VHS player with the record button.

At that time there was a big corporate fight and everybody said that the VHS would destroy Hollywood. However, as you know, Madam Speaker, and you are very young but you were probably right in your prime when the VHS came out, people started to rent movies, something they would never have thought about before because they would go to the theatre. Now they were able to rent movies, so this pirate activity, which Hollywood tried to shut down, became such a lucrative new business that it did not have to bother releasing movies to theatres. It could just release it to VHS and eventually on to DVD.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

The Beta player.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Yes, the Beta player and how it was shut down. I ask the hon. member not to intervene in this until we talk about the Beta player.

Let us look at the recording business. In 1906 the musicians in the United States tried to make the roller piano illegal. They thought the roller piano would make it irrelevant to hire musicians so they said that mechanical music was a threat to musicians. Who did not side with them? The American Music Publishers Association did not support the musicians. It figured the more roller pianos sold, the more copyright it would make on the actual sheet music. Therefore, the roller piano was made legal. In the 1920s the recording industry tried to shut down radio because radio was not paying royalties. In each area along the way the problem was the need to find a monetization stream.

The fight in the digital age is no different than it was in 1928 when the royalties of artists dropped over 80% in the recording business because radio was the Napster of the day. It found a monetization stream. We are asking the government to work with us on a monetization stream for artists and unless we find that, we will be at the copyright wars for decades to come.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed my hon. colleague's line that suing dead people is a dead end.

He spoke about digital locks. With this bill, the government wants to impose a system on Canadians that is stricter than the systems in the United States or the United Kingdom. I find that troubling.

He also talked about the loss of the collector for royalty rights. Would he speak further about the impact on artists of the locks and what his solution to that would be?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the Conservative government has even tried to outdo the United States in terms of the digital lock provisions. The digital lock provisions under the DMCA have been reviewed in court. It has found that American citizens do have the right to extract works under certain circumstances.

However, what is also interesting is that we are being fed this fiction by the Conservatives that the music and film industries, that everything will come back if we make digital locks sacrosanct, but we have not seen that in any other jurisdiction. The need to create a monetization stream for artists remains. A digital lock is not a business model. It can be part of a business model, but it is not one in itself. The digital lock cannot replace the remuneration rights of artists.

Let us talk about where the government is attacking collective licensing rights.

Canada created one of the great compromises in the 1980s and 1990s with the private copying regime. It put a small amount of money on every copy, on tapes and then later on CDs that went into a fund for artists because we recognized that people were copying and artists needed some form of royalty. That created a royalty revenue of $25 million to $30 million a year for Canadian artists. That is not chump change, not in the kind of industry we are in right now, where the recording industry has suffered time and time again and artists can count on those royalties. We have done away with extending the private copying levy to the digital realm. We have attacked the mechanical royalties which are $8 million to $12 million a year. Again, that is serious money for Canadian artists.

It is bizarre that a government would announce a right that existed defined by the Copyright Board no longer exists. Artists do not have a right to get paid for their work, end of story, live with the digital locks. That is not a reasonable solution for Canadian artists.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Timmins—James Bay for his tireless work on this file. One of the things that my colleague and I share is we both come from northern Ontario. In my riding Laurentian University, Cambrian College and Collège Boréal provide distance education throughout the north. I know my colleague's riding is the size of Great Britain and Northern College also has to provide distance education to our communities throughout the north.

Digital locks and their impacts on the education component are worrying for those of us who happen to live in northern parts of Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan or Quebec. Would the hon. member comment on how the potential of digital locks on the education component will affect northern and rural communities?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, what is not said here is the obligation, as an example, that Collège Boréal, in terms of doing outreach to small, isolated francophone communities in northern Ontario, will need to put a digital lock on its lessons. How will it go to Raymore, or Moonbeam, or Elk Lake and kick down the doors of the students, pull out their notes and ensure they are burned at the end of the class? There needs to be this in the digital realm. Schools will have to put locks on lessons.

We would be telling northern colleges that are serving communities like the Cree communities of the James Bay area or the isolated Franco-Ontarian communities that before they even get to teaching the students long distance learning, they will have to be locks on everything that makes lessons go up in smoke after 30 days. That will make it very difficult to administer long-term education long distance.

It is also the same problem that libraries are facing by insisting that they put on digital locks. It is easy for Warner Bros. to put on digital locks, but it is not so easy for a small northern library or college that wants to share in the incredible potential of education. Therefore, the digital lock provisions are regressive. They are not 21st century models. I do not even know if they are 19th century models.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Madam Speaker, the Canadian Anti-Counterfeiting Network congratulated the government for protecting copyright holders. It said:

We're pleased that the government is committed to getting tough on IP crimes...Piracy is a massive problem in Canada which has a tangible economic impact on government revenue, legitimate retailers, rights holders and consumers. It's extremely difficult for legitimate retailers to compete with those who...steal and rip [with no abandon].

The copyright modernization act recognizes that the most effective way to stop online infringement of copyright is to target those who enable and profit from the infringements of others. The new provision supplements the existing criminal punishments for those who aid and abet infringement.

Does the hon. member agree with the importance of ensuring that copyright owners are able to pursue the enablers in order to support the development of significant legitimate markets for downloading and streamlining in Canada?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is a very interesting question. Certainly, the New Democratic Party has been very clear in our opposition that online piracy is undermining artists. However, I find it interesting that she talked about Canada as a piracy haven. It seems to be very similar language in the very recent WikiLeaks disclosure, that the then industry minister, now the notorious minister from Muskoka, actually met with U.S. officials and suggested it put Canada on the notorious 301 piracy watch list.

For those at home who do not know what the piracy watch list is, it is where North Korea and Yemen are put. Yet a representative of the Canadian government got it into his head that it would be a bright idea to tarnish Canada's international trade reputation by suggesting the United States put us on the international watch list of piracy terror states because it would help pass the bill. I find it staggering that we have a government that will not stand up to U.S. corporate interests and will not stand up for what Canada has done in dealing with piracy.

The former industry minister got it into his head that it was a bright idea to put us on this discredited watch list, despite the fact that the software retailers, and every other major international organization that watched the U.S. piracy watch list, said that it was absurd to put Canada on the list. It was probably as absurd as the same guy getting $50 million in border infrastructure money and blowing it on gazebos in his riding. How did this guy get a job?

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay has been a long champion on this issue. Perhaps in this session of Parliament we will see changes made to address the concerns.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage has told us he is open to change. I am certainly very concerned with the concerns of the Canadian Library Association that digital locks will impede its ability to use materials in the public interest.

Would the member for Timmins—James Bay agree with the library association that perhaps adding the words “for an infringing use” to qualify this requirement of a digital lock would have any effect in making the legislation less egregious?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, certainly the position in the New Democratic Party is that the bill is highly problematic. However, we believe in updating the copyright regime and we believe it is possible with amending language.

For example, the concerns of Canadian librarians were not heard by the government, but it is possible to find amending language to ensure that we would differentiate between what would be done for infringing purposes and what would be done in order to allow people the education opportunities that exist in the digital realm. We saw it done with the other WIPO compliant countries.

If the government is not willing to come to those reasonable balanced compromises, then Bill C-11 will not be balanced. It will be detrimental to Canadian artists, consumers, students and educators.

We are more than willing to bring forward the amending language that will fix the problems of the bill. The problems are many, but they can be fixed. What it will take is whether there is good will on the part of the government to step back a bit and say that it has come so far down the road, that it did not get it right, so we should work together. It is not in the interests of the Canadian Parliament to delay copyright legislation. It is not in the interests of Canadian Parliament not to move forward with copyright. HOwever, it is definitely not in the interests of the Canadian Parliament to move forward with a bill that is fundamentally flawed.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased and honoured to stand today in this debate on Bill C-11 on behalf of the Liberal Party and on behalf of my constituents in the great riding of Halifax West.

It is disappointing that the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages do not appear to be interested in listening to this debate.

What we see in Bill C-11 is, as Yogi Berra said, “This is like déjà vu all over again”. In fact, this reminds of another Yogi Berraism. When he was asked about going to Coney Island, he said, “Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded”.

This is the same kind of logic that we find in the government's approach to this bill. The new copyright bill, Bill C-11, is a carbon copy of the old copyright bill, Bill C-32. It has the same ideologically driven principles and it has the same flaws and omissions. It has the same, as my hon. colleague from Timmins—James Bay was just saying, American-influenced digital lock provisions.

However, the Liberals recognize that there is a need to modernize the Copyright Act. We also recognize the need to protect artists, creators, educators and consumers. We recognize the need for balanced legislation. We think it is important to have copyright rules that are fair and balanced.

Instead of that, today we have before us a recycled bill that includes some of the most restrictive digital lock provisions in the world. This is, in fact, an approach that Michael Geist, who is the Canada Research Chair of Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, correctly points out is all about satisfying U.S. interests.

I was pleased to see this morning that he actually wrote on his blog today. He states:

The Liberal position is consistent with Bill C-60, their 2005 copyright bill that linked the digital lock rules to actual copyright infringement and did not establish a ban on the tools that can be used to circumvent digital locks.

Clearly, this renowned expert on copyright, the Internet and e-commerce is saying that our approach is one that makes sense and is consistent.

In view of those concerns, the Liberal Party will not support Bill C-11. The digital lock provisions in this bill are far too strict and they override virtually every other right that is in the legislation.

These provisions, for example, make it illegal for a mom to move a movie from her DVD to her iPad or Playbook so that her kids can watch it during a long car trip.

These provisions will make it illegal for Canadians to transfer a movie from a DVD to their iPad or PlayBook so that their kids can watch it during a long car trip, because bypassing the DVD protection measures would lead to a $5,000 lawsuit. That is appalling.

I will take the case of a visually impaired student. If that student needs to shift the format of a digital text so he can read it but finds protection measures on the source material, he would not be able to read it unless he breaks the law. How can that possibly be considered a fair and balanced approach? In fact, it is the opposite of fair and balanced.

I know many of my colleagues across the way do not believe their tough on crime agenda means going after busy moms or students with disabilities, but they should actually consider the implications of this bill because that is exactly what they are doing with this bill.

This morning, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages actually claimed that he and the government have the support of the Council of Ministers of Education Canada for the this bill. However, this is what the council actually said, “Much like many other education groups, provincial ministers agree that the digital lock provisions are too restrictive”.

The minister seems to interpret that as support, which is a strange interpretation in my view.

The Liberals are strongly opposed to a government that seeks to make it illegal for ordinary Canadians to exercise their rights to view material they have legally purchased in the format they choose. This is about whether people can change something. If people have a CD they have paid for and they want to transfer the music from their CD to their iPod or, perhaps, to their Blackberry, they want the ability to do that. What the government is saying is that they can do that. It wants Canadians to believe they can do that. However, the government is also saying that it is giving us that right but that it is taking it away because it has put a digital lock on it and we cannot. It is a contradictory position.

Other countries have managed to fulfill their international WIPO treaty obligations without having to implement such strict digital lock provisions. So why would Canada go well beyond what is expected of it? The answer is clear. This bill was drafted for the purpose of meeting the demands of the United States instead of meeting the needs of Canadians and standing up for their interests.

Diplomatic cables, recently released through WikiLeaks, have revealed that much of the bill was drafted specifically to meet American expectations in terms of the digital lock provisions. I find that quite shocking and disturbing. It is not about what is in the interests of Canadians but what is in the interest of some U.S. interests. The Conservatives even offered to provide the United States government with an advance copy of the bill before the Parliament of Canada was allowed to read it.

[Judy Sgro]

Shame.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

That is shameful. It is hard to imagine that could happen. Surely, the Conservatives would have more respect for Parliament and for the House of Commons than to offer it to a foreign government before tabling it here and making it available for members and for Canadians to examine.

Worse than that, the cables revealed that the Conservatives actually asked the United States to place Canada on the United States trade representatives' piracy watch list. They wanted to scare Canadians into supporting this copyright bill. Talk about a regressive, recidivist, bizarre way to approach this. Ten days after the Conservatives made the request, the U.S. was only too happy to oblige them. Naturally. It is no surprise that they went along fully.

The irony of all this, of course, is that the U.S. is now loosening up its own provisions on digital locks. During the last review of the American circumvention rules, it significantly loosened them up. While it is now legal in the U.S. to circumvent a protection measure to create a mash-up for YouTube, in Canada it is going to be illegal, thanks to the government. Can anyone Imagine that? The Conservatives talk about this being balanced, fair and a modern copyright law. This is regressive.

While the Bush White House had a direct line into the Prime Minister's Office, the opinions and advice of Canadian stakeholders, Canadian citizens and Canadian experts fell on deaf ears.

During the 40th Parliament, a special legislative committee on the copyright bill heard from 142 witnesses and it received 167 submissions. That is a lot of input. As members of Parliament, we also received comments from thousands of Canadians. In fact, yesterday alone, my office received nearly 3,000 emails on this one subject. Canadians are concerned about this and have made lots of comments but the government is not listening.

Much of what the committee heard last winter and spring made a lot of sense. Instead of listening, instead of saying that they heard what the witnesses were saying and that they would make some changes, the Conservatives chose to table the exact same bill with the identical wording. There was not a comma change, a period change or a letter moved in the bill except for perhaps the numbering now because it is a new Parliament.

The heritage minister has said publicly that he will not accept any changes. Today, he seems to be singing a bit of a different tune but we will have to wait and see if that is true. His handlers in the Prime Minister's Office have let it be known that they do not even want full hearings on the bill. They do not want members of the House, many of whom are new to the House, to hear from different witnesses and to have the opportunity for a full debate on the bill. I hope not, but perhaps we can expect to see today what we have seen in the last few weeks from the government on every major bill so far, and that is it using closure to move it quickly forward and to ram it through the House. Because of this heavy-handed approach, the undue American influence and the government's unyielding and misguided stance on digital locks, the Liberals have no choice, in our view, but to vote against Bill C-11.

A central concern heard at previous committee hearings was how the expansion of fair dealing into areas such as education would affect artists and creators. Many authors explained repeatedly that the changes in the bill would significantly affect their business models, and that is an important concern for us. However, in Bill C-11 we see no attempt to improve the definitions of fair dealing or provide any kind of certainty to these authors.

Finally, the Liberal Party continues to believe that artists and creators deserve transitional funding in order to cope with the effects this bill would have on their revenue streams. For instance, by no longer allowing creators to charge for ephemeral recordings, artists will lose a revenue stream of roughly $8 million a year. We believe the government should provide some transitional assistance to help artists adjust to the new reality. That is why we proposed in the last election a fund to compensate artists.

Many members will be aware that in the past there was a levy on blank cassettes and CDs. At one point that levy was producing revenue of $27.7 million for Canadian artists, and that was a very important revenue stream for them. Unfortunately, over time things change and people are not using as many cassettes or that many blank CDs and, therefore, the revenue has gone down to about $8.8 million a year. That is a dramatic drop for the artists who were relying on that. It seems to me that the government ought to be recognizing this and trying to find a way to respond to it, but it does not seem interested. It does not seem to have any concern for the impact this is having and we should be concerned.

As a result of the many problems in the bill, particularly the fact that the government has demonstrated that, after hearing 142 witnesses, reading 163 submissions and hearing from thousands of Canadians commenting on it online, in emails and so forth, it does not feel the need for any changes whatsoever, I want to bring forward the following amendment. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word “That” and submitting the following:

“this House declines 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.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments. The hon. Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Madam Speaker, I want to comment on a setback if we do not pass this bill to modernize our legislation.

The Liberals want to concentrate on how important it is to modernize the law but they are not paying attention to some of the good things the bill would accomplish. For example, the bill would legalize the export of works by an author or a Canadian citizen of the country of import and would be subject to payment of royalty that may be set out in the regulations. Does the member support this provision that would pertain to the export of materials adapted for the perceptually disabled, including Braille and audio books? The member had talked about how this would not help the disabled community. This particular bill addresses areas of Braille and the perceptually disabled.

Did the member say that he had received 3,000 emails in one day on this particular issue? What part of the bill did those 3,000 people specifically zero in on? I would like clarification on the 3,000 in one day, please.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. minister's question about the number of emails. I do not know how quickly she reads but I have not had the time to read all those emails to be able to tell her what aspects of the bill each one is dealing with. However, I can say that there was massive opposition. Yesterday my office received 2,900 emails on this topic, and the vast majority of them were opposed to the bill and opposed to the government's position on the bill. It is a remarkable number but it shows the kind of interest there is in this bill.

We have had so much input on this we would have thought that a government that wanted to hear about the bill, that was open to change, open to considering ways to improve the bill would have listened to some of those comments and adopted some changes in the bill it brought forward. We do not see that.

The Conservatives claim there are good things, but virtually anything good they have done here is ruined by the fact that digital locks apply to them and people cannot get at them.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech. I have the pleasure of serving with him on the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, which, of course, studies science and technology.

I would like to know if the hon. member feels that the bill before us considers technological advances, and all the new technologies that are popping up and evolving every day. Does he feel that this bill addresses the rapid evolution of the technologies currently used to disseminate culture and all the elements covered by this bill?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member, with whom I am pleased to serve on the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

Many technological advances have had an impact on copyright; therefore, it is necessary to create a new bill and make some changes. However, what we are seeing in the bill before us today is that the government has not accepted or does not truly recognize the changes that give people a variety of ways to do things nowadays.

For example, as I have already said, a mother may want to transfer a movie from a DVD to her PlayBook or iPad so that her children can watch it during a long trip. But under this bill she cannot do that.

That example shows me that the government does not really recognize technological change or understand its implications.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Madam Speaker, it still befuddles me, 3,000 emails in one day. I would like to help the member go through them because if there are 3,000 concerned people who are not writing to the rest of us on this, I would be quite curious to see what some of the concerns are. We have done many consultations and addressed many of the issues. I have not seen petitions with that many names. I find it very difficult to believe there were 3,000 people who wrote on that particular item.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, if the member wants to come to my office we can talk about this and she can talk to my staff. I would suggest, rather than do that, she might want to talk to the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Canadian Heritage who also received most of these emails; in most cases, I was copied on the messages to them.

[An hon. member]

That is an issue of copyright.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, someone mentioned that is an issue of copyright. My hon. friend from Windsor is joking about that, of course.

The member may want to check with the offices of those ministers. If the ministers are not aware of the emails that have been received, perhaps she should talk to their staff. I think she will find there has been a huge number of emails. Perhaps they have received more than I have. It would not surprise me.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have known the member for many years and I believe the veracity of his receiving those emails. I do not understand why it is that important anyway in the sense of asking a question. However, it is important to talk about the issue of long-distance learning.

I used to work on behalf of persons with disabilities. Regarding the learning supports they require, I am very worried that people would have to burn their notes and their programs after 30 days. People with a learning disability review their work time after time to ensure that the lesson has been instilled and that they do not forget it. Even an ordinary person would do that, but for those with a special learning disability it might take extra effort. I would like my colleague to reflect on that.

I have a real problem with this. I think it is a person's right to be able to get the education and reuse it for the rest of his or her life. It is called lifelong learning. I know that the Conservatives do not really believe in that, but many people in Canada do. This is a very important issue that people with disabilities will have to deal with.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, in fact, as the hon. member will see in the motion we put forward, one of the areas we address is education. One of the things I talked about was people with disabilities.

I gave a similar example of a young person who perhaps is visually impaired. Under this law, that person would not be permitted to transfer a text into a format he or she could read because that would require the person to circumvent a digital lock. The government would fine the person for doing that. Someone could be fined $5,000 under the bill for doing that.

Does that make sense? Is that a way to go forward in education? I think not.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Madam Speaker, I just have a comment.

First of all, that is completely incorrect. There is an exception to the digital lock provisions as they relate to people with perceptual disabilities. The hon. member may want to actually read the legislation.

I want to read a quote from a senior Liberal and I would like the hon. member's feedback on it. John Manley said that overall, the “copyright modernization act reflects an appropriate balance among the needs of creators, distributors, consumers and society as a whole, and for that reason, I encourage members of Parliament to move forward with it as expeditiously as possible.”

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the quote and the point my hon. colleague has made on the question of what happens to digital locks for people with disabilities. I certainly look forward to the discussion in committee on this, if the bill gets there. My hope is that it will not. In fact, I think this bill is fundamentally flawed and I disagree with those who feel otherwise.

Of course, when someone speaks on behalf of his or her organization, I would not be surprised that the person would take a certain point of view, as Mr. Manley has done in speaking on behalf of his organization. It reminds me of what we see from the Conservative MPs generally who tend to speak only the words they are given to speak by the Prime Minister's Office and stay very close to the party line.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, here we have another bill to modernize copyright, the same bill that was introduced by the industry minister on June 2, 2010. The short title of the bill is the Copyright Modernization Act, but I do not think this is the right title; it should have been called the digital lock act or the padlock act, based on what happened in the past.

It was about time that the government introduced, in legislation, the principles contained in the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, which Canada signed on December 22, 1997. Unfortunately, the Conservative government used this as an opportunity to include several provisions that undermine the foundation of copyright. The Copyright Act is the legal foundation that ensures that creations can be reproduced, presented and communicated to the public while guaranteeing proper compensation for their creators.

The people most overlooked by this digital lock legislation—which is being passed off as copyright legislation—are the creators. To weaken copyright by creating a series of exceptions that allow people to use creations without authorization or any financial compensation is tantamount to preventing a group of workers from earning a living from their trade. I will talk later about the financial repercussions of this bill's provisions on creators.

This bill also does away with collectives, a tool that artists created for themselves to facilitate access to their creations in full compliance with their rights. It also jeopardizes cultural industries by cutting off their supply of creations and by preventing them from developing markets that meet the needs of consumers while protecting their investments.

The bill contains over 40 new exceptions, most of which mean no compensation for creators, and this flies in the face of a fundamental principle, specifically, that as soon as a creation is used, there is no reason the creator should not be paid. It is simple; it is clear. That is the basis of copyright.

A royalty is not a tax. Since the start of this debate, the Conservatives have been trying to make the link between royalties and taxes. They are not the same thing. Every industry, to varying degrees, benefits from government assistance through investment, research and development tax credits, and also direct subsidies. Just look at the aerospace, agri-food and information technology industries, to name a few.

Cultural industries are no different. All these industries fiercely protect their intellectual property under the Patent Act, the Industrial Design Act, the Copyright Act or any other intellectual property protection legislation.

What ends up happening? Everyone, as taxpayers or consumers, pays for using the creations of these companies, whether we are talking about software, drugs or iPods, since royalties are included in the price of the product or the price of the software licence, for example.

What is wrong with paying royalties for using music, images, videos and books? The creators of that material are entitled to compensation, just as teachers are entitled to their salary and the mason who repairs the school wall is entitled to his pay.

It is not a tax; it is a royalty we pay to the copyright holder, as we do for many creators in a number of different fields. With all the new technology at our disposal, we have to stop thinking of ourselves simply as consumers of the creation of others. If we write a short story or a novel, compose a song or invent something, we would obviously like to receive fair payment for our creation, our work.

Creators are inventors. They have patents on their creations and are entitled to their fair share. That is why we have to “think different”, in the words of the famous Apple slogan. Let us hope this slogan inspires us to follow through.

I will quickly go over the provisions of this bill and the various exceptions discussed—there are about 40—which will deprive creators, artists, composers, musicians and photographers of the royalties to which they are entitled. I should also mention writers.

What is the significance of broadening the concept of fair dealing for the purpose of education, parody or satire? This will obviously go before the courts. They will have to define the scope of this section. In the meantime, uncertainty will persist and users, especially teachers, as well as copyright holders, will wonder about permitted uses. I already said in another presentation that, with the arrival of the majority Conservative government, with the building of new prisons, these Conservatives will invent new crimes to fill their prisons. There are several new crimes in this bill. We did not know they were crimes, but now we have punishments. Things we do on a daily basis will be criminalized and punished.

This provision affects monies collected by the Société québécoise de gestion collective des droits de reproduction—Copibec; the Society for Reproduction Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers in Canada; and the Quebec Collective Society for the Rights of Makers of Sound and Video Recordings. All these organizations appeared before the committee, but the government did not use anything from their presentations. Instead, the government decided to borrow from provisions implemented in the United States. The Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, or SOCAN, and the Société québécoise des auteurs dramatiques are also opposed to this provision, as are the Producers' Audiovisual Collective of Canada, Audio Ciné Films and Criterion Pictures when it comes to the reproduction of literary, artistic, dramatic, musical and audiovisual works, the public performance of musical and audiovisual works, and the presentation of dramatic works in educational institutions.

What about lost royalties in Quebec because of the broadening of the concept of fair dealing? In fact, what is fair dealing? The law does not specify what is meant by fair dealing. This will result in the loss of $11 million annually for creators and copyright owners. Every year schools, CEGEPs and universities make 175 million copies of excerpts from protected works.

Let us remember that fair dealing is a loose concept that will put an end to the right to grant or deny authorization to use a work and the right to receive remuneration for the use of a work, thus affecting the rights of 23,000 authors and 1,000 publishers in Quebec.

The Conservatives are opening Pandora's box. The education sector is very large. It does not make any sense. If people can photocopy books for educational purposes without providing compensation, no one will want to write books. Furthermore, since the term “education” is not defined in the bill, this new exception could apply to any sort of educational activity and not just to activities carried out within the school system.

Another exception is reproduction for private purposes. An individual may reproduce a legally obtained work on any medium or device and provide access for private purposes. The government could have chosen, as the artists and performers have requested, to expand the existing compensation system for transferring a sound recording to blank media such as cassettes, but it chose to make it free.

We know that, right now, when we make a copy of a work on a disk, royalties are paid to the creators—29¢ on each CD, for example. Obviously, with the growth in virtual storage methods, the revenue from royalties has disappeared like snow on a warm day, dropping from $27 million to $8 million in a few years. There is nothing in this bill to compensate for these losses.

Creators are dismayed to see, in a copyright bill, that the only thing the government is concerned about recognizing is not copyright, but digital locks. The number of blank cassettes and DVDs sold is declining steadily, the amounts redistributed to creators are falling, and creators’ associations are hoping that a similar royalty will be applied to the purchase of devices like personal stereos, as was said in committee, based on the size of the hard drive or flash memory. The existing private copying regime does not affect those devices, however; only the recording media. And fewer and fewer media are being used.

The use of photographs is another exception that has been criticized by photographic artists. An individual may use for private or non-commercial purposes, or permit the use of for those purposes, a photograph or portrait that was commissioned by the individual for personal purposes and made for valuable consideration, unless the individual and the owner of the copyright in the photograph or portrait have agreed otherwise.

On the question of later viewing, an individual may reproduce a work that is being broadcast for the purpose of listening to or viewing it later. Only one copy may be made and the individual may not keep the recording any longer than is reasonably necessary in order to listen to or view it later.

To summarize, I make a copy of a recorded program that I have paid for in order to watch it later, but I would not be entitled to retain the copy any longer than is necessary for the later use. How can that be verified, and who is going to do it? Who is going to make sure that I do not keep the copy indefinitely or I do not lend it to my neighbours? If I lend it to my neighbour, is that going to be a crime liable to a $5,000 fine? If I look at the criminal provisions in the bill, that might well be the case. I would become a criminal if I lent a program to one of my friends. I think the penalty applied to this type of conduct is excessive in the circumstances.

With respect to backup copies, the owner of a work will be able to make backup copies and use them to replace an original work rendered unusable. Devices that can no longer be used will therefore have to be repurchased, but not the content.

There are some odd things in this bill. It is difficult to make head or tail of it.

With respect to communication of a work by telecommunication, educational institutions will be able to communicate lessons containing copyrighted works to students by telecommunication. The institution will have to take measures "that can reasonably be expected" to limit the distribution of the work and will also have to destroy the copy within 30 days of the date on which the students receive their final evaluations. However, no penalties are proposed if the institution fails to take the necessary measures.

This provision suffers from a somewhat split personality. It is sending the message that these works must be destroyed but there is no arrangement for verifying this. In any event, if it is not destroyed, that is no penalty. I wonder what we are talking about. I would really like to know what firm of lobbyists went to see the Conservative government and asked it to include this kind of provision in the bill. I do not understand.

For extension of the photocopy licence, institutions that have been issued a photocopying licence by Copibec will be able to make digital copies and communicate them to students by telecommunication. The photocopying licence’s provisions will apply to that type of use, and the royalties will be calculated the same way. How will fair dealing for educational purposes be reconciled with this exception?

Institutions in possession of a photocopying or reprographic licence will also be able to make digital reproductions and transmit them by telecommunication. Paid-for photocopies could thus be transmitted by way of digital reproduction, however they get somewhat lost in the maze that is the digital world.

Teaching institutions will be able to access works available on the Internet for educational purposes. We all do this: we use Google, we consult Wikipedia, etc. This exception would not apply to works protected by a technical measure—a lock—or to works displaying not simply the copyright symbol but also a clearly visible warning prohibiting their use. Thus, the principle whereby works are protected as soon as they exist in some medium, without the need for any other formality is reversed, and rights holders who do not wish to provide free access to their works would be forced to lock them or attach a warning. This fails to take into account the millions of works already available free of charge for educational purposes on the Internet under the current licensing system.

As far as reproduction for visual presentations and examinations is concerned, the current legislation permits the reproduction of a work by hand and its presentation by means of an overhead projector. The bill will authorize the reproduction and visual presentation of a work on all platforms irrespective of the type of technology, be it a USB key, an interactive whiteboard, or a computer screen. This exception will not apply if the work is available on the Canadian market in the medium in question. The legislator has removed the possibility of obtaining a licence from a collective society in order to stop the use of this exception. This amounts to an immediate loss of half a million dollars to the copyright holders represented by Copibec.

This is another example of a provision in this bill that does not assist authors but rather deprives them of up to $500,000 in income.

We spoke earlier of provisions in the bill that apply to libraries, museums and archives. Let us see how this applies in the case of loans to institutions. Libraries, museums and archives designated as such under the act will henceforth be able to transmit digitally formatted articles from periodicals to users for private study and research purposes. These institutions must take steps to prevent the user from printing more than one copy of the article or from transmitting it to a third party.

Librarians who forward articles to users must take steps to ensure that these users are not able to transmit this information to a third party. As I cast my mind to my municipal library in St-Hippolyte, I wonder who will have to handle the directives this legislation entails. How will that person proceed?

In the culture sector, the general feeling about Bill C-11 is that, in its current form, it undermines the principles at the heart of copyright, principles that have historically provided an environment that is favourable to creators, producers, distributors and consumers of cultural property. This bill will compromise Canada's ability to compete in a global digital economy and will undermine the economic future of those creating Canadian content. Artists indicate that numerous clauses in Bill C-11 demonstrate a lack of understanding of the creative industry's structures within an evolving technological environment. Parliamentarians have a responsibility to amend the bill and keep the positive measures. In order to develop an innovative knowledge economy, Canada needs to staunchly defend intellectual property.

If Bill C-11 is passed in its current form, there will be serious financial consequences for artists, for Canada's cultural industries, with losses estimated at $126 million per year.

We should be removing all of the clauses that go against the current law and eliminate the revenue currently being generated. This includes the provisions that legalize certain kinds of copying, without providing any compensation. We must allow the educational use of copyrighted material without compensation.

It seems as though all of the attempts at copyright reform in Canada have had very little to do with creating a system that balances the rights of creators with those of the general public. That is what the NDP wants. We do not want to further criminalize the actions of individuals. We want this bill to clearly set out copyright guidelines for creators, to help them enter into a growing, evolving universe.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec's motto is, “Je me souviens” or “I remember”. Personally, I remember the election that took place in 2008 and I remember the general outcry that was sounded in Quebec to protect and defend copyright. Quebec is the cradle of the French language in this country, and in order to protect copyright, Quebeckers stepped up and raised an outcry.

With regard to digital locks, it is the distribution companies that will call the shots. In Canada, where Quebec is an enclave and where small communities of francophones live in the other provinces, is my colleague not concerned that these large corporations, these large companies, will stop distributing francophone creators who, as a result, will be removed from the information highway?

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, I cannot really predict the impact the implementation of these various measures and these digital locks would have on the distribution of works by Quebec's artists.

On the other hand, in another life, I had a few songs at the top of the charts in Quebec and I regularly received a cheque from SOCAN for my royalties. They were sometimes ridiculously tiny amounts, but they helped make ends meet nonetheless.

At present, what is known as “ephemeral recordings” are included in one of the provisions that constitute yet another exception in this bill. This provision is going to cost songwriters over $7 million in royalties they would otherwise receive from the broadcasting of their songs over the radio. I think this provision is a slap in the face to all those who dedicate their lives to creativity and helping others see the beauty in this world.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord for his speech and for the passion and enthusiasm he put into defending the creators of our culture. I would like to hear more on the previous question about how this bill does not take into account creators of culture and how culture is disseminated. Canada is a big country, but our creators are often not encouraged to disseminate Canadian and Quebec culture. How could this bill be detrimental to the dissemination of our culture?

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have been waiting for over 15 years for reforms to bring the Copyright Act in line with the digital age. What we have here is a bill that will cut the legs out from under many creators, and as a result, fewer people will be interested in creating works.

Eventually, we will have a harder time disseminating these works abroad. If copyrights are waived so that works can be reproduced in schools for the purpose of education or fair dealing, as we heard earlier, a whole bunch of authors will no longer want to write books. What motivation is there to write if anyone can reproduce excerpts from books without providing any compensation?

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech. What does he believe are the most negative aspects of this bill? Can he summarize them?

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the bill has some positive aspects, such as digital locks, which we do understand. We understand that companies that have invested in developing video games or movies want to protect their products by using this type of lock.

At the same time, what concerns me about this bill, is the nature of the fines that will be imposed on those who try to find the keys to these digital locks. I am convinced that young people, with their creativity and imagination, will succeed in bypassing the digital locks that are put on any products that they use.

More emphasis has been placed on the protection of industries than on a true copyright reform that would allow creators to receive financial compensation each time their works are used.

It is somewhere between these two visions. On one hand, there is legislation that takes a repressive approach to this issue and, on the other hand, there are creators who would have liked to use a legislative lever to allow for true thought on the definitions of a creator—the nature of a creator; copyright; and how to protect authors and artists and encourage them to create.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, no one can deny that Steve Jobs was an innovative thinker in the world of business. He gave innovation and business sophistication a face. He became an icon of the new economy. We have lost him but the innovations of his company, namely the universal digital machine, the personal computer, which members on both sides of the House depend upon for their daily work, remains with us. I doubt any member would argue that deep changes occurred in our society through the introduction of the personal computer in our daily lives.

My first introduction to computing was through my dad. He worked for a company called Control Data as a truck driver and he delivered the cardboard cards that kept the information on the federal government's computers in Ottawa. I used to draw on the backs of the cards that were thrown away, so maybe it was one of the first mash-ups or culture jamming that I did.

Then my dad brought home a tape recorder. We recorded our own stories on it and taped over bits that we did not like. It provided hours of humour listening to our own squeaky voices. Then we realized that maybe we could record stuff we heard on the radio and we listened to songs instead of waiting for them to come on the radio. We could sing to those songs and record at the same time. Our minds were thinking of all the possibilities that we could do with the technology that was put before us.

Around the same time that we were doing these goofy things, Mr. Jobs brought his Apple computers to the world. There was also at this time a lawsuit going on that my hon. colleague mentioned and it was the Betamax case.

We were not early adopters in my family so we did not have a VCR when it first came out. Apparently when the Betamax came out in 1976, the television industry was up in arms. When the VCR came out there were no video stores, no rentals, nothing, so, all we could really do with a VCR was record television shows. In effect it became the first time shifting device. Instead of sitting down when broadcasters dictated, we could choose our own time to watch things; that is, if we could program the device, which many people had difficulty doing, so it became the task of members of my generation to do it because our elders could not figure out how to do it.

Television broadcasters did not like this additional consumer control because they did not want consumers to have control. Their greatest fear was the loss of revenue due to people fast forwarding commercials and watching movies and television shows from their personal libraries instead of tuning in to the broadcaster's schedule. The VCR dictated the time that people could watch shows.

The theory of copyright laws is that they limit control over the use of content to the copyright owner. They leverage the right of copyright into revenue. People cannot use what the copyright owner owns unless they pay. The theory is that revenue creates incentive for the creation of new works.

Broadcasters were worried about their revenue. Movie studios were incensed that consumers could record their movies. The sky would fall they said. They did not want VCR technology. They wanted a ban on it, so they filed a lawsuit against Sony, the maker of the Betamax. The studios wanted control over the design of the VCR. TV broadcasters and movie studios wanted certain recording features on the machine, like the recording button or the fast forward button, eliminated. I ask hon. members to imagine the VCR without a fast forward button or a record button, or let us consider for a second a world where the VCR was banned, which was the original intent of this lawsuit.

The reason why I mention all of this is because technology has evolved. People have to be active in the programming of their family lives. We need a more active population, a wider field of choice and possibilities. They have to have the idea that anything is possible because that is the foundation of innovation. I should remind members that innovation is precisely one of the greatest challenges and one of the greatest weaknesses in our Canadian economy right now.

Thankfully, in 1983 the U.S. supreme court decided that the VCR was a legal device. Years later the movie industry hailed the VCR as something great. The industry received huge profits from the sale of videos. The industry that had previously feared and misunderstood the VCR realized that it could get money from this new machine. It wanted to lock the march of progress at that time but realized that the VCR provided a monetized stream for it and it was no longer fearful of it.

When I was 20, I managed to get my hands on a video camera. I taped some of my surroundings, took my favourite REM CD, clipped some stuff from the TV, and put them all together using the VCR. It was not very good, admittedly. It was kind of clunky. However I had created something new, something that allowed my interpretation of the music. That action was something that has gone on for ages.

Troubadours in medieval times would take words of songs and change them. Tellers of oral tales would change elements of the story to suit their local cultures. In our times we have groups like Negativland and DJ Danger Mouse, amongst others that do essentially the same thing.

This legislation would try to make this activity illegal. Unlocking the digital lock, something that a young Norwegian did to DVD encryption in the last decade would become a crime.

The 1998 law that the U.S.A. brought in, the DMCA, was found to be unenforceable. Basically this could not be enforced. It is too hard.

The greater problem here is that we have a digital age and a universal digital machine. All the information that we have nowadays, music, movies, text, is all in digital form now. When it is brought into a digital machine, it all gets translated into the same form of information. There is an innovation that happens there when people interact with that.

All the information is digital, so to be truly effective, to protect the copyright owner as this bill tries to do, one would effectively have to control computers. It is this idea that the U.S. tried to do. It tried to develop this idea of the Fritz chip. Every digital device would have this chip that would lock certain activities on that device. However, computer scientists have said this is impossible, that they would not be able to invent something like that.

Basically, a universal machine, a personal computer, would have to be turned into a somewhat limited machine. The effect of that, of course, would be to limit the innovation that we use these machines for.

There are also questions in legal circles about the provisions in this legislation that say that perhaps these are not measures that would fall under a copyright act, they would fall under ideas of property or civil rights, which are a provincial jurisdiction.

To finish off my discourse, I would like to state 12 reasons why our copyright laws are already strong enough and do not require any renewing to protect the copyright owners.

Number one, Canada has about 36 copyright collectives, many of which have received substantial direct and indirect government subsidies. The U.S. has only about half a dozen with no government support. The U.S. is asking us to impose this legislation, and yet we already have stronger copyright legislation than the U.S. does.

Number two, Canada has a full-time Copyright Board which has normally had four full-time members plus a sitting or retired judge as chairman, currently about a dozen full-time professional and administrative staff. The board has enormous policy and effective law-making powers. No other country of which we are aware comes close to having such a large, permanent, powerful and full-time copyright tribunal.

Number three, broadcasters pay far more for copyright loyalties than their counterparts in the U.S., much of it for rights that do not even exist in the U.S., for example, the ephemeral right. The U.S. provides an outright exemption in 17 U.S.C.112 for the ephemeral right.

About $50 million a year more, over and above, is being demanded by a collective dominated by the American dominated record labels for this right, in addition to amounts now collected by composers, authors and publishers. Canada's Copyright Board heard a major case on commercial radio where this and other issues will be decided in December 2008 and January 2009. However, it will probably be at least 18 months to 2 years after the hearing before a decision is announced, based on the timing of some recent major decisions from the board.

Number four, the Canadian Copyright Board values each right under the Copyright Act brought before it separately with little regard to layering and multiplicity of the tariffs which result in effect for the same transaction. Whether this is an error in approach by the board and/or in policy and/or in legislative drafting is subject to fair debate. The fact is that the U.S. law goes to great lengths to avoid such a result as recent court decisions have confirmed.

Number five, educators pay far more for copyright clearance than their American counterparts pay. There is simply no mechanism in place in the U.S.A. analogous to the excessive $5.16 per K-12 student or the excessive per student and course pack rates payable to access copyright for post-secondary students. There is a similar mechanism for Quebec. Canada's Copyright Board has pushed back on what it considers to be fair dealing in the classroom for what the Supreme Court of Canada arguably requires and American law clearly permits. The Copyright Board's controversial decision is currently under judicial review.

Number six, Access Copyright is trying to collect $24 a year for each full-time employee in Canadian provincial and territorial governments, not including Quebec. This potentially would be a cost of $6.5 million a year for Canadian taxpayers, which seems absurd in view of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, since most, if not all, copying of protected material would likely be for research purposes. Nonetheless, a very expensive proceeding would slowly unfold before the Copyright Board and probably beyond into the courts. Even with an unusual push by the Copyright Board to get this moving, it would likely drag on for years.

Such a tariff or equivalent mechanism would never get off the ground in the U.S.A. for many reasons, including that state sovereign immunity is well established by the U.S. Supreme Court. There may very well be provincial crown immunity in Canada but to what extent it would be invoked is currently unclear. At any rate, this new attempted tariff by Access Copyright has no counterpart in the U.S. and is yet another situation in which U.S. copyright owners could prove to be better off in Canada than in their own country.

Number seven, Canadian law requires payment for certain educational uses that are explicitly exempted in the U.S.A., such as the performance of films in a classroom.

Number eight, Canada has no explicit statutory exception for the performance of music for the purpose of selling sound recordings or audiovisual equipment as is found in section 110(7) of the U.S. copyright law.

Number nine, Canadians pay large amounts to SOCAN and NRCC for performances in countless bars, restaurants, retail stores and other small business establishments. The U.S. notoriously exempts these establishments, contrary to a WTO section 110 ruling which the U.S. continues to flout. The U.S. is by far the leading adjudicated current violator of international copyright law.

I could cite more examples which I found online in a blog. I have shared the author's thoughts with the House on why our copyright laws are already stronger than those of the U.S. and yet we are getting pressure from multinationals to impose this law on Canadians when our law is already sufficiently strong.

With that I will conclude.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the new member for his speech. As a history lesson, this is the fourth time we have gone through this process as it relates to a copyright bill. Last time around we had 39 hours of testimony at committee during which time the NDP member on the committee repeatedly lobbied for a tax on iPods.

The Copyright Board in 2007 published a statement filed by the Canadian Private Copying Collective for levies it proposed to collect effective January 1, 2008. The proposal stated different rates, but the rate was $75 for each recorder with more than 30 gigs of memory. That is where the $75 iPod tax we often refer to comes from.

In the spring of 2010, the heritage committee, which was dominated by members of the opposition, passed a report that would extend the definition of audio recording medium to devices with internal memory so that the levy on copying music would apply to digital music recorders as well. On April 14 last year we had a vote in the House on that motion. Every member of the NDP, the Liberals and the Bloc supported the motion and every member of the Conservative Party opposed it.

I would like some clarity on where the member stands on the $75 tax on iPods proposed by the Copyright Board but supported by the members of the opposition parties.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member stated, I was not here at that time so I do not know all the details of what went on at committee. However, I have been informed by other members that the Conservative chair of that committee actually supported the legislation. I cannot speak to the details of that because I am not informed on that.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising that the parliamentary secretary is trying to resurrect an old myth with regard to an iPod tax. We actually proposed that the Copyright Board would set a rate that would be good for the artist and fair for the consumer and to have that independent assessment done. We know the Conservatives have concerns over that. We have seen what they have done with other appointed officials in different departments. However, there certainly was no $75 tax. The parliamentary secretary knows that.

It is unfortunate because we have been trying to have a good debate about this issue in the House today and we have been participating in that. I know the parliamentary secretary was excluded from some of the unfortunate things that took place in the House, but we have been trying to press on having some compromise here.

Again, there was no suggestion of a $75 tax.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleagues for providing some of the history on this issue. As I said, I was not a member of the House so I was not privy to all the details. I have not looked at it in depth. I thank both members for informing me on the history of this legislation.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke about Steve Jobs. We could also talk about Facebook. What has made Facebook so popular is its democratic access; it is free and open to everyone. If there were no users, there would be no industry putting products on the market. I predict certain death for the cultural industry if we put locks on it. There is a limit to what our families are able to pay. They are already paying for Internet, telephone services, the information highway, television and anything they want to download, whether they are selling or purchasing cultural products.

Does the hon. member believe that using digital locks will be harmful to the cultural industry and the public's use of it?

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it will negatively affect people's participation in culture. The hon. member said that when technological locks are applied, new items have to be purchased every time the technology changes. In 1989, I bought a Bob Dylan record and, in the 1990s, I had to buy the same album on tape and then on CD. Buying something three times and never owning it affects cultural participation in a negative way.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the intervention by the member for Windsor West on the matter of the iPod tax. He said that the Copyright Board should have the ability to set the rate. For clarification, as the debate was going on and the NDP consistently advocated for a tax on recording devices, including iPods, that may be extended to other things, in 2008 the Canadian Private Copying Collective which is responsible for this area put forward a proposal. It is published in the Canada Gazette:

—the Copyright Board hereby publishes the statement filed by the Canadian Private Copying Collective (CPCC) on January 31, 2007, with respect to the levies it proposes to collect, effective January 1, 2008, on the sale, in Canada, of blank audio recording media.

In the area marked “Levy”, it states:

Subject to subsection (2), the levy rates shall be...

(e) for digital audio recorders, $5 for each recorder with no more than 1 Gigabyte (GB) of memory, $25 for each recorder with more than 1 GB and no more than 10 GB of memory, $50 for each recorder with more than 10 GB and no more than 30 GB of memory, and $75 for each recorder with more than 30 GB of memory.

That covers most iPods that people are purchasing today.

The member for Windsor West said that the Copyright Board should have the ability to set those levies. During most of the debate on this, those were the numbers on the table in terms of what the Canadian Private Copying Collective had put forward.

I want to know whether the hon. member supports the member for Windsor West in saying that should be the way the iPod tax is handled.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, rather than engaging in a side debate, I would rather deal with what I actually addressed in my speech. I did not mention a tax. I just wanted to point out to members across that the copyright legislation that exists is stronger legislation than what the United States has and I have fears about this bill impeding innovation in Canada. Rather than getting into a side debate, I would prefer to address the issues that I mentioned in my speech.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it seems as though nobody on the other side wants to engage in the debate, so I will ask another question.

The member mentioned that he did not talk about taxes in his speech. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay was on the committee during the 39 hours of testimony we heard from witnesses. Repeatedly the member for Timmins—James Bay advocated for a tax on iPods. We can call it a levy or whatever we want, but he advocated for that. I want to know if he agrees with the member for Timmins—James Bay, who will probably be taking the lead on this issue again.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would have to discuss the matter with the member for Timmins—James Bay before making any informed comments on that issue. I look forward to speaking with the member and getting information on that issue.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-11. Copyright is a very important issue and New Democrats have been talking about having a digital strategy in general, but I will get into the specifics.

It is interesting that the Conservatives referred to a former Liberal member, John Manley, as the benchmark of where they should be. I have nothing against John Manley; I served in the House of Commons with him. He was up front in terms of discussing issues. When we think of the advice the Conservatives are following, it is kind of interesting because John Manley was the person who wanted to deregulate our banks and make them like the U.S. banks. The Conservative government very often talks about how we have a strong financial system right now because we did not do what the U.S. did.

I was in the House of Commons when the Conservatives joined with John Manley to try to change our banks to be more like the U.S. banks. We had those debates in the House of Commons. I would give credit to the Bloc Québécois. The Bloc members were very staunchly against that, as were the New Democrats. We were able to defeat that. Judy Wasylycia-Leis was a key NDP member opposing that proposal. We made counter proposals to John Manley that were seen as hostile, left wing, socialist and crazy. Finally, after many months of pressure, we were able to defeat the movement by John Manley and the Conservatives at that time to deregulate our banks and make them more like the American banks. That was the argument at that point in time.

It is very important—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Bourassa is rising on a point of order.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about a bill, we have to consider relevance. First, I do not think that this is relevant and, second, if Canada was saved from the recession, it is because we had an extraordinary prime minister, Jean Chrétien, who prevented the bank merger.

Let us stay on topic, please.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Certainly, the proper thing for members to do is to speak in terms relevant to the topic that is before us. I am sure the hon. member was getting to his point.

The hon. member for Windsor West.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was. That is a type of Liberal infighting, a Chrétienite versus a Martinite, with regard to the Manley history. However, it is clear that this has been used as an example to validate this legislation.

I was about to raise other third-party concerns that have been voiced in the debate that Canadians should hear. One of them is from Dr. Michael Geist, a renowned technology commentator. He has been quoted on Bill C-11 as saying that the foundation 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. He also states:

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 content or device.

We have a significant problem with the digital lock and we believe that having this type of testimony makes things more balanced as it is not just from the users. Later on we will hear some quotes from the artists as well.

I have statements from the cultural industries, which represent over 80 arts and cultural organizations across Quebec and nationwide. They argue that the bill would be toxic to the digital economy and warn that it would be a failure of the entire act itself. They suggest that the bill is actually toxic to artists.

The Writers Guild of Canada has a different take regarding its interest on the bill. It is a complex bill and issue. It states:

They are neither forward-looking nor in consumers or creators’ best interests. Digital locks, at their best, will simply freezes current revenue streams for creators.

There are other experts in the field, such as the Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic. This is what it has to say on digital locks:

Overall, these digital lock provisions are some of the most restrictive in the world.

To achieve a fair balance between users and copyright owners, the government needs to fix the digital lock provisions before this bill passes into law.

That is another counter to the one extreme case being used regarding Mr. Manley and his interests that are represented.

The Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, SOCAN for short, states:

Without this balance, the creation of creative content will eventually decrease, as Canadian creators will be unable to make a living.

Presently, the average wage of a Canadian creator and artist is approximately $12,000 a year. That is not sufficient and the bill would take away some of their actual earnings forthright. This is a very important issue for artists because in this economy they are certainly suffering quite significantly. On top of that, they have a history in Canada of not being the most compensated in the workforce despite the fact that billions of dollars are generated from this industry, which I believe is around 7% of the GDP in overall impact.

Mr. Howard Knopf , a copyright lawyer, states:

The Digital Locks (TPM) measures continue to divide Canadians and to defy consensus. [They] are stronger than required by the WIPO treaties and stronger than necessary--

Why does the bill appear to be going overboard regarding digital locks?

What can be brought to bear on this issue is pressure from the United States. It was interesting to see the former minister of industry suggest that we should actually leak an advance copy of our bill to the United States. What is intriguing in itself is that instead of sharing it with Canadians, the people he represented as the minister, he would leak a document to the United States in advance to more or less get the Americans' opinion or blessing.

Later on the former minister's ministerial aid, the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka, suggested that Canada be put on the United States' piracy watch list. This was also intriguing because I worked with the member for Edmonton—Leduc to improve Canada's international representation regarding piracy on a number of different visits since 2002 with the Canada-U.S. Parliamentary Association, which is a bipartisan group. We met with members of Congress and senators in the United States. We attended bilateral meetings. We went to different conferences across the United States to meet with Governors and different legislatures on a statewide and nationwide scale.

We often heard that the Hollywood movie industry was upset that Canadian films were allowed to be filmed in our studios or in our theatres. That was true. It was a grey area of the law and we had a problem with the filming and distribution of pirated movies. That was ratcheted up through the U.S. system and it gave us a black eye in many respects. To be fair, there was good evidence that in some specific places in Montreal and other theatres pirated versions emerged. They were being sold on the streets of New York and other places like that just as easily as in Canada but it became a problem.

I am aware of the good work done by the member for Edmonton—Leduc as a representative. We were able to work in a group and make legal changes here in Canada to remove that problem. A lot of effort went into reversing the reputation that Canada had at that particular time with the United States. Therefore, I have difficulty understanding why the second removed former minister would suggest that we would leak a copy to the United States and that the aid for the previous minister, the member from Muskoka, would want Canada to be on the U.S. piracy list.

The member for Timmins—James Bay talked about some of the countries that are on that list. They are not countries like Canada. When we are working hard together on international relationships and trading partner issues, why would we want to subject ourselves to that type of behaviour? It shows that the government will buckle under pressure, as it has many other times, regarding U.S.-Canada government relations, which has subsequently cost Canadians.

This digital lock issue could cost Canadians. That is why we believe it is important to have a digital strategy. I will get to the digital strategy because it does affect us.

The devices we are using today which have changed so dramatically will continue to change in the future as well. It is not only about the types of devices and how they are used but also about how the content is shuffled from one device to another and the many ways in which it is used.

I have a Sony PlayStation. When I download a song I can use it on my PS3 but having it on my Playbook is a different problem altogether. When I buy a particular song I believe I should have the right to use it on both those devices. Therefore, it also involves the mechanics of moving the content around.

We often talk about net neutrality. Canada needs to take a moment to define "net neutrality". It is not only important for consumers and their use of different entertainment and other available devices but also for business, especially small business. In the past we have heard testimony on net neutrality with regard to throttling posing bigger challenges to some of the smaller companies' ability to stream, their access to streaming, as well as the value of streaming. We believe that net neutrality is important for consumers as well as businesses in the country.

We want a national strategy on broadband. It is very important. Many times we have seen companies focus on specific areas of development, such as the large urban areas where the costs are more beneficial than out in the suburbs and rural areas. We believe that in Canada it should be similar to our highway systems and other physical infrastructure which connects Canadians from coast to coast to coast and that we have that ability to communicate.

That is why the CBC is so important and we believe in it so strongly. In Windsor, where we are dominated by U.S. content and material, it is nice to hear stories from Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, the Yukon or British Columbia. We get that through a national broadcast structure that is important for keeping our national identity.

We also talk about having a strategy on the spectrum auction. The government ended up in court over the last spectrum auction. It is an important asset. The type of spectrum we are getting is significant and would offer us a great advantage toward building this national infrastructure. However, we need to look at where the resources would come from. The last time the spectrum auction assets came in they were dumped into the central fund. We want to see a national strategy put in place that would take advantage of that and use it as an opportunity to put our broadband, and our society in general, in a better position. The U.S. is approximately two years ahead of us on this. It is an important point.

We do not know when the government will have the spectrum auction and the final terms. It is critical as it is affecting business decisions due to the uncertainty of how we would use and implement the different research, technology, communications, et cetera. We do not know exactly what will take place next and we need to catch up to the United States. Being that much behind the U.S. does not offer the same type of opportunities for investment because we are looking at that when making decisions.

It is similar to physical infrastructure. In my community we are finally working toward implementing a new border crossing. If the legislation passed in Michigan for that it would allow for better investment decisions to be made in Canada. Once it is developed and rolled out and we can see the physical asset, predictability can take place.

We also need to deal with the issue of e-commerce. We have heard testimony at the industry committee regarding Canada's e-commerce. It is a dog's breakfast. The other day we heard testimony that Canada is very much behind on e-commerce and that it is a disadvantage. We also heard testimony to the effect that we are not being treated the same as the United States and that Canadian companies are paying higher fees and charges. We should be looking at all of that.

These are the elements we have for looking at the new age because what we are dealing with today will change a lot.

Going back to Bill C-11, we are interested in getting it to committee to hear more testimony and we hope that the government will look at a couple of things.

I want to touch on the issues I believe are important.

There is a five year review of the bill. I have moved amendments on other bills, some of which have passed through the House of Commons, to have a three year review of a bill. Technology is changing so quickly and the artists are caught up in that. I have read a number of testimonies not only from people in commerce but also from artists stating that there will be a diminishment of Canadian content and remuneration going back to the artists themselves. We should not be leaving them in the lurch for five years. Perhaps we should be looking at a three year review.

One of the things that is very important about that review, and I am sure we will hear this debated, is whether or not the legislation can get out the door, get working and provide a proper analysis after five years. We need to research that. I think three years or some other provision for artists needs to be in there if we are to have the five year review because we are hearing enough testimony that there are problems.

I want to talk about long-distance education. For the most part, it pertains to rural areas. However, long-distance education is also taking place in cities because people are looking for specific degrees, specific information and specific areas of improvement. That is important because, as a competitive society, we have heard that Canadian education needs to be better and stronger.

I have a problem with the 30-day provision where the material would dissolve or we get to the old-fashioned book burning scenario where we have to destroy the product. I do not understand that. When we buy a product, we have that property.

I remember the days in university when we would try to sell our books because when the next edition came out it was a little bit different. That is an important point to make because I think there is some overcalculation here. Each year the book would change a little but we were made to buy the newest edition. I remember the days when only a bit of the content was different but we were forced to buy the new textbook because of the change.

I do not understand why we would want people to lose the education and training materails that they would pay for from their own pocket because of a 30-day cycle. It is very important. I know many professionals, doctors and other individuals who regularly refer to the material from which they learned.

I do that for my own research in the House of Commons. If we research a topic or have the research done by the Library of Parliament, I often review the material a number of times at different points in time. I do not know what advantage there would be for individuals to take college courses via long distance if they could not review the materials whenever and however they wanted.

We can research that some more to determine the exact veracity of that, how the definitions will be defined and who will control that. It will be interesting to hear testimony at the committee hearings.

I am a little bit cautious on that, because I have seen in the past, whether it be with fibromyalgia or other types of disabilities, where people have been denied certain support systems because the disability was not as so-called obvious as others, or there was no burden of proof, or there would be an extra expense to get doctor's notes or other types of learning support documents at different times. I am a little bit concerned about that.

I will wrap up on the important issue of royalty rights. The royalty rights are a stabilizing fund for our artists. There have been a lot of changes over the years to the types of materials that we have had and the way they get remuneration. It is a new world, a new age, which is why we have gone through several machinations of this bill. It has always created a problem because we are trying to find the right balance at the end of the day between the consumers and ensuring that our artists are compensated. It is tough because we all want to have stuff but having it for free is just not fair for the people who have actually spent their time, energy and money creating it.

We want to have balance in there and stripping away the fund is something that I cannot accept. We need to have a solution for it. As I said, the annual average income for an artist in Canada is around $12,000. That is not sufficient to live on in this day and age in our communities. We need to ensure we are going to compete.

It is very common to have great relations with the United States. I go over to the United States all the time. However, we are fiercely proud because we have Canadian content and we have that Canadian identity that is not only recognized by the people in the United States but is celebrated by them, too. We push back into their content with the great artists, the men and women we have in Canada.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of co-operation and collegiality, I, too, share a high regard for the Conservative member for Edmonton—Leduc, the chair of the finance committee. I know that the hon. member had the opportunity to serve with him on the industry committee. I have enjoyed serving with the hon. member for Windsor West on the industry committee as well.

In regard to a couple of the issues that he raised, I think the member may be mixing up a couple of issues. On the one hand, he talks about the issue related to people with perceptual disabilities and digital locks. What I had said earlier today was that there is an exception to allow the breaking of digital locks to enable people with perceptual disabilities to use copyright material, according to the rest of the rules in the legislation.

Second, in terms of the long distance education the hon. member talked about, members talked about burning materials and things like that. The idea with the things put in, in relation to long distance education, is that what is done in a classroom in terms of things that are kind of spontaneous or maybe display or a presentation of a song or something like that should also be made available in a long distance type or digital format.

Someone may podcast the display of material or the performance of a song that happens in a classroom setting. What we are saying is that copy cannot be taken and kept forever. At some point the person from a distance will view it and then at that point it would have to be destroyed. The person who attends the classroom would not have the opportunity to copy it either, under the law. It is maintaining some consistency for the purposes of long distance education.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not mention the visual display. I think it was the member from Halifax who mentioned it earlier.

I was thinking more of the work that I had done with persons with developmental disabilities or learning disabilities, where it has taken longer or there have been specific strategies employed for the learning to take place. They also sometimes get learning supports in our colleges and our universities.

I would even say that, for myself, people can see the failure of my taking long distance French lessons back in the early 1990s. It did not work out too well for me. I tried it at that time. I know it is hard to believe but I am trying again. I did take long distance learning with regard to that. I actually passed the first course but it is all gone now.

I worry more about those people who have those types of challenges who cannot go back and reference those materials again that gave them the strength of learning at that time, and that they have paid for. I fail to see the logic of why we would take away something that we are encouraging Canadians to do. They are investing and growing as a person and they would only benefit from that review if they wanted it in the future. There are lots of times when people read a book a second time.

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

Mr. Speaker, on the point that my hon. Conservative colleague talked about, which was circumvention of digital locks for the sake of exceptions, what he is talking about is subclause 41.16(2), circumvention of digital locks for persons with perceptual disabilities. However, the exception stipulates that said circumvention must not “to not unduly impair the technological protection measure”. I read this as nullifying any right to circumvent.

The stakeholders, for example the Provincial Resource Centre for the Visually Impaired, said the following about it. It said:

The exception that permits circumvention of technological protection measures (TPMs) and the means to circumvent these measures for the purpose of producing alternate formats...may be largely nullified by [that section]....

Perhaps my hon. colleague could point that out as well and perhaps talk more about this bill and how the balance just does not work for him.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an important question to clarify because, once again, the onus then goes onto the person with the disability. I do not even get the logic of this. When I went to high school, if I took a course or a class and I did not do very well, I would have to go to summer school, which I did. I was not forced to. I passed by just enough but I wanted to do better so I went back and took the material again over the summer.

Therefore, if people take an on-line course and earn a B or C, or something like that, a lot of people would enjoy going back to learn it a second time when they have time. A lot of people taking these courses are single mothers, people living in challenging times in terms of their schedule. Why would they not have the right to go back and improve themselves since they have already paid for it? They are not asking for more effort from the provider of the service that does not need to invest anymore. What they are doing is going over the material a second time to improve themselves and their capabilities in the Canadian economy.

I do not understand the logic of this, let alone why we would have the interest in doing it. It defies the reasons that people are bettering themselves, which is to improve themselves by using available content, be it book material or through visual or audio learning.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I work with my hon. colleague from Windsor on this file in the industry committee and one of the things that was raised yesterday when we were talking about e-commerce was digital locks and how that would have an effect on e-commerce. I believe it was Mr. Geist who was talking about that in the industry committee as well. We are not saying that we need to ban all copyright. What we are saying here is that we need something that is balanced and fair.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague when he thinks Canadians will finally get the copyright legislation that works for them as consumers and, as well, looks at the digital lock piece.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Sudbury for his previous work on getting the pressure going on digital locks on phones. The member from Thunder Bay was active in pushing Canadians.

As consumers, we have been behind for many years. Here on the Hill, we would go to a reception for an event related to another country and people there would show us the cellphone they had with multiple cards, all bought in their country and all unlocked for the last five to seven years. Meanwhile, they were locked here.

I am hoping we can move toward a more balanced approach, improve the bill, get it done and modernize the act to ensure our consumers and our cultural industry are protected. Digital locks is a big issue in this.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will come back quickly to the conversation around long distance education. It is important to note that the hon. member repeatedly referred to the taking away of rights. Of course, nothing would be taken away. Benefits are being added. Additional opportunities are being added, through this legislation, that simply are not there right now.

We had to strike a balance between creators and the users of the content, and we think we have struck that balance. If we look at the 39 hours of testimony, so far, at the committee stage, we see witness after witness speak to the balance that we have struck with this legislation.

I want to read a quote here, just changing direction a bit. It is a quote from the Canadian Anti-Counterfeiting Network. Caroline Czajko, the chair of the CACN, said:

We're pleased that the government is committed to getting tough on IP crimes. Piracy is a massive problem in Canada which has a tangible economic impact on government revenue, legitimate retailers, rights holders and consumers. It's extremely difficult for legitimate retailers to compete with those who abandon all ethics as they steal and rip.

I would like the hon. member's comments on that quote.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Writers Guild of Canada talked about digital locks as being neither forward looking nor in the best interests of consumers and creators. Digital locks, at their best, will simply freeze current revenue streams for creators.

The balance has not been struck in this legislation. I went through testimony after testimony to counter the one example that the government was using, which was the person who wanted to deregulate our banks, and we are still not seeing that balance.

We want to stop the theft that is happening. We, on this side of the House, are willing to work toward achieving that. We tried to do that in the past. The bill is significantly different. This is the third incarnation of this particular strategy. The government was not right before and it is not right this time either. We are willing to find a solution.

I look forward to hearing the testimony at committee and moving forward on this. I look forward to working with that member on the very important e-commerce work we are doing on the House of Commons industry committee. Canadian consumers are being treated unfairly compared to consumers in the United States.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate all in the House who have spoken to the bill so far. It has been quite informative. This is a very large, deep, complex bill. It has been bandied about now for the last 12 years, and as my hon. colleague pointed out, the number of emails and amount of input we are receiving on the bill have been quite substantial. In a 12-hour period I have received 2,200 emails regarding this issue. A lot of these emails were addressed to the ministers involved, the ministers of both heritage and industry, and copied to me as the heritage critic, but it certainly gives an idea of just how large this issue is. The implications are going to be felt for quite some time. I want to thank everyone who wrote to our party or to me personally about this matter and about the provisions in the bill.

I will not go back to the historical context, which goes back to Gutenberg, but I certainly would like to talk about the recent additions of this debate and how we have handled it going back to the WIPO treaties, which I will talk about in a little while.

The WIPO treaties were around 1996. As signatories to them, we have to come up with the right legislation to strike the balance that everyone keeps talking about. It is up to us in the opposition to make sure that balance is struck and to raise the bar in debate to make sure that the balance is there.

A lot of the debate is centred around digital locks. The supremacy of digital locks, as my hon. colleague from Timmins—James Bay mentioned earlier, has become a very contentious issue. I will also talk about the creation of works and the protection of the rights of artists, which we feel are of prime importance. As the heritage critic, I spoke to many artists about this issue and about how they want their works to be protected.

As we have all mentioned, in the case of copyright the balance we are seeking is a very thin line between infringement and the right to use a piece of copyrighted material for personal reasons only, and not for other reasons, either commercial or non-commercial. That is why we are here: to seek that balance and to raise the bar.

I would like to give some background now. I would also like to thank the Library of Parliament for providing us with information about what was Bill C-32 and now is Bill C-11. What I will read pertains to Bill C-32, but as the government pointed out, it returned the same bill to the House as it was before, and nothing has been changed.

Copyright is a legal term describing rights given to creators for their literary and artistic works. Copyright attaches to an original work that is fixed in some material form. In other words, copyright protects the expression of an idea or intellectual creation, but it does not protect the idea itself. That is the balance that we need to achieve. It is that one person's perception of a certain idea, and the thought and work that go into that, must be protected. We know that for the vast majority of artists or authors, the remuneration for their work is not always quite up to what it would be in other industries.

The Copyright Act that we speak of and that we hope to change sets out the right to authorize or prohibit certain uses of a work and to receive compensation for its use. There are certain general themes that we have to go through, much of which is to achieve the balance between the right of creators to use their own material for the sake of a profit or to put forth an idea, and the right of others to use this idea and to further their own.

There are two types of rights. Artists who consider themselves to be creators have the economic right to derive financial reward and to make a living at what they do, and of course there is the moral right to protect the integrity of their original work.

That, too, we need to look at when we talk about ephemeral rights, digital locks or TPMs, international agreements and how we are going to do this, because there is another factor we have to consider: although we would consider this to be domestic legislation, it is really an international concept. This is why we create legislation around the treaties that we sign. It is one thing for an artist to have material and to use it for the sake of profit, but it is not only used domestically: it can be used outside our borders. As a result, we have to seek out ways to protect artists and the ways in which they want to make a living.

In the Copyright Act, part I, literary works are described as books, pamphlets, poems, dramatic works, film, videos, DVDs, plays, screenplays and scripts. Musical works are compositions that consist of both words and music or music only. Artists' work includes paintings, drawings, maps, photographs, sculptures and architectural works.

Part II of the Copyright Act contains provisions for what we call “neighbouring rights”, consisting of copyright protection for three categories of work that fall under “other subject-matter”. They include performers' performances, such as actors, musicians, dancers and singers who have copyrights in their performances; sound recordings, meaning copyright for makers of recordings such as records, cassettes and compact discs of the old days, and what is available on MP3 or clouds, which I believe is now being talked about as also protected by copyright; and communication signals. Broadcasters have copyrights in their broadcasting communication signals as well.

We get to the gist of what the Copyright Act was set up to do in the beginning, the genesis of which goes back hundreds of years, and that is to protect the integrity of works for economic reasons and to provide the original artists with a moral right to hang on to their pieces of work. Reproduction can take place in various forms, such as printed publications or sound recordings, and therein lies the protection purpose: the distribution of copies of a work through its public performance, its broadcasting or other communication to the public; its translation into other languages; and its adaptation, such as turning a novel into a screenplay. These are examples of what we hope to provide protection for.

At the same time, we need to look at other things that would be contained under part III of the Copyright Act. That is where we get into the concept known as fair dealing.

The United States of America normally calls it “fair usage”. In Canada and in the international context we use it primarily as “fair dealing”.

Here is what we consider: non-profit education users are considered in this bill, as well as non-profit libraries, museums, archives and those with perceptual disabilities, parody, and satire. All of these categories fall under fair dealing, which is the use of copyrighted material to further education of the masses, let us say through museums and archives, and of course its use for those with disabilities.

Earlier we talked about the situation in which long-distance education could be at risk. There are passages that could deeply affect people involved in long-distance education. It is something that we in the Liberal Party are very concerned about.

In the past, there have been deep discussions about rulings in the Supreme Court, in particular CCH Canadian Limited v. Law Society of Upper Canada. It was a judgment that looked at fair dealing in the context that it should be dealt with, which is to say the fair use of copyrighted material for the sake of the general public. What derived from that was the six-step process. The six-step process talked about six different measures that include having to look at the particular cases through a useful analytical framework to govern determinations of fairness in future cases. These measures include, number one, the purpose of the dealing or the purpose of doing this; number two, the character of the dealing; number three, the amount of the dealing; number four, alternatives to the dealing; number five, the nature of the particular work; and number six, the effect of the dealing on how the work would be dealt with in the marketplace.

There is another international concept that talks about copyright. It is in what is called the Berne Convention. That is a three-step process that is very important, because this three-step process from the Berne Convention is used in many international contexts.

Personally, I think it is a pretty good place to be, because it gives the public, legislators and the courts a measure by which they can look at what is perceived to be fair dealing. It is being used in many contexts. One context was in Canada, although it was expanded upon into the six-step process.

Essentially, the Berne Convention looks at those three measures. Those three measures talk about restricting them to personal cases, that they do not conflict with the normal expectation of the work, and that they do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author.

Therefore, one of the situations that we should consider in doing this is that whether it is a three-step or six-step process, it will be a multi-step process by which the courts can adequately judge what is considered to be fair dealing in situations like the education exemption.

We can have a deep discussion in committee about how to deal with the broad exemptions brought forward, such as the non-profit education sector. I have received hundreds, if not thousands, of emails about this particular exemption. The Canadian Federation of Students believes that the exemption works, because it allows students to further their education as long as it is respectful to the particular author. However, we have received many emails and letters and have had verbal discussions and presentations from authors--people who make a living from writing textbooks, for example--who feel that this particular bill is not the balance that would help them in any way, shape or form.

That is why I believe that if we start talking about the exemptions, we should also talk about a responsible way to handle them. A multi-step process is a good way to consider. Many jurisdictions around the world that considered them to be broad have narrowed down these exemptions, because they have seen how this works. It is something we should discuss in committee, and I will get to that a bit later as well.

Part IV talks about civil and criminal remedies, awards for damages and loss of profits, injunctions and fines.

We have talked about statutory damages. In many cases some people feel they are too stringent, while others feel they are too light. There is a distinction between commercial usage and non-commercial usage or infringement. Commercial infringement requires a larger penalty because of the damage it may cause in the marketplace and how it may skew certain markets by what it does. Non-commercial infringement should be considered as well, and not so much at a higher dollar value, as with fines and remedies or even jail terms.

One of the issues that came to light back in 2005 or 2006 was that the big multinational recording companies were taking kids to court for infringing on their material. I remember making a statement at the time in committee that my 10-year-old had just downloaded a song from a website. It was file sharing. He did not know he was breaking the law. I did not know he was breaking the law at the time. Perhaps I am a technological laggard, but nonetheless it was basically the same as my son walking into HMV, grabbing a CD off the rack, putting it in his pocket and leaving. What is the difference? It is stealing music. It is stealing someone's material, and it should not be allowed.

In order to do this, we have to adapt to the new technologies that we have and the technology that we use to entertain, to create music, to receive that music and enjoy it. If I purchase a piece of music, I listen to it either on a CD, an MP3 player or my Blackberry. The discussion then becomes one on how a particular artist receives compensation for the work that he or she has done.

That is the discussion that was brought forward in the House in the last session regarding the levy. The opposition called it the iPod tax, which is incredibly disingenuous and an absolute insult to people who are making a living from music.

The funny thing was that a week prior to calling it the iPod tax, the government slapped a security fee on people who were checking in at airports. I could have easily called it a traveller's tax. The security fee is okay, but the iPod tax is something entirely different.

The hon. member for Peterborough talked about how it did not matter whether it was a fee or a levy, that a tax was a tax. However, time and time again we are seeing fees such as EI premiums going up in January. The terminology is never a “tax”. It is only a tax when the government deems it to be a tax.

Unfortunately, some of the debate gets off the rails and it become disingenuous. If we are going to committee with this, we should deeply consider a decent, mature, responsible debate about what is at the heart of this debate, which is to allow people to receive compensation for their work. We all know now that people are achieving music in different ways.

It used to be considered a levy when a charge was put on an actual CD. If people bought blank CDs or cassettes, they could record from the radio or other devices to get music for free. They still had to buy the blank CD or cassette, therefore the levy was applied to that. It was a way of remuneration for artists whose music was stolen by many people, some people who were unaware of it.

That is the type of debate we need to have in the House. I would implore the government, as well as the opposition, to have this debate in the House right now. Unfortunately what has happened is we have heard all this testimony, well over 140 witnesses and over 160 submissions, yet no changes have been made to the legislation.

The government says that it is sincere about going ahead, but going ahead with what? There is no indication whatsoever that any changes will be made other than to the “technical stuff”, which is really a technicality in and of itself.

If the government wants to continue this any further, we should consider a deep discussion about this and serious amendments, which is why I support the amendment put forward by my colleague, the member for Halifax West. It talks about a way of handling the legislation before it gets too focused and too confined. I have problems with the digital locks and the education exemption, which need to be looked at. I hope we can have that discussion.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague. I have listened to him for seven years during the time we have been on committee together. I think I know him like he is a relative, whether that is good or bad I am not sure.

The member has laid out many of the problems that have been identified with this bill, particularly in terms of the long distance education provisions and the ridiculous position of the government that nobody should have a right to their class notes after 30 days, that someone should come in, take them away and burn them to protect some kind of business model. I have never heard any witness defend such a bizarre notion.

The member talked about amending language and going to committee. He talked about a serious amendment, but the amendment I heard is that we do not go ahead with the bill. I am surprised by the Liberal position on this.

There are problems with the bill, but we need to get a copyright bill to the House, to committee so we can deal with the serious problems and the need for amendments as raised by the member. This is crucial.

What is the point of talking about having a serious discussion about the bill if the only amendment his party is bringing forward is to kill this before we even get a chance to get to the amendment phase?

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague and I appreciate the comments. However, one of the things that has to be realized, in looking at the legislation and the amendments that were put forward before, is that no changes have been made.

A lot of the changes that we and other members proposed would not be accepted by the government and would not be accepted by the chair in the committee stage. The amendment we have proposed is to take this back and look at once again, given all the submissions that have gone to committee. Let us look at that. We cannot look at that once we are handcuffed into a position, after second reading, by accepting it in principle.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I have a pretty straightforward question and it probably is just a yes or no answer.

On April 14, 2010, we had a vote in the House of Commons. The vote was in concurrence with the motion from the heritage committee. I will read the motion, which says:

That the Committee recommends that the government amend Part VIII of the Copyright Act so that the definition of “audio recording medium” extends to devices with internal memory, so that the levy on copying music will apply to digital music recorders as well...

That would result in a tax on iPods. Every Conservative member in the House voted no to that and every opposition member, including that member, voted yes.

If that vote was held again today would the member vote the same way, yes or no?

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

Mr. Speaker, what I find so funny about all of this is that he forgets one very important point. The reason why it came to the House was because the Conservative chair of the committee decided it was the right thing to do. As an illustration, for the sake of history, I can say what happened. The member voted to put it into the House. He voted yes to support it. Not only that, he wrote a letter to the minister saying that he supported it. Then when he got in the House, he was told to vote against it. Now he is no longer the chair, which is too bad, because he was—

[An hon. member]

Answer the question, yes or no.

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

Yes.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that the title of this bill mentions copyright, which is defined as the rights granted to a creator, I do not think that this bill is good for creators. A creator can be a musician, a singer, an actor or a performer. Creators are not service providers, retailers or industry representatives.

Can the hon. member tell the House whether this bill hurts the interests of creators?

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe she is talking about the education exemption. As I mentioned in my speech, it is one of the things that we had. There was a lot of input to us about how the education exemption was causing a lot of concern for many of the authors. We listened to them and we realized that there was an argument back and forth as to how much money was involved, whether it was crippling to the university community or crippling to the authors in order to make a living.

This is why I talked about this multi-step process. Some people believe that the six step process is not sufficient. Some people believe that they should use the three step process, which was endorsed under the Berne convention as a way of dealing with it. It set out some really strict guidelines as to how we would deal with fair dealing and what would be considered to be fair dealing. If we have exemptions for a certain group of people, we should subject it to fair dealing. To do that, we have to put in guidelines by which some of the courts can be led through.

We did receive quite a few concerns about this from authors and the artistic community. I hope that discussion continues in the House.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member was talking about the education provisions of the act. There are six criteria that must be followed. First, before it even gets to that point, there is a two step process. That is the second step. The first step is to determine whether it is fair dealing in the first place. If the hon. member takes the time to study the legislation, as I know he will, and I look forward to serving on the committee with him, he will see that those criteria are sufficient to enable this important exception to go forward. We heard from witness after witness during the testimony who were in favour of moving forward with this part of the legislation.

While I have the opportunity, his party has moved that we withdraw the legislation completely. That is not what we heard from the witnesses. John Manley, a former prominent Liberal member, has spoken to the urgency of getting the legislation passed as quickly as possible.

How can the hon. member possibly justify, as the member for Timmins—James Bay asked, wiping out the legislation altogether after 12 years of work? The hon. member spoke about the 12 years of “bandying about” to get to this point. How in the world could he justify just wiping out the legislation and starting again?

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

Because the government did nothing about it, Mr. Speaker. I said in my press conference this morning, and forgive me if I am infringing on copyright here, that there were 167 submission, that the number of changes was zero and that the political lip service was priceless.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure about the answer to the last question. We could sit here and exchange quotes from some individuals who have said positive things about the legislation and members opposite can bring up negative things. We heard 39 hours of testimony before the committee and we had countless consultations prior to the legislation being put forward in the first place.

If we looked comprehensively at all the testimony we heard before our committee, we would note that a balance was struck. Not everybody liked everything they saw. Not everybody did not like everything they saw. However, we heard over and over again that, on balance, it was the best legislation that had come forward.

Even some of the people the opposition quoted very selectively, criticizing certain aspects of the legislation, spoke very favourably of the balance struck and to the importance of getting the legislation passed.

We heard 39 hours of committee testimony and we had all the consultation. We have moved forward with the same bill because we want to continue that discussion around the same legislation. How many more hours do we need before the hon. member will be happy?

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

Mr. Speaker, when it actually works and starts to sink in. I do not know why, but for some reason the government assumes to paint this picture that everybody loves this and thinks it is balanced. I received 2,200 emails in 12 hours. If it were that balanced, I would not get any. What would be the point?

I look at elements of this, like WikiLeaks, which put out something that said the former minister told Americans that he would show this to them before he even tabled it. Who actually has the input here?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to speak to Bill C-11, because I have a special interest in it. I spent nearly 20 years in the recording industry, which has seen some hard times. In our opinion, there can be no objection to reviewing the Copyright Act. Obviously, today, in 2011, we are lagging behind at the international level in terms of modernizing the law. It is high time it was done. The other major western countries have done it and it is our turn. It is really past time.

We deplore the fact that the bill is a little like Swiss cheese: there are a lot of bubbles, a lot of holes, in terms of protecting rights holders and creators. We are talking about this bill in theoretical terms but, in concrete terms, as my colleague was saying, the way we consume cultural products today is different. Before, we bought a record for $15 or $20, we took it home and we listened to it. While the recording industry has kept up its production rate and budgets have declined slightly—since with technological progress we can now record music more cheaply—it is still a cultural industry. Investors, industrialists and consultants who support a creator invest large amounts of money to make a product that will sell.

We are not talking about a minstrel strumming a lute on the church steps. These are people who have created songs, and other people who saw a business opportunity there and said that everyone is going to want that song or that album and will be prepared to pay a price to buy it and listen to it. What the recording industry has experienced is unparalleled in terms of plummeting revenues.

I will give you a brief overview. The complete operation of producing an album, which includes recording, promotion, video clips, launches and so on, calls for a budget of about $100,000. That is a very ordinary budget in an ordinary recording industry. We are not talking about a huge operation like a Michael Jackson album made before his death, that might have cost $1.5 million to produce. We are talking about an album that would have cost $20,000 or $30,000 or $40,000 and all the associated expenses.

To recover that investment, the companies, the recording industry—and that means jobs for people who work in this field, as I was lucky enough to do—would sell the record for between $15 and $20. Today, with modernization, the Internet, digitization of music and the incredible capacity to create master quality copies, this is no longer the same generation as when we were young. Then, we copied music onto cassettes and there was often more background noise than music. That is no longer the case today, and that is the issue.

If a digital version of a song exists, thousands of copies can be made in a few hours and the rights holder will have been deprived of his due. When people today buy music on the Internet, they sometimes buy the complete album but usually they buy the CD in a store. Those who buy their CDs and their music on the Internet very often take a piecemeal approach, by downloading one, two or three songs at a time. The retail price is $1 or $1.49. That means that the recording industry, as it attempts to recoup its production and marketing costs of approximately $100,000, did so based on a price of $15 to $20 per CD. Nowadays it has to make do with $2 or $3.

I sincerely believe that no other industry has experienced such a drop in revenue in such a short time. We are talking about huge percentages, from $15 or $20 to $3. This is unprecedented. The industry is already on its knees. We must enact legislation now on behalf of the rights holders, so that the situation can be corrected.

Copyright is essential. Allow me to quote the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages who, referring to Canada, stated that the cultural sector contributes twice as much as the forestry industry to our GDP.

The arts and culture sector generates spinoffs of over $46 billion and provides work for over 600,000 people. This is an industry, a sector of the economy, that is extremely important.

There are problems with Bill C-11 in relation to YouTube, the education system and other related areas. The biggest problem, however, has to do with the collective copyright collection system, commonly called private copying.

Earlier, I gave an overview of how we used to consume music. We all know that a decade or so ago, the CD-R hit the marketplace. Using an ordinary home computer, it was possible to copy a disc—ideally, one that had been purchased—and immediately make a copy of it that would be identical from a quality standpoint, with only the graphics missing. This craze led to creators, the rights holders, feeling like they were missing out, and they successfully went about putting in place a compensation system. Compensation is the right word here. The private copying system is a form of compensation for losses incurred as a result of the development of a new technology.

This system, which initially applied to audio cassettes, CD-Rs and DVD-Rs, generated significant amounts of money. In 2008, for instance, the figure was $27.6 million. The following year, the amount raised through this private copying compensation system dropped to $10.8 million and it continues to decline. Why? Certainly there are those among you who have purchased CD-Rs at one time or another, and very few people buy them these days. As far as music consumption is concerned—I am talking about legal consumption in a suitable format—people now copy their music onto a portable digital player, an iPod or an MP3. The format the royalty was based on, in other words the CD-R, has become completely obsolete by the current changes.

That is why the copyright owner lobbies have asked that this private copying compensation system be extended to include portable digital players or iPods. As the hon. member was saying earlier, the members opposite reacted by wearing t-shirts that said No iPod tax. This is great. It is a very good response to the creators who were feeling forgotten, cheated and abandoned.

What can we offer those creators today when Bill C-11 does not address the problem of the private copying system? This is certainly the most important aspect of all. We could talk about exemptions for the likes of YouTube, which is increasingly becoming a competitive alternative to the way music has traditionally been distributed. I keep talking about music because it is an area I am familiar with and also because music was the first victim of this digitization and this new accessibility. In a few years we will have the technology to download feature films very quickly. Some may say that is already possible, but it is still not very common.

The thing about music is that the video for the song being copied takes much longer to download. The problem that music is currently experiencing will very quickly spread to the other cultural media we find on the Internet.

I will stop there for now.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher will have 10 minutes to finish his speech and 10 minutes for questions and comments when the House resumes debate on the motion.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Speaker of the House of Commons]

The hon. member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher has 10 minutes to finish his speech.

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

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, it is clear that this bill is really like an 18-wheeler that arrives at the homes of songwriters and copyright owners only for them to find that it is empty. In reality, there is nothing to compensate for losses related to the private copying system.

We will remember how it happened and it is not just theoretical; it is very real. In the past, music was purchased in a different way. Today, we have music on our computers, our BlackBerrys and our iPods, and it should have been purchased. There is no problem at all if it was purchased through businesses such as iTunes, Amazon or Archambault.ca. However, we know very well that such is not always the case and that the recording industry is suffering great financial losses because material is available online, despite the fact that it may be coming from places where it is illegal to download material.

This shortcoming shows how completely out of touch this government—a government that claims to want to protect Canadians' jobs and recognize this value—really is. In reality, where will copyright owners' money come from if they cannot sell their material or if it is being stolen or literally plundered from the Internet? Clearly, this bill cannot be passed as is. We will have to work very hard to add something, particularly with regard to the private copying system.

I fully understand rights holders when they say that it does not make sense, that with the right to copy that the telecommunications and broadcasting media are being offered, that the steak, if you will, is being taken off the rights holders' plates, and that the potatoes and carrots may vanish as well. Let us look at the basics: when songwriters, CD companies, producers, and rights holders produce music, they expect to have it aired by broadcasters. To do this, the broadcaster makes an initial copy and inserts it into the broadcasting system. Everyone is glad the broadcaster is giving the song airtime, but nevertheless a mechanical reproduction right has until now been enshrined as part of the copyright. Now songwriters and rights holders are being told that the broadcasters will not be bound by this obligation. They will be permitted to make their working copy without fear of retribution. This is not the major issue affecting rights holders when it comes to Bill C-11, but it is just one more consideration. It adds insult to injury.

To my mind, the major problem remains the private copying system, which applies almost entirely to outdated platforms. The private copying system provides a form of royalty earned from each CD-R. But we all know that consumption of CD-Rs has fallen to infinitesimally low levels, because portable digital players such as iPods, MP3 players and other such devices have completely replaced the equipment and song transfer system used with CD-Rs.

The levy system is dying, and Bill C-11 is turning a blind eye. Nevertheless, this problem must be addressed. It is the biggest problem currently facing the rights-holder community. Not only is the initial mechanical reproduction right being taken away in broadcasting, copies may be made free of charge in educational and learning environments. One can understand how rights holders might be sympathetic to this situation, but royalties should still be paid all the same, although they could potentially be waived in writing. Rights holders may receive a request from a teacher and make exemptions in writing, or exempt someone from paying a fee in a particular context. Once again, the bill would stand in the way of this and seeks to abolish private copying, abolish the broadcasters' copy, and also remove the tiny amount of money that would otherwise have come from the education sector. What are artists and rights holders left with when it comes to copyright? This really must be addressed.

One possible solution could be to look at who benefits from this situation. As members know, when we look for music on the Internet, there is a place to buy music. But some people might also look for music elsewhere. That increases information trafficking on the Internet.

There are people selling high-speed connections with varying upload and download bandwidth limits. Could the government at least show an interest in exploring other avenues to compensate for this loss to the private copying regime? That is the essence of it. In the case of transfers over the Internet, that would be the least we could do for all of the subscribers we represent. The Internet has replaced traditional in-store CD sales. If we cannot apply the private copying system to devices like MP3 players or iPods, what is left for copyright owners? These people are left out in the cold with a new bill that should be providing some relief, since our copyright legislation is way behind—stuck in the times of Séraphin Poudrier—compared to the rest of the world. It is time for us to revamp copyright legislation. And with copyright collectives in particular, we have a long way to go.

In conclusion, I would like to make sure that we have a chance to look at other avenues to compensate for losing the private copying system.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his comments. He talked about compensation for piracy. What type of compensation was he thinking of and what form could it take?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question, and fitting, since I have talked both before and after question period. We are essentially talking about compensation methods because it is very difficult to track every little transaction made by a user at home who sits in front of a computer searching for a song, ideally on a legal site. Unfortunately, we all know that people are more likely to search for music on illegal peer-to-peer sharing sites. It has been mentioned many times that most artists do not want to be in a position where they have to sue the people who like their music. It is also very difficult to track all this with any accuracy.

That is why the principle of compensation was proposed. At the time, the compensation was easy to apply. It was applied to blank recording media, to which a work could be copied. Today, copies are made on portable digital players. When people tried to extend the private copying compensation system from blank CDs to the portable digital player, they wore t-shirts that read, “No iPod Tax”. They refused to add another tax. This compensation measure will have to be applied. The reality is that we have gone from copying on a CD-R to a portable player with virtual songs that, theoretically, do not exist anywhere, and to which we cannot apply royalties. Who would get the royalties when we are not always able to get an accurate record of these millions of transactions per year that can be made on the Internet?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no doubt that, with all the advances we have seen in technology in my lifetime, there is a need for us to address the copyright rules we have.

I have come a long way from my beginnings as a student and then my teaching career. Now we are seeing the kind of technological change that absolutely amazes all of us. When I was home for the break last week, over Thanksgiving dinner my grandson, who is in grade seven, showed me a YouTube video of himself playing in a rock band that is making the rounds and getting loads of hits. There we can see the creativity of 11-year-olds as they get into using this new media in a way that we cannot.

However, we can also see, as we are beginning to see the new creative ways of using the new technologies, as well as the old ones, like good old printed books, that there is a need for us to look at copyright in a very balanced way, in a way that we protect the rights of the creators, as well as those who then purchase the content and become the sellers, so to speak, and control that. If we move toward an unbalanced approach where the content owners actually have more power than those who are the creative agents behind that content, I feel we will see a loss in creativity and, in the long run, a loss in revenues for us.

Just to review for those of us who are here and those listening, ACTRA, the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists, estimates that the industry contributes $85 billion per year to our economy. These industries and the jobs that depend on them can only thrive in an environment where intellectual property is protected. That is the dilemma for us as we look at the new technologies where somebody can create a piece, hit a button and, before we know it, it goes around the world.

The ACTRA industry and all it supports is 1.1 million jobs. We are not talking about a few jobs here. We are talking about 1.1 million jobs and a lot of these jobs happen because we have creators who produce wonderful ideas and content that other people then pick up on and produce. So we need to ensure that those artists and their right to earn a living is protected.

Despite these significant contributions made by the artists to our economy, some would be surprised to know that the average earning of an artist in Canada is $12,900 a year. When I read that figure and had that research presented to me, I was taken aback because, if that is what they are earning now, it is my belief that, with the changes that are being made to the Copyright Act, those earnings will diminish and many of these artists will be forced to look somewhere else and their creativity and all the wealth it introduces will be lost to us.

In 2008, the Conference Board of Canada reported that in 2007 the cultural sector generated $25 billion in taxes for all levels of government. That is three times higher than the $7.9 billion that were spent on culture by all levels of government. When we look at our level of returns there, it is absolutely stunning.

When we look at the federal government's investments in art and culture, we see that it invested $3.7 billion in 2007-08 and yet typical households in that same timeframe spent $1.4 billion on cultural outreach and participating in the performing arts.

That tells us that the bill the government has introduced must be paid due diligence. We need to examine that bill and make amendments to ensure we have balance not only for the creators who inspire the content owners eventually to make the kind of profits they do, and the content owners eventually, but also for consumers.

We can see that we have a lot of work to do. The bill is very similar to the one that was in the House previously. The NDP indicated then, and our position is the same today, that we do believe modernization is long overdue but that the bill has too many glaring problems. As a matter of fact, it seems to create problems where none exist right now. Therefore, we look forward to and will be making amendments that will examine some of these issues.

When we consider the legislation that is before us, we notice that it seems to be driven less by the needs of Canadians, the artists, the content owners and Canadian consumers, and it seems to be more an attempt at satisfying the demands of the large content owners in the U.S.

What we need to know is when Canadians will have copyright legislation that works for Canadians, whether they be the creators, the content owners or the consumers. We cannot, over and over again, pass legislation here that will actually damage our own industry to the benefit of those in the U.S. who would benefit from these kinds of changes.

The NDP is not the only one making these statements. Michael Geist, a renowned technology commentator, put it very succinctly when he wrote:

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.

When we actually listen to that and really understand what that means, all the rights the legislation would give in relaxation in some of the areas for educators, et cetera, and for satire, are then trumped as soon as this digital lock device is used. Therefore, in the long run, it would effectively take away the rights that the bill pretends to give in one part and then, through this lock, actually takes them all away.

There was also a comment made by the cultural industries. They say that the bill may be toxic to Canada's digital economy. During this very sensitive time, when the world economies seem to be teeter-tottering and we, in Canada, know we will suffer some of the echo effect of that, Canadians cannot afford to add toxicity to any one of our industries. That is a very strong signal being sent to us as the cultural group claims that the bill fails to ensure fair compensation for Canadian content.

That creates a great deal of concern for us, as Canadians. We value our Canadian culture, we value our Canadian artists and we celebrate when Canadians do well on the international stage. We have two Canadian book writers who are in London waiting to hear if they will get prestigious awards.

We celebrate when a Canadian makes it in the film industry. We celebrate when some of our theatre makes it out onto the world stage because we are proud to be Canadian. It is imperative for our children and our grandchildren that we safeguard and nurture Canadian content. Therefore, any message that we receive and any warning that we are creating an environment of toxicity for Canadian creativity should give every one of us in the House grave concern because, after all, we are members of Parliament for Canada and we value our Canadian heritage and our Canadian art, both domestically and internationally.

The Writers Guild of Canada also writes that it has a great deal of concern that the digital locks, at their best, will simply freeze current revenue streams for creators. What happens when we freeze revenue streams for creators? The creativity actually withers away because they then have to look for jobs that will put bread and butter on their tables. I urge the House to look at the bill and for the government to look at amendments that will not starve our artists away from their passion.

CIPPIC, also on the digital locks, says that wherever this has been tried it has proven to be a problem. It is urging the government to look for a fair balance between users, copyright owners and the needs of the creators.

Overall, there is not one group out there, except maybe some U.S. groups, that are saying that the system we have of the locks is good. I find that interesting in itself because usually when we put a lock on something we are closing the door. This actually does create a great deal of concern.

Geist also writes that this bill remains basically unchanged from a previous iteration of it and that it is the most inflexible, restrictive digital lock provision in the world. Why would we want to go down this road to kind of stranglehold the creativity among the artists across Canada?

It then leads one to beg the question as to why we are doing this. What is it that is driving us to do this? Once again, we know there has been a lot of pressure from the U.S. in a number of ways. We have Canadian organizations speaking against this but the government is sticking to this digital lock rule. Why? The answer, according to Geist, and I am beginning to agree with him, is that it seems to be that the digital lock rules are primarily about satisfying U.S. pressure, not Canadian public opinion. The U.S. pressure on Canada is not a secret, with the criticism of past bills and regular demands for action on copyright in return for progress on other board and trade issues. Surely we are not going to trade off our own creativity, our own heritage, in order to maybe have some talks on trade. Surely those talks should be had by two equal partners at a table looking for ways to improve trade and provisions.

When I look at some of the internal memos that have been brought to light, we see that Prime Minister Harper personally promised--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Sorry.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. I know the hon. member for Delta--Richmond East will want to refrain from using names. She has already apologized so we will carry on.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

I do apologize to my colleagues in the House, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes claiming newness does work, but I do apologize for that.

Our own Prime Minister personally promised U.S. President Bush in 2008 that Canada would pass copyright reforms. Former industry ministers raised the possibility of leaking an advance copy of the copyright bill to the U.S. Former industry ministers gave advice and encouraged the U.S. to pressure Canada by elevating us on its privacy watch list. Former heritage ministers caved to U.S. pressure by enacting an anti-camcorder bill despite departmental analysis that no changes to the law were needed. An official of the Privy Council Office leaked the contents of the mandate letters for the then prime minister's aide. Canada participated in a WTO complaint on copyright against China at the request of the U.S. despite the inability to amass credible evidence of harm against any Canadian interests.

After years of false starts, it is clear that the copyright bill will pass. The government has a majority. However, I appeal to the government and to the House to look at this and make it so that it appeals more to what Canadians need, what our Canadian creative talent needs, as well as our Canadian consumers.

As a teacher, I was pleased to see parts of the bill. I was pleased to see there was a bit of relaxation for educators. On the other hand, I wish there had been a bit more. I was then disturbed when I read that the material that students access will get destroyed within 30 days. When they finish a course they must shred whatever they have.

That made me think about what my history has been like. I know some members will be really wondering what planet I live on, but I do still have my high school notebooks and, believe it or not, I have actually used them when I was covering world history. We do not need to reinvent everything. In the same way, I still have many of the papers I wrote, including some of the research I did from my university days. I do not have boxes of contents. It is all in one box neatly tucked away. However, those are the gems I have treasured over the years and, as a teacher, I have held on to those.

Here we are asking students to destroy things at the end of the course. However, a student who may want to retake the course in order to improve his or her marks, because GPAs drive everything these days, will have no documentation because it will have been destroyed. After 30 days apparently there will be a self-destruct motion, which I find absolutely fascinating.

We are a multicultural society and, as a multicultural society, we get bombarded with all kinds of media. I have am 84-year-old mother who is very fond of Bollywood productions. She purchases and watches those Bollywood productions. As I am looking this, I am thinking about the kind of restrictions this legislation would put on her as she tries to hang on to some kind of heritage and really enjoys watching a Bollywood movie when she cannot go for a walk. I hope there is nothing in the bill that would restrict my mother's ability to watch a movie more than once and then even play it when we visit her just so that she feels we are watching television some of the time, or at least what she watches. My mother is not the only person who could be impacted. Many communities will be impacted.

As I said earlier, there is an absolute need for us to modernize our copyright laws. They are outdated. They do not suit or address the serious concerns we have now or the advances we have made in technology.

In doing that, let us also ensure that we do not forget the rights of the creative talent that will seed a lot of those ventures that we are trying to copyright. As well, at a minimum, we need to address the lock and how that in itself affects not only revenue but could kill creative talent.

In a world that is so digital that once something is sent out by accident, one cannot recall it because it is all over the world, we have to be very careful as we move into this area of copyright.

I hope that members of government will take a serious look at the concerns raised and address some of those concerns through amendment.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to hon. member speak and I believe her heart is in the right place, but some of the facts are missing in her argument.

When the bill was at committee in the previous Parliament, we heard from numerous groups that came forward: folks like Perrin Beatty from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and John Manley from the Canadian Council of Chief Executives. We also heard from the entertainment software industry, of which Canada is one of the leaders globally in entertainment software, gaming software and so forth. We heard from the Canadian film industry and MusicCanada. Graham Henderson was here with Loreena McKennitt.

They did not get to give all of their testimony because we were cut short by a vote that was forced by the opposition members on that day. They would not extend the time to allow the witnesses at committee to speak their minds. However, they all spoke passionately in favour of the bill. One of the reasons is because the bill targets the wealth destroyers in this country.

Canada is a bit of a pariah. It may not be comfortable for some folks to hear that, but we have to pass the bill because we have wealth destroyers operating in this country like Pirate Bay and isoHunt. They want to take what is created by the artists in this country and give it away for free.

The bill would force that product back into the market. It would force people who want to consume a product to purchase it. Then the person who created it would get paid for it. What is so wrong with that?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, none of us have too much of a problem in going after people who do illegal things and break the law. Absolutely, there should be punitive measures.

However, when we are looking at changing a copyright law to address the new world we live in with the new technologies, surely it behooves us to look at the impact of the bill, and not just on the software companies and the content owners who do make huge profits. Surely, at the same time, we have to look at protecting the rights of the creative talent without whom these software companies would not be able to make that kind of profit or be the wealth makers.

We are not saying that we should not make changes or modernize. We are saying that we should take a look at the impact of the lock system being proposed, and how it would limit and destroy creativity and force people out from working in this area.

I have to admit that I am delighted that my grandchildren love the piano and music. They see futures and a career, not at the selling end but at the creative end. I would hate to see us do anything to limit that. I see some problems with the bill.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this debate reminds me of something that my brother told me. He is a musician and music teacher. He told me that the training and education of musicians today, because of modern technology and the Internet, is radically different from what it was when he and I were growing up. The reason is that musicians are listening to a vastly greater amount of music and a much more varied collection of music than we did when we were growing up and learning to become musicians.

My question to the hon. member is in regard to the exemption for education. Does she think that the definition of education needs to be made more precise or elaborated on more in the bill than it is at present?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I always think that the definition of education needs to be broadened because I believe everything we do in our life, in one way or another, is an education.

I do agree that when we are looking at the kind of education that young musicians and artists are going through today, it is in a very different world. Because it is happening in this new environment, we need to relax the rules a little bit, so that they can benefit from other artists' work and learn from it.

At the same time, as we are doing that, when we look at this bill, it actually further restricts the education definition.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the hon. member's speech, and she touched on a number of important points. The Conservative member said that authors need to be protected through punitive measures. I am wondering if the hon. member shares my belief that it would be much better to pay a levy on the new technology we are using. I am not talking about a tax, but a levy that would be paid at the time of purchase. This money would go to the creators.

When a composer writes a song that is then stolen by thousands of people, he gets no revenue, so he has no way of suing the thieves, the people who are stealing his work. That is the problem. It is easy to say that artists can just sue someone who steals their work, but they do not have the means to do that.

The easiest way to avoid the problem of massive legal costs would be to just collect a levy when someone buys a device that can record 1,000 or 2,000 songs. That would bring an element of fairness, as was the case with blank cassettes when everyone was recording songs on them. There was a levy of 50¢ or 60¢. Or it may have been 28¢; I do not remember the exact amount. This money was given to the creators. We could do the same thing with new electronic devices.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely believe that we need to find a way to ensure that artists receive fair compensation. How that can be achieved is a much bigger discussion than we can have here today.

With the system that is currently proposed, we actually have a real danger that consumers will be able to purchase content that they will not be able to use later on. So even if consumers buy something, there is no guarantee that they can continue using it for the purpose it was purchased.

Also, because the digital lock actually supersedes other rights guaranteed in the charter, an area that I actually really wanted to talk about before I ran out of time, it will impact our citizens with disabilities and that lack of ability could change the format of digital materials.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member sitting behind me for her eloquent speech on this bill. Since the member is an educator, I would like her to comment on the fact that digital locks are going to exist on some of these discs and after five days they will be destroyed, and that course material used by long distance students will have to be destroyed after 30 days. I would like the member to comment on how she thinks long distance education is going to be affected by this bill?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am always fascinated by the term “self-destruct”. It always reminds me of some science fiction movie I have watched over the years. However, it is a concern that within five days, the digital material will self-destruct, whatever that looks like.

My greater concern is the impact this would have on every day students, but more on distance education. Those who have been in the education field would know that distance education actually allows students to work at their own pace. When they are working at their own pace, we could imagine that some might finish an assignment in a couple of days while others might take longer. One student can finish a history 11 course in a semester, and another one can take three semesters.

In education we celebrate the fact that the students complete the course. This kind of limitation would put all kinds of barriers in the way, and once again, once the students have received this material, 30 days after the course they have to destroy everything.

Why would we be asking students who have learned material, who have gathered things together, to destroy it all after 30 days? Surely we want them to have ongoing learning. They may even read it in the bathroom a few years down the road, we never know.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would inform you that I will be splitting my speaking time with my colleague from Québec.

Today we are talking about Bill C-11. Never has a name suited a bill less. This is not a bill about copyright, it is a bill about the denial of copyright. Coming from a Conservative government whose trademark is hate, fear and despair, this is not surprising. It is not surprising that this same government, which has cut international representation of artists, is again attacking people who advocate something other than hate, fear and despair.

With this bill, the Conservatives are giving the digital industry complete ownership of Canadian culture. It has all the rights, all the resources, and the financial sacrifices made for it. Canadian artists are no longer anything but foils. They are no longer entitled to any financial compensation for their works.

This evolution is taking place internationally. There are two trends. The American trend is to simply try to install technological locks to prevent copying, and give the owners of search engines or Internet sites the right to penalize people who violate their rights or have them sentenced to lengthy prison terms. The artists are the ones forgotten in this debate, because there are also effects on private copying in Canada. They are also totally ignored and deprived of the economic right to earn a living from their works. This bill gives the owner of the Internet content complete power by controlling a lock. It also gives them all the rights in copies and the right to deprive artists, what was called private copying.

At the time, this was not a problem. There were vinyl records and cassettes. They were produced and sold by the unit. Artists received royalties on their works with each sale. When the compact disc and the computer arrived on the scene, there was a financial problem. Records, films and any artistic content could be copied. The response from the Canadian industry at the time was to add a levy for private copying to the price of a compact disc. That generated very substantial sums for Canadian artists—over $60 million. But the technology has continued to evolve. We have seen the emergence of new digital devices like the iPod and the BlackBerry, which allow a work to be reproduced ad infinitum without necessarily having a physical medium like a CD.

For the first few years, we got around the problem by expanding private copying rights from CDs to all digital equipment. This allowed artists to continue receiving the same amount of money. Unfortunately, the legislation was not adapted in that respect, which meant that all of these private copying rights became obsolete. The owners of these rights were deprived of their revenues. For the industry, this meant the end. The music recording industry disappeared. Manufacturers do not produce records anymore. Artists now produce their recordings themselves. The large corporations provide only marketing and commercial support.

Sales have dropped considerably. Not only did these people lose all financial support, but they were told to simply accept it. Educational institutions were even told they had to give up their rights. It was left to artists themselves to pay for the rights of educational institutions to have artistic material.

The creation of these infamous digital locks, intended to prevent piracy, led to two major problems. The first has to do with consumers' rights. There is no guarantee that consumers will really get the artistic performance for which they have paid, to be able to put it on their computer, through the Internet. This basically depends on the capacity of the search engine, the website they are using, the links. It depends entirely on all of that.

The second problem has to do with artists’ rights, copyright, which is completely absent from this bill. It has completely disappeared. It is no longer there. That is why Bill C-11 is not the Copyright Modernization Act, but rather an act to deny copyright. It cannot be called copyright if the individual who has produced or invented something derives no financial benefit. That person's work is being stolen and the government is letting it happen.

It is quite clear whose side this government has come down on when it comes to the new digital economy and the Canadian artistic community. Once again, the government has decided not to be Canadian. It has decided to favour foreigners at the expense of our economic rights and our cultural rights—because Canadian culture is also at stake. The Canadian economy is financially well off. Prosperous, according to reports. Unfortunately, it has been determined that this prosperity will not trickle down to the artistic community, that this community will be deprived, and that only foreigners will benefit from it. Canada is being stripped of a key part of its makeup: its culture. Culture has never been a strong suit of the Conservatives, nor of this particular government.

Need I remind you that this very same government slashed budgets for culture and is cutting the CBC budget, and that it continues to cut and cut deep. It even presided over the demise of grants for international representation. The government hates everything to do with culture. It is an area over which you have no control, and that which you do not control, you usually do away with. That much does not change. Once again, you are attempting to do away with something that you do not like, that you do not control, that is not there to serve you, that does not fit in with your philosophy on wealth creation. It is as if creating something, creating a cultural asset, is not in and of itself important. You do not give it an economic value. You do not assign it a monetary value.

The problem is that, as a consequence, the Conservative government is robbing Canada of its soul. It has deliberately decided to do away with everything that artists need. What do you expect them to do? How do you expect them to live with no income? These people should still have a right to earn income for what they have created, but you have decided to steal from them legally. Because that is what it is, theft.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I remind hon. members to direct their comments to the Chair.

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it would be so helpful if before members rose to speak to a bill they would actually do some work to understand the issue at hand. The member went off on a complete tangent talking about how this is an attack on artists. What complete nonsense. Does the member know what is an attack on artists? The fact that wealth destroyers like isoHunt and Pirate Bay allow people to copy works by artists as much as they want onto their hard drives and never pay a dime for it. That is an attack on artists.

What is the member's solution for it? This is what he is not saying because he is speaking in code. He is saying that we should put in place an iPod tax. Why does he not just come out and say that an iPod tax is what he wants, instead of talking in tangential comments that do not even make sense? Nobody at home even understood what he said.

This is not an attack on artists. This is a support for artists. It is a support for industry. That is what the Chamber of Commerce said. That is what Music Canada said. That is what the Canadian television and film industry said. They said that this will create jobs and investment. That is what the member stands against.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the right to private copying is not a tax; it is a levy. Our Conservative friends make this type of mistake, and they also make the mistake of confusing taxes with savings. This is similar to the debate on pension funds, which they consider to be a tax. They confuse savings and taxes. Now again, they are confusing the money levied through private copying with taxes.

Here is the problem. The hon. member can present this however he would like but, basically, it is a well known fact that some people will have money and some will not. It is the artists who will not.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the bill eliminates a multi-million dollar revenue stream for artists by eliminating ephemeral rights. There is no plan for a revenue stream to help artists adjust to that.

I was wondering how the member might propose amending this legislation to take care of that issue.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to private copying, if I am not mistaken—the hon. member can correct me if I am wrong—for two years, we had the right to put a levy on digital equipment, and people made money. We are talking about approximately $60 million. This allowed artists to keep their heads above water. However, this amount keeps falling, keeps dropping. That is why the legislation must be amended to include a private copying levy on all digital electronics. A levy. It is quite normal for equipment used to distribute an artistic work to include a levy, a copyright payment for the artist providing the content. An empty iPod is worthless. It is the content that makes an iPod valuable.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his wonderful speech, which was so heartfelt and passionate. We, on this side of the House, have always been open and we remain so today. That is how the NDP works, by reaching out.

I was wondering if the hon. member could give us one example of a change he sees as necessary for this bill.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect for the hon. member, I would say that the first thing that should be done with this bill is to put it in the garbage. This bill is terrible, right down to its spirit and essence. It does not respect artists; it respects owners of communications sites. That is the main issue. This bill is fundamentally biased. There is not a single clause in this bill that is good. The very spirit of its content is flawed. This bill should be rewritten. I said at the beginning that this bill is about denying copyright. The reverse is not true.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, because this is an important bill whose purpose is to make changes that have been needed for a long time. Certainly this is a somewhat complex issue, since the last version of this act dates from 1997, and the technology has changed a lot since then.

Copyright is a sensitive thing, especially in the electronic age when file sharing and a plethora of content are available on the Internet. Consumers should not be able to download from illicit sources on line without having to pay. Reform of the Copyright Act was needed in order to provide greater protection for our creators. It is also essential to update the Canadian legislation, which is several years behind what is provided in international agreements.

While the government’s intention to focus the battle against piracy on the big offenders is laudable, unfortunately, as my colleague said, Bill C-11 does not take into account the needs of the creators. With this bill, the Conservatives have intentionally avoided addressing the question of a possible expansion of the private copying exception, a measure that has been proposed by the NDP and a number of experts.

In Bill C-11 the Conservative government has brought us back exactly the same content as Bill C-32, which had already been severely criticized by the arts community. Bill C-11, unfortunately, does not achieve the balance that is needed between the rights of creators and the rights of the public. In spite of the fact that a number of artists, experts and spokespeople have addressed the parliamentary committee on this in recent months, the government is once again proposing a bill on which there is no unanimity.

And so the Conservatives have ignored the opinion of the experts heard in committee and the conclusions from their own copyright consultations in 2009. The result is that they have brought in a bill that could do more harm than good, and that is why we need to understand it clearly. We can therefore say that although a number of worthwhile proposals have been made and although there is a will on the part of politicians to work together to achieve a fair bill, the government has continued to turn a deaf ear to those proposals.

The National Assembly of Quebec has unanimously denounced this legislation, which does not ensure that Quebec creators receive full recognition of their rights and an income that reflects the value of their creations. In addition, on November 30 of last year, 100 Quebec artists, including Luc Plamondon, Robert Charlebois, Michel Rivard and Richard Séguin, travelled to Ottawa to tell the Minister of Heritage and Official Languages, the Minister of Industry and the entire Conservative caucus that they did not want the copyright bill in the form the government is stubbornly presenting.

Bill C-11 favours the big players in the creative world. Unfortunately, the small artists and artisans are not as lucky. What Bill C-11 does is to attack artisans’ copyright directly, and in so doing it contributes to destabilizing the low incomes of Canadian artists. An example of the revenue that minor creators will soon have to forego is the tens of millions of dollars now paid to authors annually by the education system. From now on, the education system will be able to use our authors’ works without having to pay compensation. Certainly the NDP supports the use of these works for educational purposes, but it believes that this should not be done at the expense of the creators.

Nor does Bill C-11 provide for any compensation for downloading to an iPod. A solution suggested by many, to impose a $2 to $5 levy on iPods and other portable digital players has been dismissed by the government, once again at the expense of creators. Nor does this bill contain any provision in relation to Internet service providers obligating them to pay fees for music downloaded through their networks. The government is simply calling on providers to be partners in the fight against piracy by forcing them to take receipt of copyright violation notices issued by creators and the organizations that manage their rights.

Another controversial point in this bill has to do with digital locks. Under this provision, it will be illegal, for example, for a consumer to break the digital lock installed on a DVD that the consumer has purchased, just to copy it onto a personal computer. That could become particularly problematic when locks are installed on educational material.

Artists do not benefit because they are deprived of millions of dollars in levies, and students do not benefit because they will have trouble accessing the educational materials they need. Certain copyright owners, the big companies, will benefit.

The Copyright Modernization Act gives with one hand and takes away with the other. Even though the bill contains certain concessions for consumers, these are undermined by the government's refusal to compromise when it comes to the most controversial copyright issue in this country, the digital lock.

When it comes to distance education, for example, the provisions in the new bill mean that people living in a remote community will have to burn their class notes 30 days after downloading them. That is not an improvement on the current situation and it is not an appropriate use of the copyright regulations.

In summary, it appears that all efforts to reform the Copyright Act in Canada in recent years have had very little impact on the creation of a balanced system between the rights of creators and those of the public. One only need look at the demands made by the big content owners in the U.S. to see whom this bill will really benefit. It is a valid question: have the Conservatives forsaken Canadians at the expense of copyright interests in the United States?

Recent documents published by WikiLeaks clearly show that the Conservatives have acted against Canada's interests. The documents paint a dismal picture of the Conservatives who have conspired with the Americans in order to force the adoption of copyright legislation similar to that in the United States.

New documents reveal that the government encouraged the United States to put Canada on their piracy watch list in order to pressure Parliament to pass new legislation that would weaken the rights of Canadian consumers.

In the words of the NDP critic for copyright and digital issues, Charlie Angus, “The U.S. Piracy List is supposed to be reserved for—”

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. I would like to remind the hon. member that it is not appropriate to mention a member's name. She should instead refer to his riding. That is preferable.

The hon. member for Québec has the floor.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I was speaking about the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay, who said:

The U.S. Piracy List is supposed to be reserved for countries on the margin of international law. Instead it is being used as a bully tool to undermine Canada's international trade reputation.

If the Conservatives are prepared to use their majority to impose this legislation without amendments, Canadians will be deeply disappointed by a government that would ram through a bill that lacks balance and takes away some rights from Canadian authors and creators.

The NDP believes that it is high time to update the Copyright Act but that Bill C-11 has too many obvious problems. We will therefore work on amending the bill so that it better reflects the interests of Canadians. For that reason we are proposing, among other things, to delete from the copyright modernization bill the clauses that criminalize the removal of digital locks for personal, non-commercial purposes. Furthermore, we support shorter sentences for those found guilty of violating the Copyright Act because this would prevent the excessive recourse to litigation against individuals, a situation that is problematic in the United States.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-11 is written entirely technological neutral and that is important.

The member discussed a few items. I believe she touched a little on the issue of royalties and so forth. We refer to that as an iPod tax, the copying levy that her party endorses.

Part of the problem with the position of the members opposite on this and the reason why digital locks are so important is because storage of music, movies and so forth will not actually be on devices like this anymore. People will not buy them on cassettes, DVDs or CDs. I am sure members have heard of the iCloud that Apple has just launched. I am sure we have seen things like Rogers On Demand, Cogeco On Demand and Shaw On Demand. People just push the button and they have an inventory of movies.

Digital locks are absolutely imperative to be put in place so that material cannot be stolen, so that the rights holder, which is not Rogers or Shaw in most cases, is actually protected and paid for the use of that material.

That is why it is important. It is a business solution.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for the question.

I would like to ask him the following: if it is neutral, as he claims, why do more than 80 arts and culture organizations in Quebec and the rest of the country say that the bill is toxic? They say it is “toxic to Canada's digital economy.” And how can he ignore all the economic benefits of the arts and culture?

In addition, as the member for Québec, I can attest to the extent to which all levels of government usually agree. I deplore the fact that the federal government does not currently recognize that investing in culture is a good way to contribute to the economy, which is important right now.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to learn to write, one has to read the works of the great writers. To learn to play music, one must listen to the performances of the great musicians.

The next generation of artists is in a really special position with technology that is available. It allows artists to immerse themselves in what has come before them and what people in other parts of the world do.

It concerns me a bit that education has not been clearly defined in the exemptions in the legislation. Would my hon. colleague agree with that and does there need to be a more careful definition of education in the legislation?

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree and I thank my colleague for his question and his heartfelt introduction.

Indeed, a number of things do not add up in this bill. The notion of education is very poorly defined. That is why, like my colleagues, I think we must absolutely amend this bill and make some major changes, if not completely take an axe to it. The artistic community has spoken out against this bill.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech and would like to quickly ask her what consequences digital locks would have on the industry.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that digital locks would have some very serious consequences. They are the key point of the bill. I think there are many other elements like that in Bill C-11 that could cause problems.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on Bill C-11, a bill that I understand has a bit of a history in the chamber. I can appreciate that at times the government is frustrated because it does not necessarily get what it wants.

In previous minority governments, the Conservatives attempted to pass legislation of a similar nature, almost a word-for-word bill, but because of the frustrations of not being successful in getting it passed, we once again have Bill C-11 before us, the same bill with a different number.

I would suggest that many of the concerns that were expressed over the last number of months and beyond still exist today and I would encourage the government to open its mind as to what types of amendments would make the bill a healthier one. At the end of the day, even though Liberals have moved an amendment to deal with the bill, we recognize that there is value to ensuring that we have copyright laws that are fair and balanced.

We recognize the importance of the individuals who create our music and other aspects of our culture and we want to encourage the industry. As has been pointed out by many, our cultural community provides a huge economic benefit for all Canadians. We need to do what we can as legislators to protect and encourage that industry and to ensure that it is going to be able to not only continue but grow and prosper. When that industry grows and prospers, we will see more jobs being created and the overall lifestyle in Canada being improved on many different fronts.

We recognize the value of artists and others and recognize how important it is for us to be there in a very real and tangible way, but we also value the importance of the consumer. We want to ensure that consumers' rights are in fact protected. This provides me the opportunity to share with the House some of the concerns I have with regard to that particular issue.

My biggest concern is the whole concept of the digital lock provisions in the legislation. I must admit that I am somewhat dated, in the sense that I can still recall the good old eight-tracks and record players. People went to Kmart or Zellers and bought blank cassettes. They had music at home on the record player and they recorded the music that they, or maybe even their parents, had purchased from the store. They recorded it on cassette so they could continue to enjoy that music on a trip in the car, believing that they had acquired the song they wanted to listen to.

I recall hanging around with my buddies and talking about the fact that we had to buy records for x number of dollars just to get one or two songs that we liked. We ended up buying five or six records and put all our favourite songs on one cassette, and there was never any feeling that we were pirating anything or that it was an illegal act.

The vast majority of consumers want to do the right thing. Consumers are responsible individuals and contributors to our communities, and they recognize how important it is that we protect our artists.

Quite often when we think of artists, we think of big name artists, and there is a bit of resentment toward them. Some would look at the late Michael Jackson and ask themselves just much money this guy really needs and the type of royalties that one would pay. There might not be as much sympathy for big name artists, but we still have to protect artists through copyright laws.

A vast majority of the artists are not multi-millionaires. They are hard-working Canadians who have sacrificed their time, energy, thoughts and ideas. Maybe they rented a recording studio and put together a CD. Now they are hoping to make enough money from that CD to recover their costs, and if they can make a little extra, they are very grateful.

In Winnipeg we have a wonderful annual event known as Folklorama. I suspect a number of my colleagues in the House will be familiar with it, and I would recommend that all members visit Winnipeg during a Folklorama and become familiar with it. They would witness a litany of those types of artists who are so committed to making events like Folklorama work and who are so committed to what they do that they sacrifice a great portion of their energy and their time in order to produce that contribution to our culture.

One individual at the Indian and Métis Friendship Centre on Robinson Street in Winnipeg North--I believe his name was Lavallee--played the violin and performed a jig, which is a wonderful fancy dance I hope to be able to perform someday myself. This artist lives in a modest apartment in Tyndall Park. I did not ask him how much he was making or what the proceeds were on his CD, but he sure was proud of it. He felt it was right on, and good quality. At the end of the day, after the audience had been able to listen and hear this man playing live on stage and after the concert was over, he stood by the door selling his CDs.

I enjoyed the performance. I was pleased to meet him, shook his hadn, and said I would love to buy the CD. I did not purchase the CD because I wanted to go home and listen to the music right away, but because I wanted to support a young artist and saw the benefits of doing that.

I would argue that there are tens of thousands of Canadians who would do likewise, because we get an appreciation of the artists' efforts. In many ways we are talking about our sons or daughters who are in this line of work or engaged in this creativity, and I suspect we would find a great deal of support, but when I look at the legislation, I see that the government seems to be determined that it has it right and it does not really matter what the opposition has to say: it will go to committee, where it has a majority, and pass it the way it is.

I do not make that assertion lightly. I was listening to some of the speeches earlier, and we hear that there were literally hundreds of people, if not thousands, who provided feedback to the government with regard to the legislation. They provided ideas that could have made it a better piece of legislation, yet the government, for whatever reason I am not sure, has made a determination that what it has is as good as it is going to get and that they are really not open to any changes or amendments.

That is why I believe the responsible thing for the Liberal Party to do was to bring forward this recent amendment. We want to see balance when it comes to copyright rules and laws. It is important that it be balanced, and the government has not recognized or acknowledged that.

I will give an example. If my daughter were here, she would be able to tell us anything we wanted to know about iPods. It is amazing what young people can do with one hand with these little items. From pictures to music and videos, the technology is incredible. Should not my daughter or millions of other Canadians who purchase an item in digital format, such as a song, have the right to use that purchase in different ways, as long as it is for personal reasons?

I am not going to suggest that my daughter or anyone else should be able to buy a song and download it onto the computer and send it out to two million Canadians. That would not be appropriate.

What would be appropriate? She has a cell telephone. She has an iPod. She has one of these iMac computers. Should she be obligated to buy one copy for each? I'm not entirely convinced that should be the case.

I would look to members to tell me if I was wrong when, in those younger teenaged years, I acquired records that I enjoyed and would pick and choose songs from each record and record them onto a blank cassette so that I could listen to the cassette with all of my favourite songs on it. Was that wrong? I do not believe it was.

When we require such things as digital locks, there are impacts. I have DVDs. We all have DVD movies. I have some VHS movies that have digital locks. There are some movies that I really enjoy, and quite often I will put on such a movie in the background while I work on my laptop doing constituency work or whatever else it might be. The movie is playing in the background, but DVDs get scratched up and VHS tapes get worn. Should I not be able to back up the material that I purchased? Do I not have the right to do that?

These are very real question marks. They are there today with regard to the proposed legislation.

We have to ask if this is the type of legislation we should be moving forward. We have to keep in mind that because there is a majority government, no matter what we hear in committee, all indications are that the government is determined to pass the bill the way it is. The government is not really open to amendments.

If we are trying to address genuine, bona fide concerns in the second reading debate, one can understand why the Liberal Party is suggesting that we pass the reasoned amendment. If government members were to stand and say they are prepared to listen and act on some of the concerns being expressed by opposition members, there might be the will to pull the reasoned amendment. There would have to be a clear indication from government members that they would accept some amendments or amend the bill themselves. I have participated in majority governments in Manitoba. Many amendments that originated from the opposition were passed. If an amendment would make the legislation better, why would the government not at least approach it with an open mind?

One of the more appropriate ways to do that would be for a government minister to approach the critics. There should be briefings for the critics to explain what it is the government hopes to do with the legislation. The critics could take that information to members in their caucus. The issues could be debated to see if there could be some changes. We should invite stakeholders outside Parliament to voice their concerns and if, through that consultation process and through the work of the critics and ministerial staff, there are some amendments that would make a better piece of legislation, we should be prepared to accept them.

I have heard other concerns. I do not know how extreme it is, but will students be obligated to get rid of their homework after a certain amount of time? To be honest, I have not had the chance to read every detail in the bill, but a lot of red flags go up the pole when I hear a member of the opposition say that after a certain number of days a student might have to shred the notes that were taken in class. That is worthy of more discussion.

Let us see what sort of amendments might come up. I look forward to the bill going to committee. I look forward to seeing how the government will respond to amendments put forward by the New Democratic Party or the Liberal Party.

One of the benefits of allowing for debate on the bill is that individuals such as myself can get up and express their concerns. Some members are very specific in their concerns. The government has the responsibility to digest what is being said. The government itself can bring in amendments at committee stage. Imagine the goodwill that would be shown if the government were to identify some of those concerns.

I suspect that if we were to check with most Canadians, a number of the concerns that have been raised this afternoon on this bill are quite legitimate. They are definitely worth looking into to see if things can be done to make the bill better. If the government is not prepared to do that, the best thing we could do is go back to the drawing board. Let us look at the reasoned amendment that has been proposed by my colleague.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was elected toward the end of the last Parliament and as such he may not have followed what went on at the committee. We were hearing from witnesses but unfortunately the time was restricted by the opposition parties. We wanted to meet as much as possible, get through the witness list as quickly as possible and get to the consideration of potential amendments, when opposition parties could have brought forward any amendments they had. We had some great suggestions from a number of the witnesses who brought forward some very specific technical amendments which I think should get some consideration at the committee. I hope to participate in the committee that undertakes the review of this bill, following the committee's consideration, when we get to final consideration of the bill.

There is something I want to ask the member very specifically on the bill. I think he understands the need to pass this bill. I think the Liberal Party largely understands the importance of passing this legislation. John Manley came before our committee. He is a former Liberal industry minister who actually worked on amendments to the bill. I have some sage advice for all members: there is no such thing as a perfect copyright bill; there are too many competing interests. John Manley said not to throw out the good in pursuit of the perfect.

Does the member agree with that?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comment. I assure the member that I could find Conservatives who believe in the Canadian Wheat Board. He points to an example and says that John Manley said that for the most part the legislation is good and we should pass the bill. At the end of the day, if we can make the bill better, why would we not make it better? The member agrees with me on that point.

The bill will go into committee. Unfortunately, I will not be on that committee. I will be around after the bill exits committee and it will be interesting to see to what degree the opposition parties were responsible in bringing forward amendments and to what degree the government was responsible in terms of approaching those amendments with an open mind or bringing forward amendments too.

I have never been a big fan of any form of closure, but I am an optimist and we will just have to wait and see what happens.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, copyright is an incredibly complicated topic. It is very difficult to craft the right balance between consumer access and protecting the rights of creators. However, there is a very real concern that digital locks as would be allowed through this bill would not allow consumers full access to content they have paid for. At the same time, artists who generate more than $1 billion of revenue to our economy and the average artists who make less than $13,000 a year would not be fully compensated for their creative work on which this content relies. This bill could wipe away millions of dollars in revenue that artists ought to be entitled to.

In spite of the fact that the Liberal Party supported digital locks in a previous version of this bill, is the member now saying that his party supports amending the bill and that the Liberals will not be supporting it unless these amendments are incorporated?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern that has been raised by the member. I spent a great deal of my time talking about how important it is that we support the industry. Ultimately we could talk about the consumer, but the biggest stakeholders are the local artists. I made reference to one who happened to live in my constituency.

I can assure the member that the Liberal Party supports the industry. We believe it is important that there be balance. That is something which we will fight for here on the floor of the House and in committee. We believe there is a need to improve this legislation. As it currently stands, it is not good enough.

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

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of being on the legislative committee that looked at Bill C-32, the predecessor to Bill C-11. I met with the 132 witnesses and saw the hundreds of written submissions.

I would say that Bill C-11 has a lot of very good and very important things in it. I also feel there were some very good things that were presented by the witnesses representing all sides: the stakeholders, the industry, the artists, as well as the consumers.

What bothered me was that when Bill C-11 was brought forward very recently, it had absolutely no changes in it whatsoever. The Minister of Canadian Heritage said this morning that was done out of respect for the people who had spoken previously. I do not really understand what that means.

Does the member for Winnipeg North share my concern that perhaps we are going through a charade in terms of an exercise here? Nothing was changed between Bill C-32 and Bill C-11, so in the end we are going to end up going through a voting process that will make Bill C-11 the law with absolutely no changes, never mind how many witnesses came and spoke or how many written submissions were presented.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a valid concern. That was a good part of the presentation that I was hoping to make.

All members in the House will talk about the importance of copyright laws. Within the Liberal Party we will talk about the importance of the industry. I suspect most parties might have a different slant on it, but at the end of the day members want to see balance. The best way to achieve that balance, we believe, is to have listened to some of those 132 presenters and the hundreds of individuals who provided advice on the issue. The government has not necessarily shown that it has done that.

Again, we will wait and see once the bill reaches committee stage. That will be a wonderful opportunity for members of the government to demonstrate to what degree they are listening, whether it was to those who presented before or hopefully to those who were not able to present but might get the chance to present when this bill goes to committee.

Hopefully the government not only will listen but will act on amendments. I look forward to the bill's ultimate return from committee. If the reasoned amendment does not pass, I do not want to predict what is going to take place in this chamber.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to address the issue of whether or not the government is listening. I want to speak about the genesis of this bill, the former Bill C-32.

The government undertook a process where we consulted broadly in major cities right across the country. We had a consultation in Peterborough, where folks came in from Toronto and other places throughout Ontario, but also in Toronto and major centres right across the country. We also received some 8,000 written submissions on the bill and considered them all.

I would hazard to say there is not a single group that has either appeared before the previous committee or in fact had interest in appearing that we did not consider its request and see some of what it was seeking to have addressed in the bill addressed.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as much as I want to give the member the benefit of the doubt, we have to recognize that between the two bills not one change was made, not even a comma.

We will have to wait and see what happens.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Shefford.

I stand to speak to Bill C-11, the copyright modernization act, an act that would bring long overdue changes in Canadian copyright law and help us catch up with technological changes and with changes in international standards.

On the face, this is not a riveting topic for most of the public, but, when we go below the surface, it gets even more complex and we find law that even copyright lawyers have trouble understanding. This is an act of great importance to my constituents and to consumers who worry that once they have paid for content they will be unable to do things that they regularly do now, such as back it up, time shift it, shift the content from iPhones to MP3 players or to laptops. They are worried that these things, which have become routine in their daily lives, will be subject to penalties under the law.

It is also important for the creative industries in my riding which play an enormous role in the economy of greater Victoria, both as a part of our culture and being able to know who we are as a community, but also as a part of our vibrant tourist industry and as a job creator.

A study done by the Capital Regional District in 2010 showed that the economic activity of the arts and cultural sector in greater Victoria was worth more than $170 million in net income and that it employed more than 5,400 people. This includes well-established groups like the Victoria Symphony, now in its 29th season and a relatively new kid on the block, and the Sooke Philharmonic Orchestra, which was founded in 1997 in the rural part of my riding.

It includes companies like Ballet Victoria, which has been operating very successfully since 2002, and the Canadian Pacific Ballet, which was founded in 2008. It includes probably the longest running community theatre, certainly in British Columbia I think, the Langham Court Theatre, which has been operating since 1929, and the Belfry Theatre, which has been putting on plays since 1980, including premiering more than 158 Canadian productions. It also includes the small theatre company called Intrepid Theatre, which is the group that puts on what is called the Uno Fest for single performer productions and the Fringe Festival since 1986.

It also includes established visual artists, like Robert Bateman, who has just donated $11 million of his work to the Royal Roads University in my riding, and other well-known artists, like my own personal favourite and friend, Phyllis Serota.

In music, it includes national artists, like Nelly Furtado, who come from Victoria, and again, a personal favourite of mine, Children of Celebrities, who some have described as old guys playing enviro-cowboy lounge music. It also includes a lot of new young bands: the Racoons, the Rocky Mountain Rebel Music, Pocket Kings, the Mindil Beach Markets and We Are The City.

Why am I listing all those groups? Those are all groups that are very much concerned about the reform to the Copyright Act and who believe that this needs to take place soon. What they are looking for is a balanced act that will balance the rights of creators, like themselves, to have an income stream from their product, with the rights of consumers who want to be able to purchase that material.

It is also a concern for the very large number of students and faculty members in my riding and in greater Victoria where we have more than 36,000 post-secondary students attending the University of Victoria, Camosun College and Royal Roads University.

In addition, we have new industries in the software area. One particularly famous one is producing online gaming software. Others are working in video games and other software in the computer industry. They are all very much concerned about the same thing, that they will have a constant and secure revenue stream from their creative work, but also that consumers get a fair deal so they will want to purchase their materials.

There is no doubt that we have a need for this new copyright legislation, one that protects intellectual property and one that does so in a way that ensures an income stream for those producers. We also need to ensure that we do not disrupt existing income streams for those working in the creative industries. One of the fears that we have about this bill in its current form is that it may inadvertently threaten the incomes of artists and other creative industry workers. This is critical in a country where the average artist in 2009-10, as my colleague mentioned earlier, earned just under $13,000 a year.

We need to ensure that the revenues generated by new platforms actually flow to the creators of that material and not just to the big media companies, the big movie producers or the big record companies. Those who actually do the creative work need an income stream to continue to do so. We need a balance that ensures the right of creators to be compensated fairly for their work and the right of consumers to have access to the copyrighted material.

I do want the reform to go forward but not as the bill is currently drafted. Like other New Democrats, I will support moving this forward to committee to try to get the needed attention to the flaws in the bill.

A major concern we have on this side is with the digital lock provisions in the bill. As many have mentioned, if the bill goes forward in its present form, Canada will have the most stringent set of digital lock provisions in the entire world. These provisions would include punitive fines of up to $1 million and 5 years in jail for removing digital locks. If we are going to have penalties like this, I would like to see amendments to ensure they actually apply to the pirates who the members on the other side like to point to and not to the ordinary consumer or, particularly, those with disabilities who quite often must have material shifted from one platform to another in order to make use of it.

In amending the bill, we need to ensure that those penalties fall on those who are trying to steal the copyrighted material and not on those who are simply trying to use it in ways that we have all become accustomed in the new digital world.

We also need to ensure that we preserve the concept of fair dealing for journalist. I think that will take extensive amendments to the bill. As I mentioned, for those with disabilities, we need to ensure exemptions are provided for them, particularly for those with visual handicaps who will need an exception from some of the digital lock provisions in the bill.

We also need to ensure that we preserve exemptions for education. I spent 20 years teaching in a post-secondary institution. I am concerned when I see a provision that says that copies produced for educational use will have to self-destroy in five days. I spent 20 years trying to convince my students to start their projects earlier than five days before they were due. Five days is a timeframe that simply does not fit with the kind of work students need to do in their academic careers. We need to ensure, particularly for those who make use of distance education, that they can maintain and use those materials longer than 30 days. This is particularly important in more remote and rural areas where distance education is sometimes the only alternative people have.

Although I am from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and I talk about greater Victoria, a lot of people at the end of my riding are two and a half hours from downtown. There are people who lack public transit to get into town or get to educational facilities, particularly those who live on reserves in the rural part of my riding. They need the distance education. They need the alternative delivery methods. We need to ensure there are exemptions in the act to protect their access to education.

The New Democrats do not stand alone in our concerns about the details of the act. Experts like Michael Geist and Howard Knopf are both critics of these very strong digital law provisions. We have had more than 80 arts and cultural organizations express their concern about fair compensation for artists. We have had concerns expressed by the Writers Guild of Canada and the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers.

When we come to consider the bill after second reading, I would ask all members to join us at the committee stage in standing up for artists to ensure their income stream continues, for students to ensure they have access to the materials they need for their education and for consumers to ensure they can use material they have already paid for in ways that are non-threatening to producers.

We need to ensure the benefits of the copyright reform flow to the actual creative artists, students and consumers, not just to the major U.S. media companies, the big movie studios and big recording companies. We need to ensure this is a copyright act that benefits ordinary Canadians and those who work hard in our creative industries every day to make this a brighter and better country where we understand each other better through the medium of arts and culture.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague whether he thinks that this bill will protect creators and artists the same way Bill C-13 will protect refugees by taking away their means of integrating into society and being productive.

Something like a tablet has no value without any content from creators. If people are not protected and compensated for their work, I do not see how our society will be able to advance.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises the very good point that I was alluding to at the end of my speech. It is the arts and culture industries that help us understand ourselves as a society. It is the arts and culture industries that help us look at the social problems that we face and find ways to live together better.

We need to be very careful in amending this Copyright Act that we do not undermine the existing income streams of the arts and culture industries, but that, instead, we reform the act in ways that will help them earn additional income and make them more secure in the future so they can continue that important work which helps us understand ourselves better.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, could the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca tell us a little bit about some specific amendments that he would propose that would help improve the income stream to artists?

My brother is an underemployed musician.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in second reading, we are talking about the principles of the bill. Therefore, what we are talking about here is the need to catch up with technology and ensure that one of the very positive things in the bill says that we will review it every five years to ensure we keep up with technological change.

The concept I really want to talk about is that income stream and ensuring it flows to the artists and the actual producers and not to the major multinational corporations.

The concept of digital locks that is in the bill is one that really does not help the original producer. It only protects those big distributors who probably already undervalued that content and allows them to protect their huge profits at the same time, when most of the artists receive very little in terms of income for their work.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca has been involved in the educational sector for some time.

What we have is a badly botched bill from the government, and one of the botched aspects of the bill is the 30 day retroactive book burning of textbooks.

How does the member feel his students would react when their textbooks, which they received electronically, are burned retroactively after 30 days?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I observed over the last few years with my students is that many of them could not afford to buy hard copies of textbooks. They are looking for new ways with lower costs to try to access educational materials.

I taught in the area of Canadian criminal justice and, as instructors we all know that textbook costs are extremely high for the hard copies. Students really need those alternative ways of accessing information. They need those books for a semester, not 30 days, and they probably need them for longer than that because most of the courses in the program that I taught build on each other and, therefore, students will want to keep those previous resources so they can do better in the next class they are taking. They are not using them to profit. They are not selling them on to somebody else.

Like my previous colleague from Newton—North Delta, who still has her notes in a box in the basement, they will probably keep these materials for a very long time and continue to use them as they launch into their professional careers.

This 30 day retroactive book burning is a very pernicious part of the bill. I hope at the committee stage we can remove that provision.

[Réjean Genest, NDP, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak about this bill.

This is an opportunity for me to wear several hats: I am a member of the House of Commons and an author. My occupation as a gardener led to me write several books on the subject.

I would like to say that the work of an author requires perseverance, discipline, determination and confidence. It is mostly solitary work. There is so much work to do that a book like mine can take three or four years to be published.

Copyright is a way of expressing respect for the author. Once again, I do not see the rights of the author in this bill. There is talk of respect but I do not see dividends for authors. As a producer and an author, I created and produced over 500 episodes of a gardening show on community television. For several years, I found it very enjoyable but that ended when my work was copied by others in both the format and the approach. There was nothing I could do. As an author, I created a gardening website of over 1,500 pages, which I have been maintaining since 1998. When you publish something on the Internet in French, you are speaking to the entire Francophonie. There too, my work was copied countless times and, as an author, I had no recourse.

In the government's bill, I do not see any possibility of recourse for authors or any way for authors to obtain payment from the party that copied their material. Various people will get a slap on the wrist but, in the end, the author's work has been copied and he or she has not been reimbursed. I know something about it. On the Internet, people often wrote to me to tell me that my pages had been copied and posted in various locations but I really could not do much about it. I even saw a world horticultural encyclopedia containing complete passages from my work. I had to exert pressure to have my work removed. As an author, I also had no recourse. In the bill, I see ways that the government could help an author to have recourse.

Authors earn a small income, often below minimum wage, but I do not see anything in the government's bill that would help an author whose work has been copied. There is a project in Quebec, somewhere in Montreal or elsewhere, that has been making headlines for years. Everyone knows that it was copied but nothing has been done. If the government wanted to take responsibility, it would find a way to make a system available to authors and legal experts whereby authors could be reimbursed by the parties who copy their work.

I am an author and I have written books, 10 of which are ready to be published. I am waiting to have the means to publish them, because the dividends paid to authors for the publication of books are between 5% and 10%, and they are paid out a year and a half later. In addition, nothing can be confirmed.

Personally, I plan to self-publish my books. Once again, the government has all kinds of legislation that helps publishing companies, but nothing that helps authors to self-publish. When will this government start taking care of authors and thinking like an author? Singers and people who record music were forced to create their own labels. Why is it that this government refuses to help people who want to self-publish? I do not understand.

Is there anything more logical and simple? We want to help people, but we want to penalize pirates and other offenders. Penalizing pirates will not help authors; it is a question of finding ways for authors to get what is owing to them.

Bill C-11 is identical to Bill C-32 from the previous Parliament. Artists from Quebec came here to Parliament Hill. Let us not forget their demands. This bill does not give artists any dividends. Consumers purchase songs or various things on the Web and copy entire pages of creations from the Web, but nothing goes to the artists. No dividends at all. When will this government bring forward a serious bill for authors, instead of just focusing on building prisons?

Indeed, it seems the government has big plans to increase the number of prisons in this country. We would prefer a bill that ensures that anyone who steals from authors would have to pay them back and not get out of it by declaring bankruptcy and going to prison. The artists must be paid back. We must find a way to ensure that offenders' goods are seized for longer than just a few years. The seizure should last many, many years so that the person has no choice but to pay back the author.

I wish the Conservatives would really act in favour of authors' needs and not in favour of the needs of their cronies. This is about the authors.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member an open-ended question. How can we compensate artists for lost income?

[Réjean Genest, NDP, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was looking for my earpiece because we are far apart and I did not hear the question. Could the member please ask it again?

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I do not think that the hon. member for Shefford heard the question. There may be a problem with the translation.

I will give the floor to the member for Kingston and the Islands. He can repeat his question so the member for Shefford can answer.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It may have been my fault.

I completely agree that we should support artists. Could the hon. member tell me how we could compensate artists for lost income?

[Réjean Genest, NDP, Shefford, QC]

It is not complicated, Mr. Speaker. There is a royalty for someone who produces a CD-ROM. Normally, an arrangement is made and he receives royalties every time the CD-ROM is copied. It is very, very simple. When someone publishes a book, the author always receives royalties. The royalties owed to the author are calculated and then paid out to him. The same thing happens with a song, for example. The standard royalty is determined on a case-by-case basis. And that is how the creator is compensated. It seems quite simple to me.

I would like to thank the member for his question.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his very interesting speech. In his view, does the difficulty authors have getting their work recognized represent a major challenge in stimulating the cultural industry in our country?

[Réjean Genest, NDP, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the major problem right now is technology. These days, we can copy a movie with a mini-camera at a movie theatre without being noticed. With all this technology, we can copy at every turn. It is indeed challenging to find a solution to this problem. We will never completely resolve the problem because there will always be someone who finds a way to get around things.

Regardless of whether we are talking about the movie, music or book industry, the works of artists and authors are being copied. There are even sculptors whose works are being copied with moulds and so on. It is a problem. The government has to put the right people in the right places to find solutions for each problem, and not five years after the problem has surfaced. We have to constantly address this in each field. The government has to protect the rights of Canadians and the rights of creators who contribute in their own way to Canada's good reputation.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Manicouagan.

We are very pleased to see that this government wants to take action to modernize the Copyright Act. These changes are long overdue. We are open to making changes. However, we would be even more receptive if the result was a balance that would benefit all stakeholders. The problem is that, contrary to what the government is saying, there is no balance in Bill C-11, as was the case for its predecessor, Bill C-32.

This bill will have fairly significant repercussions for authors, artists and consumers. Once again, despite the fact that the government says that the bill is balanced, we see that various associations and very important organizations representing the stakeholders do not concur.

First, let us talk about authors. We believe that they stand to lose the most with Bill C-11. The majority of writers' associations were opposed to Bill C-32 and now are opposed to Bill C-11, and with good cause. I would like to talk about one organization in particular, DAMI©, which is based in Montreal. DAMI© stands for Droit d'auteur Multimédia Internet Copyright. It is the umbrella organization for 13 professional associations of artists, authors, performers and copyright collectives. DAMI© represents 50,000 cultural artisans who are members of these 13 associations. What did DAMI© have to say about Bill C-32, which, I repeat, is now Bill C-11, currently under review? It had serious misgivings about Bill C-32, especially because of the free use of works protected by about 40 exceptions, half of which are new exceptions being made with respect to the current act.

I would like to read an excerpt from the DAMI© submission on Bill C-32, which, I repeat, is very pertinent because this is the same bill now being studied as Bill C-11.

Thanks to this bill, teachers will be able to use protected works [we are obviously talking about education] in their classes without asking permission, and they will be able to reproduce their course work to broadcast it by telecommunication in the context of remote or distance teaching. They will also be able to reproduce works in their totality for the purpose of display on interactive whiteboards or computer screens. Schools will no longer have to pay royalties to record news programs for pedagogical purposes, to present films, or to perform plays, for which they will be able to reproduce the sets, costumes, and lighting designs created by professional artists. This is a total expropriation of the intellectual property rights of creators in the educational sector. It is as if the government had declared that from now on literary, theatre, musical, and artistic works will be considered collective property.

This is in reference to education, but another important point to consider, especially at the university level, is the issue of the academic book market in Quebec. It is no secret that Quebec is an island of 7 million francophones in a sea of over 300 million anglophones in North America. The American book market serves primarily the Canadian English-speaking market. We need a strong academic book market in Quebec to be able to protect our culture, so that we can adapt or examine various issues—such as the economy, philosophy or other university subjects—from a Quebec and francophone perspective. This book market is small compared to the English-speaking American and Canadian market. It must fight against assimilation and against greater integration of these books that are quite often translated into French, but do not reflect Quebec's point of view or a francophone perspective, even in Canada.

This bill could end up further weakening the academic book market in Quebec—for university texts, for example—and creating even more problems for this market. The industry in Quebec will have to face more challenges if it wants to survive.

What justification will be given if the across-the-board use of photocopying is permitted or there is no adequate compensation for the authors of these books, as mentioned by DAMI©? What motivation will Quebeckers, and francophones across Canada, have to write a book that truly reflects the francophone and Quebec philosophy, vision and point of view? There will be no such books in the future.

This bill represents a real threat to an industry that is living on borrowed time in Quebec. That is why we are calling on the government to work with us to establish greater balance in this bill and ensure that all stakeholders benefit, not just the companies that own intellectual property, which are heavily favoured at this time. In response to our government colleagues’ comments, this to a large extent explains why they have the support of John Manley, among others, and it will come as no surprise that he is the president and CEO of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives. However, they will not have the support of authors' organizations, artists' organizations and copyright collectives.

Nor will they obtain, despite what they claim, the approval, the consent or the support of consumer associations. As it stands, the bill does not permit consumers to make backup copies or transfer the documents they have purchased—content for which they have paid and enjoy certain consumer rights—to other formats. The Writers Guild of Canada, among others, raised this problem. This organization stated that the only option that Bill C–11 gives creators is the addition of a digital lock, which has the effect of impinging upon current revenue streams for creators and creates a defect in the bill by depriving consumers of the very rights that are guaranteed them elsewhere in the bill.

The government said it was giving copyright owners a tool for developing and marketing their products and earning an income. It said it was protecting creators against acts of piracy. Although it is true that digital locks worked or can work when it comes to software, they are too restrictive and very unpopular when it comes to entertainment content. They risk being discriminated against by market rules, as they were in the case of music. Digital locks do not allow for progress and do not help defend the interests of consumers and creators. At best, digital locks will simply block current sources of income for creators.

This income is nevertheless very important. If this bill passes in its current form, authors, artists and cultural artisans could lose more than $125 million in income a year. That is why we are calling on the government to work with the NDP in order to amend the bill. We welcome the desire to modernize legislation, especially since this modernization has been a long time coming, but it has to be done properly. Unfortunately, Bill C-11, as currently worded, does not benefit all stakeholders equally. We want to work with the government to ensure that everyone benefits and to modernize the Copyright Act in a coherent and lasting way.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I thank the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, the riding with the longest name in the country, which has elected an excellent member, for his speech.

He talked about all the problems this bill raises. We are well aware that even though the Conservatives had several years to do their job, they did not do it well. They botched the job, and this has resulted in a bill that raises a lot of problems. We have talked about them this afternoon and we will continue to talk about them in the days to come.

I have a few questions for the member. What are the biggest problems with this bill? Does it have to do with burning all the books, the students’ notebooks, 30 days after their classes end? Is it the fact that artists are not compensated? What does he think are the biggest problems with this bill?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

In fact, this bill is extremely complex and technical. That is why we have identified a number of weaknesses. The one relating to the destruction of materials, of course notes, after 30 days is a striking problem, but the main problem I see in this bill is the lost income for authors, creators and artisans. At the end of the day, if we are not able to protect that drive to create—and that is what the objective of the Copyright Act should be—then that will present a problem. The same will be true if we do not find ways to modernize the law and at the same time adapt the flow of income that creators are able to receive. That is what was done in the past when new media were developed, when we saw, first, the vinyl record. Then we got CDs, DVDs and so on. We managed to adapt the flow of income to these new facts of life, one way or another. This bill does not do that. In fact, this bill could interfere with those sources of income by jeopardizing the income of artisans, creators and artists; it could be a disincentive to that flow of creativity and diminish creators’ ability to disseminate Quebec and Canadian content on a large scale.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on his very informative speech.

My question for him is this: if we wanted to keep the title of the bill as is, a bill to modernize copyright, what are some of the main amendments he would propose?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question.

Hopefully, that kind of discussion would take place in committee. The committee members could propose various paths. Coming back to an academic perspective, I think measures to protect Quebec's book market would be necessary, particularly for professional books and text books. This has been done in the past. In a university, books and other materials can be photocopied, but this is done with dividends through various organizations that can then pass them on to the authors. In the case of new materials and new possible ways of offering courses, we need to be able to adapt and allow some flexibility, while still ensuring a dividend. This bill contains 40 exceptions, where content can be used without any compensation to authors. This must be changed. There must be a mechanism to allow these dividends to make their way to the artists so that they will be encouraged to continue their creative process.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this speech is in line with my previous speeches and came about as a result of my thoughts on whether the current government is truly willing to protect and promote the public interest.

The purpose of the bill before us is basically to replace the current Copyright Act. Those present in the House all agree that this is necessary. Social and technological realities are, by definition, constantly changing and it is important to have legislative tools adapted to the current global economy, in which massive amounts of information are constantly being transferred electronically.

Both sides admit that the letter of the Copyright Act must indeed be modernized; however, the text of the bill proposed by the Conservatives does not address a number of key issues. As a result, the proposed solution could prove to be more risky and problematic than truly innovative and functional.

The opinion of a number of experts on the issue disputes the legitimacy of certain elements and even the adoption of such provisions by the federal legislative body since many issues addressed in the bill actually overlap with areas under provincial jurisdiction.

The legislative exercise must involve weighing the pros and cons. Given that the desired outcome of this exercise is to update a law on so-called progressive materials, the government must support an approach that strikes a balance between the rights of consumers and the rights of content owners.

Taking into account current practices in arts and technology, this bill favours major industry players, the ones that ultimately hold the prerogative power associated with copyright. I will now explain all the concepts associated with licensing and the transfer of ownership.

The agreements binding creators to stakeholders in the arts and culture industry in Canada make systematic use of provisions granting licences or transferring the rights of a creator to the benefit of major industry players. In addition, the real winners of Bill C-11 are the large movie studios and record labels, not Canadian artists and consumers.

Since I come from a family of artists, I was able to witness first-hand the terrible consequences related to the inequality of power that is common in the artistic production sector in its broadest sense.

As an illustration, I will delve into empirical studies by sharing a story about something that happened to my father. My father is an author-composer-performer who speaks Innu almost exclusively. Like me, he comes from the Uashat mak Mani-Utenam community. In the early 1990s, he went to the United States to promote culture and perform.

During his time in the United States, a digital recording was made of his voice while he was singing time-honoured songs from thousands of years ago. Some say that that is in the public domain, but someone made a digital recording of his voice and when he came back to Canada many years later, he was surprised to hear the recording in a major American film, of which millions of copies had been distributed. It was difficult for him to understand how his recording had ended up in a Columbia Pictures film. But nothing came of it and he still has a bad taste in his mouth when he thinks about what happened.

Next I want to talk about sharing. I will talk about the traditional way of looking at information sharing. This link with the sharing of traditional aboriginal knowledge is relevant in analyzing the situation before us. While first nations have thus far had limited recourse to Canadian laws pertaining to intellectual property to protect creations resulting from their traditions, it is recognized that unauthorized copies of works by groups and communities; the appropriation of aboriginal themes and images; artist copyright infringement; culturally inappropriate use of aboriginal images and styles by non-aboriginal creators and the exclusive appropriation of traditional knowledge without compensation are quite common within socially deprived communities.

Now, when I say “appropriation without compensation”, that is a direct reference to the pharmaceutical advance that resulted from traditional knowledge the indigenous people had on the land. When I talk about indigenous people, we may go as far away as New Guinea and Australia, but here in Canada, we know that the pharmaceutical and pharmacological industry has drawn on traditional knowledge on the centuries-old use of plants on the land. Today, there are multitudes of medications that derive from that direct application. There is a recognition, in a sense, of the contribution of the Innu and indigenous people in general, but very few patents, in my opinion, have been issued to the indigenous nations.

It goes without saying that the proposed legislation does not answer any of the considerations raised by the indigenous communities and highlighted in the study entitled “Indigenous Traditional Knowledge and Intellectual Property Rights”, prepared by the Parliamentary Research Branch in response to a request in 2004. In addition, the bill to modernize copyright will allow a third party to establish a system of digital locks that will supersede virtually all other rights that may be exercised by the indigenous nations over their ancestral works.

As we can see, the imbalance of power that can be observed in the arts industry gives rise to appalling situations, a reality that has unfortunately eluded the text of the bill. The proposed legislation simply exacerbates the disadvantage the artist is at, for the benefit of recording and movie studios that have enormous resources at their disposal for creating a system of digital locks that will supersede virtually all other rights provided in the legislation. Ultimately, this practice will enable the industry to protect its declining capacity to generate enormous profits.

Regarding the concepts of licence and assignment of rights, these are usual clauses that we see in contracts: the artist is not in a position to bargain since most often they are presented with a standard form contract. The clauses already exist. Assignment is a little rarer, but explicit licences are included and the artist is then bound by them. The artist has very few rights, other than the moral right in respect of the ultimate use made of their work, and they are not in a position to stand up to the armada of lawyers who work for the industry.

The government must therefore amend the provisions relating to digital locks before this bill is passed. Apart from its negative effects on artists’ income expectations, that measure grants exorbitant powers to the rights holders, the players in an already very well-off industry.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for my colleague. How can this legislation, which gives priority to the development of a digital economy, respect the culture and artistic performances of the members of a nation that needs to be respected merely to continue to exist and to have a cultural life?

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He will agree with me that social considerations carry very little weight on the other side of this House. This is a pattern that we are going to see in the coming years, namely that those who detain the monetary and economic power will always prevail over those who care about other considerations, whether environmental, cultural or social. The legislation before us today is no exception and it is a reflection of that pattern.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about aboriginal artists. Aboriginal artists and artists from all ethnic backgrounds have a great deal to contribute. Many of those contributions come from their heritage. It is one way we are able to benefit from the rich heritage of many of the communities that make up our beautiful country. I believe it is one of the reasons the government overlooks the importance of those artists. We should encourage that aspect of the industry. We can do a lot more in terms of supporting it.

Would the member give a general observation in terms of what he believes the impact of the bill would be on that industry? Also, would he agree that there is much more that we could be doing for that industry?

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. As regards communities, I am always going to refer to my own community, namely the Innu of Uashat Mak Mani-Utenam. One should realize that they are not at all familiar with the debates that are taking place in this House, particularly in the case of the current bill.

One should also realize that my community is very distrustful and rather reluctant to share its information and culture, for reasons that are now rather obvious. There have been problems like embezzlement and abuse, whether on a cultural or other level. So, it goes without saying that implementing the measures proposed in this legislation will not improve dialogue, and even less so the sharing because, ultimately, it is the industry that will hold the key and enjoy all the privileges. The artist as such will be pushed aside and will play a very minor role.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Manicouagan for his excellent speech in this House.

My question is similar to the one asked by my colleague who spoke before me about the impact of the bill. The situation of aboriginal artists is quite unique. Does this bill take that into account, or have aboriginal artists again been forgotten in this bill to modernize the act?

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. The text of the bill makes no mention of aboriginal people, contrary to the 2004 study, which was carried out by Parliament. It makes one wonder if people were paying attention. At the time, aboriginal groups pointed out what they needed and wanted. This bill, which updates the Copyright Act, clearly pays very little, if any, attention to the transmittal and protection of ancestral knowledge and the expression of oral culture. We all know that ours is a predominantly oral culture. It is marginalized, as it always has been.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie.

Copyright legislation, the issue of digital locks and Bill C-32 have accompanied me from the beginning of my political journey a couple of years ago.

I live in a riding that has a large population of post-secondary students, and when I said I was running for the nomination in the riding, many of them wanted to talk to me about Bill C-32 and the concerns they had over the digital lock provisions in that bill. These are students. These are text savvy people. Many of them are the next generation of artists and creators. The bill is important to me.

Copyright is at the heart of how our society treats creators, artists, musicians, and composers. It is very important that we recognize their contribution, that we value what they have created, and the value that it brings to our society.

My brother is one of these people. He is a musician. He is a jazz saxophonist. He teaches for a living. He plays. Sometimes he records. It matters to me a lot that our artists are treated fairly.

However, every time technology changes there is a need to modify copyright law. A very simple example of that is photocopying. When it becomes much easier to copy a book, we have to think about what that means for protecting written material. When it becomes very easy to copy music, we have to think about how to adjust our copyright laws. One thing that has happened in the past to deal with that adjustment is that a levy has been imposed on the sale of cassettes and CDs to compensate artists for the work they have done.

Now we are in an age where technology has changed again, very radically. I am sure that when I was a young person, nobody had on their desks all the things I have: a phone, a couple of computers, and so on. Technology is all around us and we can copy all sorts of digital material from one device to another.

It is very important that the legislation before us is technology neutral. Probably the best way to talk about technology as far as this legislation is concerned is just to ignore all the technology in front of us and just think about all the copies of digital materials in the cloud, on the Internet. We do not even have to think about the hardware in front of us.

It is important to have digital locks, since a lot of copyrighted material, material that is created by our artists, writers, musicians, is in the cloud, but we can improve this legislation as it pertains to digital locks.

The students I met with very early on in my political career were very quick to bring this to my attention, which is that digital locks should not trump the other rights that are being given to consumers in this legislation. Consumers should have the right to buy material and to copy it for their own use. Students should have the ability to have copies of materials so that they can learn.

A really good example of that is something my brother, the musician whom I want to get back to, related to me. I really did not appreciate it, but when he explained it to me, things suddenly became very clear. My brother says that the training, education of musicians today, as compared to, say, 20 years ago, is radically different. The reason why it is radically different is because young musicians today can listen to a lot more music than they could have 20 years ago, a lot more variations of music from around the world.

That is because of the Internet. Not only does the Internet allow a lot of different kinds of music and creative things to be brought to people, but a lot of creative people can communicate what they have created to others around the world through the Internet. This is a tool for the next generation of creators and artists and people who are creating.

This is really something special that has changed how artists, musicians and writers are being trained and educated. They are really able to immerse themselves in what is happening around them and what has been in the past as well.

I think it is very important that we take a bit of time. I hope this happens in committee, if the bill goes to committee. We must be more careful about defining fair dealing and education. I am not so sure what my brother related to me, this training of musicians which is not necessarily in schools and not necessarily in a formal setting, if that is something that would be properly considered in a definition of education.

As far as fair dealing is concerned, there are definitions that we could incorporate into the bill. The Supreme Court has made rulings about what fair dealing means in certain cases and has established certain criteria. These criteria could, I understand, be incorporated into the bill.

That is why in the recent amendment that has been brought forward by my party there are two provisions. One is to first of all uphold the rights of consumers to choose how they enjoy the content that they purchase, to avoid the overly restrictive digital lock provisions that would seem to take away the rights that are being granted consumers in this legislation, which does not make sense. The second is to take some time and write down a clear and strict test for fair dealing for education purposes.

There is a lot of controversy over this legislation. There are people for it and against it, and it is probably because, in my humble opinion, the legislation could be made clearer. Forgive me for throwing out this example, but I often find that in my experience as a scientist, if people disagree about something we should really sit down and look at the numbers and write down the equations, put everything on the table and define the terms more carefully. Often, in the field of science and research a lot of disagreements melt away when definitions are made precise and people look at actual numbers and hard data.

It makes sense to me, from my experience, that if we were to take some time and write down clear definitions of fair dealing and education in the exceptions to the copyright protections in the legislation that we could probably resolve some of the controversy around the legislation.

The third provision in the reasoned amendment is that there are certain streams of revenue that will be affected by this copyright legislation. We should take some time and think about how the streams of revenue will be affected and think about providing transitional funding for artists who adapt to the changes and the loss of some revenue streams that would be caused by the bill.

These are the reasons why the provisions in the reasoned amendment make sense to me. That is why my party and I are supporting this reasoned amendment.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I find the hon. member's proposal kind of interesting. He talks about the amendment like it is just a simple amendment to a bill. This is of course a bill that has been consulted on probably more than just about any bill that I have seen in six years here. There have been thousands and thousands of submissions, 39 hours of committee testimony, and the Liberals today have introduced an amendment that the House decline to give second reading to the bill.

It is not an amendment to make changes to the bill, just an amendment to wipe out the bill altogether, instead of going through the process of continuing the committee hearings that we have had, and hearing from witnesses that have not had a chance to appear yet. The Liberals would just wipe out the 12 years, I think it has been, of consultation on the bill and four different iterations of the bill to this point.

In the interests of co-operating, why would the Liberal Party not just bring forward suggestions for amendments according to the regular process, get those to the committee stage, and put ideas on the table there as opposed to wiping out the bill here today?

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I assure the member that Liberals will be proposing amendments. If we wanted to jettison this bill, we would have proposed a hoist motion. The reasoned amendment allows us to specify the reasons why we oppose this bill going to second reading and they are very clear. I read them out before and will not read them again. They explain what is wrong and the sorts of amendments that should be made.

The member talked about all of the testimony that was given. Why did the Conservative government not look at all of that testimony and maybe make a few changes between the legislation that appeared in the last Parliament and Bill C-11 that is before us today? There were no changes made, so I do not believe the government has really paid attention to all of that testimony.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have received a lot of correspondence from constituents about Bill C-11. I received an email from a constituent named Mark Burge, who said what I thought was very thoughtful. He said, “A solution to Bill C-11's contentious core problem and the means to avoid the unintended consequences generated by the broad protection for digital locks is to amend the Bill to permit the circumvention of digital locks when done for lawful purposes. This approach is compliant with the WIPO Internet Treaties, provides legal protection for digital locks, and maintains a much better copyright balance--”.

He urges the House to either add an infringing purpose requirement to the prohibition of circumvention or add an exception to the legislation to address circumvention for lawful purposes. Mr. Burge believes that in addition to linking the prohibition of circumvention to the act of infringement, it is paramount for consumers to have commercial access to the tools required to facilitate such lawful acts.

I am wondering if my hon. colleague would care to comment on what I think are some very thoughtful suggestions from someone who clearly has studied this issue in my riding.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his comments, which accord very much with what I have been hearing from my constituents, many of whom understand the need for digital locks but also concede that the digital lock provisions are too stringent. They go beyond the need to protect lawful uses of material. It makes a lot of sense and I hope the member and his party will propose those amendments in committee.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak to this extremely important copyright bill. When I was the science and technology critic before the last election, I had the pleasure of sitting on the committee that addressed this extremely important issue which, as we know, goes back a long way.

Canada, of course, signed on to the WIPO treaty back in the 1990s. We all know that it has been a long tortuous road with respect to modernizing our copyright bill. We in the Liberal Party attempted to do so; unfortunately, with changes in government and other things, it did not happen, so here we are today with Bill C-11.

I participated in a legislative committee before the election when the bill was known as Bill C-32. As has been pointed out many times today already, there is no change in the wording of Bill C-11 versus Bill C-32.

This is surprising to me. In reality we listened to a very large number of witnesses from many different fields. They represented what I would call the three main stakeholders: industry, the producers of video games, movies, music sets, electronic books and those kinds of things; consumers, all of us who buy these copyrighted materials; and finally the third group, the artists. There are a great many artists who are ultimately the producers of the works that we buy.

We heard from a large number of these people, and from other groups in the education field, as well as librarians, photographers and a great many people who have an interest in modernizing the copyright law.

When we finally saw Bill C-11 as it was presented just recently, we discovered, as I said, that there had been no changes whatsoever to it, yet there were some very compelling testimonies presented by the witnesses who appeared earlier this year. Personally I would have thought, and I had hoped, that the version we would be dealing with today would have had some changes put into it.

In relation to many areas that needed to be modernized under copyright, I would say this is a good bill, and the Liberal Party is ready to support those aspects. However, there are also a number of areas on which we feel the points brought up by witnesses were valid. We feel there should have been consideration given to changing it to make it a more balanced copyright bill. Unfortunately, that did not happen.

I have to say that the thought went through my mind as to whether there had been any intention to listen to any of the witnesses who had appeared. So far, on face value, I would have to say no, because nothing has actually changed between Bill C-32 and Bill C-11.

Although we will be going to committee with Bill C-11, my question is this: are we going to end up with exactly the same bill at the end of that process, or is the government really willing to actually listen to some of the inputs? That is my concern.

This morning the heritage minister said that they did not change anything in Bill C-32 when they made it Bill C-11 out of respect for all those witnesses.

Now, there are two ways to take that, and I am not quite sure what he meant. One possibility is that the Conservatives have stored up the witnesses' input and at the end of the process will make changes. The other is that they are really telling us that we will go through this charade for whatever amount of time Bill C-11 will be debated in committee and otherwise, but will end up with exactly the same bill that was presented a while ago. We therefore introduced an amendment this morning.

As I have said, there are a lot of good things in Bill C-11 that we fully support. For example, I come from a riding where there is a major video game presence. It is a large industry. Canada is a leader in this area, and I support the desire and the need to protect against piracy. That is very important for Canada. That is an example of something we support entirely.

We also have no problem with certain other things, such as some of the fair dealing provisions that would deal with parody and satire.

However, there are other areas where valid points have been brought up. The first one, of course, has to do with digital locks.

Our point of view in the Liberal Party is that if people buy a copyrighted product such as a piece of music, a video, or an electronic book, download it and pay for it legitimately, then they have bought the right to that product. If they choose to transfer it to another device, again for their personal enjoyment and for a non-infringing personal purpose, then we do not believe they should be forbidden from doing that, even if it has a digital lock on it. That is fundamental in our position. It is because those people have paid for the product, and it remains a product that they want to use for personal purposes.

The argument presented by the minister of heritage is that if it has a lock on it and the buyers intend to transfer it, they have a choice of either breaking the law or not buying the product. We do not think that is the way we should approach this particular issue of digital locks, nor do the majority of Canadians.

The second thing has to do with fair dealing and the definition of fair dealing. As members know, “fair dealing” is defined under a number of criteria in the Berne Convention. The particular issue that was probably the most contentious was bringing education under fair dealing. When that happened, we in the Liberal Party and a lot of the witnesses asked for a definition of “education” under “fair dealing”. In fact, we proposed, constructively, to codify a number of criteria established by the Supreme Court that would establish whether fair dealing had been infringed because, as members know, if people feel that fair dealing has been infringed, the onus is on them to get themselves a lawyer and say that there was an infringement of the fair dealing with respect to the use of their copyrighted material.

A number of criteria were proposed by the Supreme Court. We believe these are good criteria and that they should be codified. We made that suggestion during the hearings for Bill C-32; a lot of the suggestions were listened to and a lot of people mentioned this same idea, yet we do not find it in Bill C-11. That is something else we find very preoccupying.

Finally, there is the issue of transitional funding to help artists, particularly if we look at an example like the music industry. In relation to this industry, we recognized a number of years ago that artists should be compensated when their music is copied. As members know, we established a levy on CDs and cassettes, and for a while this gave a very good compensation. It got up to about $28 million annually. An organization responsible for sharing that money out among artists did so, and that was accepted by the artists.

Of course, CDs and tapes are not used very much today for recording musical works, so we suggested that an alternative should be put in place, and we still believe it is important to address the requirement for fair compensation for artists who produce works and whose works are copied to other media.

That is the why we proposed this reasoned amendment today. We hope that the Conservative government, as it listens to the debate here and as it goes to committee, is sincere in paying attention to what witnesses say and to all the written submissions.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Madam Speaker, my question is for the distinguished hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, who seems to find some positive aspects in this bill. However, if he thinks they are positive, how does he explain that this copyright bill is being unanimously rejected by creators and is not getting any support from arts groups and organizations? How can we interpret this move by the government, which claims to be a true defender of culture? How can you claim to defend culture when every creative artist rejects this legislation?

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the question.

Indeed, among the key people affected by this issue, it is true that creators are getting the short end of the stick. I agree. We in the Liberal Party have worked on that. We have even proposed creating a fund to ensure that our musical artists are adequately compensated for works that are copied. We have shown through this example that we were prepared to make special efforts and create a special fund to compensate our artists. We met with them. We proposed changes. I think the approach we took with the artists was constructive and tried to recognize that they are getting shortchanged in this bill as it is currently worded.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest as the hon. member talked about amendments that the Liberals had moved to the bill. The Liberals did not actually move any amendments, plural; they moved one amendment to the bill, and that amendment basically wipes out the bill. It is an amendment to wipe out the bill.

Of course, we have 12 years invested in this bill, as I mentioned earlier to his colleague on a question. We have seen four different versions of it. As was explained earlier today, we moved the same version that we had spent a lot of time on as colleagues. We spent time on the same committee last time discussing this bill. We heard the same testimony from literally dozens and dozens of witnesses in over 39 hours of committee testimony.

I do not really have a question. It is more of a comment. If we are actually going to be able to move forward, if we are actually going to respect the process and the dozens of witnesses who came forward to say how important it is for us to pass legislation, perhaps we can work more co-operatively than just moving an amendment to wipe out all the work--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I must interrupt the hon. member. We must stop at 6:30. We will give the hon. member a chance to respond.

The hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, for one minute.

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

Madam Speaker, first of all I hope that my hon. colleague is going to take a hint. What we are trying to suggest here is that there are some changes required.

A minute ago and earlier today I listened to him talk about how we have listened to so many people and have received so many witnesses and so many written submissions, but what do we see in Bill C-11? Can he tell me that everything that has been suggested under the Bill C-32 legislative committee is actually being considered for the final version, or did we do a tape erase and start from zero? Are we going to go through a sham exercise that will not change a darned thing?

If he wants to talk about listening to Canadians, he has not done that yet.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Pursuant to order made on Monday, October 17, 2011 the House shall now resolve itself into committee of the whole to consider Motion No. 6 under Government Business.

I do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of the whole.

The House resumed from October 18 consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, be read a second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from Longueuil for sharing his time with me.

I rise to speak to Bill C-11. It is a complex and quite honestly dumbfounding piece of legislation. It attempts to strike a balance between the interests of consumers and stakeholders.

The need that the bill is meant to address has been lost in the haste of having legislation in place by an arbitrary date. However, it must not only answer immediate concerns but also future concerns of stakeholders. In its haste, the government is missing a golden opportunity to provide support for Canada's creators and in fact is abdicating its responsibility to them.

In this era of ever-evolving, growing and fluid digital integration of communications and entertainment, it is even more important that the bill strike a balance between the needs of Canadian consumers and their ability to access and enjoy artistic content and the undeniable rights of the creators of that content. It is imperative that a sound legal framework be established to protect the rights of creators and other stakeholders.

The works of artists can inspire, comfort, educate and on occasion help us express that which we are unable to express on our own. In addition, those works fuel the heart of a massive economic engine that drives $85 billion into the Canadian economy and provides 1.1 million jobs, yet those works still are grossly undervalued. The bill underlines that fact by putting business, consumer and user rights ahead of the rights of the creators of those works.

The nature of copyright is better expressed in the French language, “droits d'auteur”, meaning author's rights, the right of the author, the creator. That right gives artists the ability to determine how their works will be used. Sadly, this is conspicuously absent from this document, or at least is addressed minimally.

As an artist, and an advocate of the bill since its previous incarnation as Bill C-32 through to its present state, I have discussed the issue at length. When meeting with individuals and members of organizations in my constituency office as well as here in Ottawa I hear the same concern expressed. Although they agree that new copyright legislation is needed, they all ask why money is being taken out of the pockets of artists and why their needs are not being addressed.

Indeed we have entered new territory and, as with anything new, there is always adaptation required. For the first time in history the types of physical controls that copyright holders held in the past are gone. Entertainment and academic works are accessed more easily and therefore are less protected.

What protection mechanisms do artists have? There are a few cursory exemptions from prosecution or civil action for consumers and their advocates. In exchange a rather dizzy and confusing series of vague obligations are offered, one of which includes shredding their class notes. The artists and cultural communities are offered lip service with regard to the principle of equitable compensation for their creative works. They are also offered an inconsistent and frankly scary approach toward the protection of those works as well as compensation for them.

In its present form, Bill C-11 is an unequivocal failure. It outright fails to satisfy the two most important benchmarks we as parliamentarians use for evaluation. It fails to establish clear, universally understood rules for consumers. It also fails to ensure equitable enforceable compensation rules for those people who dedicate their lives to the creative enterprise.

Many of my colleagues have remarked on the many practical problems of this law, some of which we in the official opposition are committed to remedy through good faith dialogue at committee stage. I hope my colleagues across the way will work with us on this approach with purpose and in the spirit of openness.

After a long career in the arts, I came to Parliament as a voice for those artists and a voice for the constituents in my riding who are artists. From my perspective, this law's greatest weakness is its complete failure to extend or acknowledge the vital and current compensation framework upon which so many artists, writers, musicians and creators depend for their livelihood.

During the 2008 federal election, the Prime Minister made his feelings with regard to artists clear. We took exception to that, particularly in my home province of Quebec. The bill does little to show any change of heart regarding the Prime Minister's view. The images provoked by his words are misleading and undermine the artistic community, which contributes far more to this country than it receives.

Typically, today's Canadian artists continue to focus on their creative works more than where their next meal will come from. The typical artists in this country have a median income of under $13,000, yet the government sees fit to take $30 million a year out of their pockets.

That party's characteristic cynicism, for which it grows ever more famous, shows the value the members of the government have for artists.

I look at the discussion regarding digital access as a reminder of the Wild West days when our forefathers came to this country and were given pieces of sticks and told to go out and stake their claims. For some reason, many people feel that the Internet offers that same opportunity. However, like our forefathers who staked their claims, there are people who own the rights to works of art found on this worldwide entity called the Internet.

The Internet is a tool. It is a medium through which we can access all sorts of information. However, if we walk down Sparks Street and the HMV doors are open, that does not give us the right to walk into HMV, put a CD in our pocket and leave. We must provide compensation, which is what the bill fails to do.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague's speech, which was very interesting. What struck me was the amount of $30 million that creators can collect from the existing fund. That is a very small amount of money compared to everything that is at stake and compared to the total cultural economic activity.

Could my colleague talk to us more about the fact that what our creators and artists are calling for represents a drop of water in the economic ocean of all the potential spinoffs?

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

Mr. Speaker, the $30 million is money that is collected from users for accessing the works of artists. However, in this digital age, it is virtually impossible to lock down everything.

Many years ago, a method for compensating artists was developed. Money was put into a fund from which artists drew. As the bill stands now, that money would no longer be available. The private copy levy placed on cassettes, CDs and CD-Rs, which is a nominal fee of 27¢ per disc, is where that money came from. With the advent of other forms of digital media, CDs are virtually becoming obsolete and this money has been in decline since approximately 2006.

That is what the bill must provide compensation for. It expropriates that money without providing any form of compensation.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to debate Bill C-11, the copyright modernization bill. It is very appropriate that we are debating this bill today. It has a very useful function.

This week I had the opportunity to engage in dialogue with a variety of artists in my office, led by members of the Canadian Private Copying Collective, which is a group that works on these very issues. The livelihood of its members depends on the outcome of these issues. Artists across this country can only receive revenue for and in support of their works in certain areas. Although they have certain tools at their disposal, they do not identify the bill as being a significant addition to their tool chest and in many ways do not see it as a solution.

Artists liked the idea of the MP3 tax, but the Conservatives did not, so they held it up as a red herring and it was never put in place. That is unfortunate as the MP3 format is now the main means of copying music in this country. If we look at the shifting pattern of copying activity which the CPCC provided in its fact sheet, that is the direction in which the industry and people are going. Unfortunately, the legislation is not working very well.

I admit that I have never copied anything from the Internet or any music at all. I always buy music in a medium that comes in a plastic container with the artist's picture on the front and a description of his or her work. I find that to be an acceptable way to obtain music. I have not varied much from that. It might be that I am a bit of a Luddite or perhaps I am a polite person as well.

I believe that musicians provide a relief to society. Those young people in our society who engage in music are often not as troubled as those who are not because they have an outlet for their emotions.

A young artist speaking to me in my office expressed the fact that he did not want digital locks on everything. Rather, he wanted society to recognize and respect him. He wished for an ordered society that would understand the rationale of the music industry just as drivers driving down a highway understand its rationale. As we are in a collective relationship as we head down that road we must work together to make that a part of our societal function.

Primarily, there is a need for education. However, the government uses draconian punishments that are hard to enforce and difficult for musicians to exercise. They would have to take their fans to court and fine them. As unfortunate as it is that someone would illegally copy a young musician's music, he or she could still be a fan. The thought of musicians taking people to court because they copied and listened to their music would not work in our society. That is not a remedy we want.

To create a society that respects musicians and their creativity we need to provide some education on that. The thought of detecting recordable sounds and copying them as evidence to be put in front of a court is ridiculous.

We have seen that. We have been in this modern age for quite a while. As a rule is set up, they will take it out.

We should not kid ourselves into thinking that, when we put in copyright legislation which puts the onus on the courts and the legal system to enforce these rules, it will work very well. We need to put more effort into our society, into education and into raising the standards of our society so that people understand that supporting artists is a good thing to do. We have done this in very innovative ways in the past.

Canadian artists make up 25% of radio broadcasting in Canada. That has been a mainstay of the Canadian music scene since I was a child, and that was quite a while ago. That is why musicians probably gather in $50 million a year from SOCAN. The songwriters, the people who create the music, have that opportunity, which is a good thing. It works and it is in place.

The private copying of collective work was being done as well when most of the recordings were done on CDs. When we suggested that taxing the MP3 would help this situation without going to court and without the musicians having the burden of holding on to the rights or the burden put on the courts, we thought that would have been a more acceptable pathway toward what we are trying to accomplish.

Digital locks will not work for radio broadcasts. Right off the bat, this would be another way these things would be broken down and where songs can be recorded, even though they might be under digital locks in one fashion but not in another. They would be available to the public without the digital lock. Are we really creating anything of value here? Will this solution work?

I have trouble many times in the House with Conservative legislation. The government's legislation, in so many ways, appears to be kind of useless. It does not work for what we want to accomplish. I would ask Conservative legislators to look at the legislation. Is this really what they want to accomplish? Will this really work? What are their goals in putting this forward to us today? Are they going to protect musicians or are they going to put an unnecessary burden on musicians and on the court system trying to interpret and to intervene in these copying issues?

I stand with musicians in Canada. They play an enormous and good part in our society. I have supported them throughout my life in my role in municipal government. I have always promoted music festivals. I am always promoting the opportunity for people to expand their musical abilities. It is something that the House wants as well.

What is more important is to understand that the law is not what we want to create in Canada. What we want to create in Canada is the atmosphere of trust, confidence and respect among young people, among those who would perhaps take something for free rather than pay for it, because they do not understand that they are damaging people with that act.

We need to put our efforts in other directions. This bill does not suffice. It would not create the kind of Canada that we are after. As such, I would love to see more work done on the bill. I know this issue is important and I trust that parliamentarians will come to grips with it.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the bill seeks to modernize the Copyright Act, something that has been before Parliament for a number of years. One of the things we have been grappling with is the ability to protect the people who create. In my area of the country, some of the most important creators are those who create video games. One thing that truly impacts that sector of the economy are the pirates who try to break the locks and copy the games. They have the ability to put the creators out of business.

I wonder if the hon. member would agree with me that this bill strikes the appropriate balance in helping to protect very vulnerable industries and the creators so they know the valuable works they are creating will be protected and they will actually see the benefit of all of their hard work.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity to speak to video game producers. My emphasis is on musicians.

If the hon. member thinks that is of particular importance, could he explain to me how the bill would protect video game producers? It may well be that this particular part of the bill would help that industry. I would like to understand that better as well, of course. We are here to debate the bill, to understand how we can make the bill better and how these issues can be dealt with in our society.

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

Mr. Speaker, to follow up on the hon. member's question, would he comment on the concept of digital locks? Digital locks, being digital, are very easy to break. The minute a lock is put on, someone is working to break it.

Would the member comment on the possibility of finding ways to balance out compensation for everybody, including video game producers, musicians and audiovisual workers, and whether exploring a way of compensating for the potential loss might be a better way of approaching this issue?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, that is part of what comes from the Canadian private copying collective. The tax on CDs worked fine while CDs were the main instrument of copying. In some ways, it was a very non-intrusive effort and a good effort toward ensuring that there was some compensation for artists because we do not have a society that respects the rights of artists to hold their works without being copied. We needed to find some way around that and we did it without going to the courts. We did it through a tax system.

I still think that underlying this is a huge need to raise the level of respect in our society for artists and creative people. That would do more for the issue and society than penalties, fines and imprisonment through the court system.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber. I believe that the members on the other side are all very proud Canadians. I often hear them talk about our country's cultural influence and how dynamic our society is. I wonder what message they are sending to the people responsible for this influence when these members are doing absolutely nothing to protect creators and are instead taking care of those who make money from their work.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I see this as being another issue where we would create confrontation rather than solutions, which is what I see through this Copyright Act.

The confrontation, on the one hand, would come in the form of people finding technological solutions so they would not be covered under this particular law. That is the problem. We do not want people running around trying to find ways to copy so they do not fit under the law.

What we want is to have people respect and understand that our society is ordered on certain ways. That takes more time and effort but it is still the direction in which we need to go. Therefore, amending this law without having any idea of how we are moving our society is wrong. It will not work.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-11 and I am going to address most of my comments to the issue that we were finishing with my colleague from Western Arctic around the flaws in the bill regarding compensation for the creative people in this country.

It is appropriate that we set the bill in historical context. There is absolutely no question, and it has support from every member in the House, that we need to bring copyright and laws on copyright into the 21st century. We are clearly not there now as a country. In fact, it is fair to say that in the developed world we are near the bottom of the list in terms of modernizing our legislation and our rules regarding copyright.

There is no issue around supporting the bill at second reading. The basic underlying philosophy of the bill, which is what we are supporting, is that we do have to modernize. However, we want to be quite clear, as the official opposition, that there are significant amendments that are required to make the bill palatable to ourselves as a political party, but more importantly, palatable to the Canadian public as a whole and in particular to the creative classes if I can designate them that way.

The other point I would like to make at the outset is that historically there have been various times when societies have made major leaps forward in the creative fields. Probably the most recent one from my perspective in terms of major leaps was the Renaissance period in the 1500 early 1600s. If we study other parts of the world there have been similar types of advances. There is a huge leap forward.

If we look at those periods of time and ask, why did it happen, did somehow magically people become more creative? The reality and the answer is no, that is not what happened. What happened is that society as a whole, both governments of the day and the wealthy members of society, came forward in a more extensive way than we see during other periods of time and supported their artists and creative classes.

We saw a major leap forward in Italy in particular during the Renaissance, certainly in England during the Shakespearian period in particular. When we ask how did that happen, it was a period of time when the wealthy and the governments or ruling classes of the day were much more prepared to ensure that those people within their society who had those creative juices were given the opportunity to expand their skills, talents and creativity.

When we are looking at a bill like this one, I believe we have to take that into account. Perhaps the greatest concern we have with the bill is that it will not enhance the financial viability of our creative people, but have just the opposite impact. There is a balance at all times between the owners of new technology, new developments in the arts, that has to be clearly balanced off against the actual creators of that new technology or new developments in the arts. It is our position that the bill is way too heavily weighted on the owner of content side than it is on the producers, developers and creative artists on their side.

I want to quote some numbers as to the current situation in Canada. The most recent figures we have, and this comes from the Canada cultural and arts industries, from ACTRA, the union that has great impact in that industry, indicate that the arts and culture industries contribute $85 billion a year. To put that in context of the total economy, it is 7.4% of all revenue generated in Canada. It is a huge part of the market. It supports approximately 1.1 million jobs, which is about 6% of Canada's labour force.

It is quite clear that some of those numbers, and we argue some significant part of those numbers, both in terms of the revenue generated and the jobs created, would be jeopardized by the legislation.

It is quite clear that there are other steps that could be taken, in terms of investment in this industry. I always have a hard time thinking of artists, sculptors, and writers as being part of an industry but, in fact, they see themselves that way. They certainly are, as these numbers show, a significant part of our economy, and they have historically been, in a number of societies.

It is true today when we see some of the advances that we are making, not just on the technology side but in any number of areas. For me it is one of the areas of art that I follow most closely in terms of the arts. Writers in Canada have demonstrated to not only create great writings for the domestic market but to have gone on to the international stage.

I was in Ireland recently. I remember talking to a member of its parliament who commented about how much, and I say this from an Irish background, the Irish of course have been producing for the world great writers for a long period of time, Canada now fits into that. In fact, the parliamentarian was claiming in part that it was because of the genes that came from the Irish ancestry that had settled in Canada.

However, we have dominated, in many respects, at the international level for a good number of years, going back certainly into the 1960s, when our writers moved on to the international stage, created a market for their writings and enhanced literature in the world as a result of the work they did here in Canada, and then took it internationally.

However, think of all the other writers who did not get that chance because we did not create enough opportunities for them. I am going to quote another figure here from the 2009-10 fiscal period. The median earning of an artist in Canada that year was $12,900. I do not even think that takes them to the minimum wage, the legal minimum wage in most provinces in this country. We have to do better in that regard.

Again, coming back to the bill. Because of this shift in balance favouring the content owners, we are at some risk that the $12,900 figure in subsequent years is going to go down. The estimate is that millions of dollars are going to be taken out of the hands and control of the creative classes and shifted over to the content owners.

If that is in fact the result, we know we have to move significant amendments. We have had pressure internationally from both multinational corporations and some governments to use the U.S. model in this regard. In terms of protecting both our sovereignty of not wanting that kind of interference when we legislate but also in terms of protecting those artists we absolutely must have amendments to the bill in this regard.

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

Mr. Speaker, at the very least we can say that, unlike the third party, this party is actually prepared to read the bill and work with us to get it to committee and hear what even more Canadians have to say. We spent a lot of time in the previous Parliament on this bill and heard from a number of witnesses. I spent a lot of time over the summer doing the exact same thing.

Over the last couple of weeks, there has been a lot of disagreement among members of the NDP over a number of different issues within their party but there always seems to be unanimity on one issue; that is, when there is talk about increasing taxes on Canadians. It seems to me that this speaker and also the speaker before, the member for Western Arctic, continuously talk about bringing back taxes on Canadians, whether it is an iPad tax or any other form of tax.

I wonder if the member could just clarify for me if the overriding dilemma or problem that the members opposite have with this bill is that it does not tax Canadians enough. Is that the problem they are having? Are they truly going to continue to advocate for a tax on iPads? Where will it go? Will we be taxing people who make PVR recordings of their favourite TV shows? I just wonder how far along the tax road we are going to go with this.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that shows a significant lack of understanding of what we are talking about on this side of the room and, more importantly, because this cannot be driven just by political parties but by the creative classes.

They are saying very clearly to us that they want to be paid. We are not talking about taxation here. They want to be paid for their services. The content owners are saying they have development costs and they want to be compensated for that, not only fairly but extremely generously.

All we are saying is the creative groupings, those content owners, go nowhere unless this work is done and it is only going to be done, and done well, if they are properly compensated. We are talking about people being paid for the work they do and being paid at least reasonably well, let me say “fairly”, nowhere near as generously as we hear from the content owners and the demands they have.

This not about taxation at all. It is about a fee that is being imposed. As a lawyer, I expected my fees were going to be paid for the work that I did. If I am creating a piece of art or a new piece of technology I would expect to be paid accordingly, fairly, in direct compensation for what I have done and for what it has contributed to my society. The whole question has a basic fallacy at its base. This is not about taxation. This is about fair compensation in the marketplace.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take advantage of my colleague's legal expertise to try to clarify a few things.

If I invented a new technology, my rights would be protected by patents that would bring in the money I need to continue creating. As an artist, my rights are protected, in principle, by copyright. However, if I am a content owner, there does not seem to be any protection for me. If I am not mistaken, this bill will take money from artists' copyright and transfer it. I would like my colleague to clear that up and to tell me if I am understanding correctly.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is completely right. That is what the government's bill does. It is clear that the government completely ignored the consultations and testimonies from the last Parliament.

As the hon. member said, the evidence and testimonies are there, but the Conservatives completely ignored them.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to talk about the bill before the House.

Since I have spent more of my life as a teacher in a university than as a politician, I thought I would focus on the implications for the university and college sector.

In this regard there is both good news and bad news. The bill gives the educator something positive and in another way takes that back. I am referring to the new fair dealing rights and exceptions, where education is now included. This will make it somewhat easier for teachers in the classroom to use certain materials without arduous cost.

Some of the producers have objected to this, but my impression is that it is a positive thing. Some teachers want to innovate. An example would be teachers who want to show a one-minute clip of a movie to make a point, but currently they cannot do that without paying very high copyright fees.

The impact of this new education right on producers will be less negative than some have claimed. This is because in determining what is considered fair, our courts use a two-step test created by the Supreme Court of Canada to determine whether a use is fair or not. The first step is to determine whether the use of a work is for one of the fair dealing purposes listed in the act. The second step is to assess the fairness of the use against six factors, including the amount of the work used and the effect of the use on the market for the work. Using this test, our courts have consistently determined that the scenarios envisioned by creators, unmitigated free copying with no payments, is not fair and thus is not permitted.

A clear definition of what is fair should be included in the act. One way to accomplish this would be to embed the Supreme Court's two-step test into the act itself.

That overall is positive, fair, reasonable and balanced. The problem comes with the issue of the digital locks.

Bill C-11 introduces new rights for Canadians to make copies of copyrighted works for personal use, such as format shifting, time shifting and making backup copies, but Bill C-11's new digital lock provisions override these new rights. In other words, under this new law, if a company puts a digital lock on a CD, the person who buys the CD cannot circumvent the lock to put the music on to his or her iPod without breaking the law. This exact issue was a highly controversial change which was fought when the Conservatives' previous copyright bill was introduced.

A long list of leading academics, educators, librarians, archivists, documentary filmmakers and citizens have expressed legitimate concern that digital lock provisions will undermine the balance that copyright law is intended to strike between creators and users, completely undermining a user's ability to use copyrighted works that they have purchased.

Several experts, including Canadian research chair, Professor Michael Geist, have suggested an easy way to fix this would be to amend the bill to make it okay to circumvent a digital lock if the purposes for which a lock was circumvented were lawful. This would be an easy amendment to make to the bill. It would preserve that better balance which I think most of us are seeking.

Because restrictive digital locks can effectively undermine consumer rights articulated in the copyright law and the very balance copyright law seeks, and because the Conservatives have made no attempt to change their stance on digital locks, that is sufficient reason for the Liberals to oppose the bill.

Going back to my example of education, the bill makes it easier for educators to use materials in their classrooms, but then it negates that advantage by bringing in these digital locks which, under certain circumstances, would make it illegal for the professor to produce the clip or other material which he or she wished to use in class. It would be lawful to use that material in the class, but because of the digital locks, it would be unlawful to produce the material which it is legal to use. That makes no sense. That is why we in the Liberal Party are extremely concerned about this issue of digital locks.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, as an educator had great concerns about the copyright legislation. I looked into it and talked to people in the educational community. They are very satisfied with the way the bill is now. In fact, the Association of Universities and Colleges supports this bill. It said:

This bill reflects a fair balance between the interests of creators and users of copyright works and is a positive step forward for university communities across Canada.... [The bill] clarifies important questions and will help ensure students and learners have access to the content they need, including digital material.

As my colleague across the way mentioned, the law now says that teachers can use any media to show these types of products. Before it specifically indicated they could be used in overhead projectors and flip charts, but now it takes away references to specific technologies so that modern technology can be used in the classroom. The universities and colleges are very happy with this legislation. They say it is fair treatment protecting both creators and users. It also improves the technological availability to our classroom teachers across Canada. I would hope that the member across the way, as a former teacher, would support that.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the most charitable response is to say that my colleague's quote by the Association of Universities and Colleges is incomplete. It is not completely happy with this bill.

I happen to have with me a direct quote by James Turk, executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers. Here is what he said:

We are pleased that the Bill reflects the priorities of Canada’s academic and research community to expand fair dealing specifically for educational purposes.... This represents a genuine effort to introduce balance into Canadian copyright law.

That is the part that my hon. colleague likes. Mr. Turk went on to say:

At the same time we are disappointed that the legislation makes it illegal to circumvent digital locks, even for lawful reasons such as fair dealing.

That was precisely my point and it is precisely stated by the executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the hon. member's speech. I, too, am very worried about digital locks and anti-circumvention measures. Last spring, ironically enough, the members across the way were tearing their hair out during the debate about Statistics Canada and prison terms related to the long form census.

In Bill C-11, people who try to bypass a security measure could be fined $1 million or sentenced to up to five years in prison. Given that the omnibus bill will make it even more difficult for someone sentenced to jail time to be rehabilitated, could Bill C-11 have serious consequences?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with the point raised by my colleague. It is not a good idea to put people in jail for such reasons. But Bill C-11 is not surprising given that the Conservatives want to put almost everyone in prison.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act. Modernizing copyright is a legitimate goal, but how we achieve that goal is what must be debated. However, before I focus on any specific aspects of what the Conservatives are proposing, I would like to take a moment to share a little story.

Please allow me to illustrate the injustice suffered by our creators with an example taken from the reality facing wheat producers in the west. Imagine that a company has invented a revolutionary way to duplicate wheat to allow the synthesis of an equally high-quality flour used in a simple, practical, compact machine that makes sliced bread. Thanks to a sophisticated device, the wheat can be duplicated almost exactly, so well in fact that once it is milled into flour, the illusion is complete and the machine can produce tasty, fresh, aromatic bread. But it does not end there. The machine is quickly improved. It becomes more compact, lighter and easier to use. It can now even make buttered toast with a choice of toppings: peanut butter, jam or, my personal favourite, honey. It is easy to carry around so you can have breakfast anywhere; you can have a nice piece of bread in your car, on the bus or at the office. As a bonus, all of these places then smell like fresh bread or buttered toast, to everyone's amazement and delight.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but it is time to proceed to statements by members. The hon. member will have eight minutes to finish his speech after question period.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou has eight minutes to finish his speech.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying earlier, imagine the wonderful smell of buttered toast, smothered in honey, wafting through our offices. Obviously, that makes us think that the machine I described is a marvel. However, it is relatively expensive to purchase. A few hundred dollars, but we can pay a price per piece or buy a subscription to get toast at a fraction of the cost of the traditional way. That obviously makes this new machine more attractive, since any honest, hard-working individual will jump at the chance to improve his life for a low price.

That being said, not everyone agrees with this new approach to breakfast and some people refuse to buy the appliance and stick to their traditional methods. However, this innovation becomes quite successful and is sold across the country. This revolutionary device shakes up our morning habits and causes major changes that affect the stakeholders in the traditional bread industry. We have to tell it like it is: our wheat farmers are not compensated for the process to duplicate the real wheat in our fields. Initially, the appliance is not seen as a threat because no one could imagine anything replacing real bread, but the astounding success of the new machine results in lost markets for the wheat farmers. After a high-profile court case, the farmers' legitimate calls for a fair price for their wheat are dismissed. That same wheat remains absolutely necessary in the duplication process created by the innovative company that is now an industrial giant.

That is not the worst of it. The government takes the side of the company in question and, in a supreme act of bad faith, describes the legitimate royalties the farmers are seeking for their wheat as a consumer tax. Our wheat farmers do not have the means to stand up to this powerful and dishonest propaganda and are forced to continue fighting rearguard actions with limited means, hoping to find allies in the public or among other groups in order to reverse the trend.

There you have a story to illustrate the major technological changes we are experiencing—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I am sorry, but I must interrupt the hon. member.

The hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons wishes to speak.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker. I apologize to the hon. member for the interruption. However, there have been further discussions among the parties and now I am much more confident that you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That a take note debate on the subject of the ongoing violence and vicious attacks against Coptic Christians in Egypt and their institutions, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, take place on Tuesday, October 25.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The House has heard the terms of this motion. Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to present the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will forgive the hon. member for the interruption since that is also a very important issue.

I would now like to continue. As I was saying, this story helps us to understand the major technological changes that the world is experiencing and what our creators stand to lose if Bill C-11 is passed as is.

Creators must not have their works expropriated, as the wheat farmers in my riding have had the fruits of their labour expropriated; this must be avoided at all costs. And we are not even talking about the impact such action would have on the entire creation-related production system, which involves a very large number of people. Today, I would like to set the record straight and put things into perspective.

First, it is important to understand that, contrary to popular belief, artists are not rolling in money. As some other hon. members have mentioned, according to the figures for 2009-10, the average income of an artist in Canada is less than $13,000 a year, which is below the poverty line.

According to a 2008 report by the Conference Board of Canada, the cultural sector generated approximately $25 billion in tax revenue in 2007 at all levels of government. That is three times higher than the $7.9 billion that was invested in culture by all levels of government in 2007. If an investment yields three times its cost, I do not see what is preventing the government from supporting this industry in every way possible. How can anyone claim that artists are dependent on government handouts when their creativity contributes to the country's economic and cultural prosperity?

I would be remiss if I did not mention the many economic benefits generated by creators. The Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists estimates that the arts and culture industries in Canada contribute $85 billion a year to our economy. I would like to remind the members of this House that this amount represents over 7% of Canada's gross national income. That is over a million jobs in the Canadian economy. These industries and the jobs that depend on them can survive only in an environment where intellectual property is protected.

It is worth taking a moment to talk about what the government calls the iPod tax. Several times now, the government has described extending the private copying exception to include digital audio recorders, which the NDP supports, as an iPod tax. The tax could cost Canadian consumers up to $75 per device, the Conservatives said. Does it not seem a little ridiculous to imagine artists and authors taxing consumers, who are their bread and butter? Quite the opposite, the Conservatives' copyright bill, Bill C-11, will ultimately increase the current levies on cassettes, CDs and DVDs. To use the language that the Conservatives themselves are using, this would be like a tax on those products.

Another important point deserves our attention for a moment. Bill C-11 creates an artificial distinction between copying for private use and reproducing for private use. It does not propose adding any new digital storage media to the existing private copying system, but it protects the system in its current state. Nothing could be further from the truth, since the scope of the levies would be determined by the Canadian Copyright Board, a government agency under the supervision of the industry minister. This kind of control would make authors take a back seat, and it would be somewhat worrisome to see the minister have that kind of arbitrary power.

The Conservatives ignored the opinion of the experts who appeared in committee and the conclusions of their own consultations on copyright held in 2009. It is absurd. As a result, they have introduced a bill that could do more harm than good. In addition to introducing a new control mechanism wielded by a single minister, this government did not take expert opinions on the matter into account.

In conclusion, I invite my colleagues to remain vigilant. The NDP believes that Canada's copyright laws can strike a balance between the rights of creators to obtain fair compensation for their work and the rights of consumers to have reasonable access to content.

We need to pay attention to creators. Wanting to tax consumers shows a complete lack of understanding of the reality facing authors.

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

Madam Speaker, we have a clear understanding on this side of the House, but for the opposition, much of the problems with the bill stems from the fact that they do not see that we are taxing Canadians enough. I think we have a clear picture of that.

However, would the member comment on the unique part of the bill which talks about “notice and notice” for our Internet service providers so we can better protect copyright owners from those who seek to poach their work and does he support that provision in the bill?

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for asking this question.

This really is one of the regrettable aspects of this debate and others as well. Unfortunately, we argue too easily over details. All the New Democratic Party is asking for, in this debate as well as others, is to be able to discuss these questions openly and thoroughly.

Unfortunately, despite this government's openness to receiving proposals, all of ours were categorically rejected. I hope that the hon. member will listen to me and that we can speak openly.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for the striking way he is approaching this issue.

I would like to carry on with his analogy. In terms of his machine, it seems to me that it is a question of modernization, as opposed to creation. Usually, when a machine is created, engineers are called in to help, but when it comes time to modify it, I would think it important to consult with those who actually use the machine.

In the case of Bill C-11, are there associations of creators in Quebec or Canada that seem to support the government?

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for praising my creative talents. I truly enjoyed using them.

So far there has been no representation from the creators in support of this bill. It is a shame that in this situation, and in others, it is the major conglomerates, the major power holders that have the upper hand. It is the property holders—Sony, Apple and other corporations—that have ample means to defend themselves. Obviously we have to provide a regulatory framework to protect their interests, but creators are also calling for this same right. We wonder why the government is denying them that right.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, could the member elaborate on the economic contributions he sees from the indirect jobs? I know many of our communities have those indirect jobs in the arts and culture industry.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her question.

Yesterday, I had the honour of receiving farmers from across the country. They told me all about the spinoffs of farming activities. The same thing applies to the arts. It is quite extraordinary to see the economic contribution made by creators through the many partnerships they bring to the table and the massive multiplier effect that results. I am talking about two, three and four times the level of government investment. Sometimes it is almost 10 times the investment when we talk about general economic activity.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to add my voice to this debate. What we are dealing with in the House at this moment is an amendment to Bill C-11 suggesting that what we should be doing is essentially striking the bill. The amendment says that the House would decline to give a second reading. I believe part of the reason for the amendment is that this piece of legislation fails to deal with the concerns raised in connection with previous versions of the bill; this is not the first time that the House has seen some attempt to amend the Copyright Act.

With regard to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, I know listeners are interested in why we are talking about complex issues. The legislative summary discusses copyright law in Canada. It says:

Copyright is a legal term describing rights given to creators for their literary and artistic works. Copyright attaches to an original work that is fixed in some material form. In other words, copyright protects the expression of an idea or intellectual creation; it does not protect the idea itself.

It also says:

The Act affords the author of a work the right to authorize or prohibit certain uses of his or her work and to receive compensation for its use. The purpose of the Act, like that of other pieces of intellectual property legislation, is to protect copyright owners while promoting creativity and the orderly exchange of ideas.

New Democrats, the member for Timmins—James Bay and the member for Jeanne-Le Ber, have very ably raised the point that we absolutely need an amendment to the copyright laws we currently have in Canada. Everyone agrees that we need an amendment, but as other members have pointed out, the devil is in the details.

New Democrats have consistently proposed that copyright laws in Canada can balance the right of the creators to be compensated fairly for their work and the right of consumers to have reasonable access to content. We have proposed amendments to the bill that would create a fair royalty system for artists, because as it stands right now, the proposed legislation will actually wipe away millions of dollars in revenue for artists. This has a profound effect not only on the artists' ability to continue to create and contribute, but also on our communities and our economic well-being. I will touch on that in a minute.

The proposed Copyright Modernization Act essentially gives with one hand while it takes away with the other. While the bill contains a few concessions for consumers, they are unfortunately undermined by the government's refusal to compromise on the single most controversial copyright issue in this country, digital lock provisions.

In the case of long-distance education, for example, people in remote, isolated communities would have to burn their school notes after 30 days; this is hardly an improvement or an appropriate use of copyright laws. I was formerly the aboriginal affairs critic, and we understand that the only way for many aboriginal communities to have access to a more balanced education system is through the Internet. Students simply need a reasonable parity of time to access material that is so essential toward their becoming important and productive members of the future labour force.

New Democrats have proposed removing the sections of the copyright modernization bill that would make criminals out of everyday Canadians who break digital locks for personal noncommercial use. We support the lessening of penalties for those who are responsible for breaking copyright laws; this would prevent the excessive use of lawsuits against ordinary citizens, which has been problematic in the United States. There were extensive copyright consultations in 2009, and the bill that has been reintroduced from the former bill simply has disregarded that extensive consultation.

I want to turn for a moment to the economics around copyright. This is the reason it is so essential for us get this piece of legislation right. Many of our communities have a vibrant community of writers, singer-songwriters, theatrical producers, cinematographers, and producers of Internet media, and many communities derive a substantial benefit from these creative activities.

A couple of years ago, the Conference Board of Canada did an extensive report on the contribution that arts and culture make to our communities. I want to quote from the report, because it illustrates why it is important that we get it right and why New Democrats have been so very adamant that what the Conservatives have proposed simply does not fix some of the problems before us.

Chapter 1 is entitled “Valuing Arts and Culture as Cornerstones of the Creative Economy”.

The chapter summary says in part:

In a dynamic environment of global competition, demographic change, and migration, Canada’s culture sector plays a critical role in attracting people, businesses, and investment; stimulating creativity and innovation; and distinguishing Canada as an exciting place where people can celebrate their heritage and achieve personal and professional fulfillment.

The first chapter of the report goes on to discuss:

...the value to Canada of the culture sector as an economic engine, a magnet for talent, and a catalyst for prosperity.

We often hear in this House about how important it is for what we do here to contribute toward overall economic growth. What the Conference Board of Canada is laying out is a framework describing how the culture sector, beyond just the very fact of culture, is part of what is creating that innovation and that prosperity.

The report goes on to state:

Traditionally, the culture sector has been recognized for its multi-faceted role in contributing to individual and community development, social cohesion, and quality of life; however, in recent decades there has been growing understanding and examination of the substantial economic contributions of arts and culture industries and of their central role in the creative economy.

The report goes on on to talk about what the creative economy is, and since I only have 10 minutes, I cannot get into the details of that. However, I know, for example, from talking with some of major software developers that it has been very important for the software development industry to be able to tap into that creative community to enhance their product. That is another sideline that the creative community often plays.

Now we can talk about dollars and cents. This is an overview of the economic contribution. I am only going to read a small part of it. It says:

The economic footprint of the culture sector is much larger, when accounting for combined direct, indirect, and induced effects. The Conference Board calculates this full contribution as valued at $84.6 billion, about 7.4 per cent of total real GDP, in 2007.

It goes on to say:

Considering the effect of culture industries on other sectors of the economy, including direct, indirect, and induced effects combined, culture and related industries employed over 1.1 million people in 2007.

However, there is a discrepancy in this, and the Conference Board of Canada goes on to point this out. Many people feel that sometimes people in these creative industries make big bucks. Contrary to that, it specifically cites artists. The report states:

In the case of artists, for example, despite the fact that 41 per cent of artists have a university degree, a certificate, or a diploma--almost double the rate of 22 per cent for the overall labour force--average earnings remain relatively low at $23,500 per year.

It is important to raise that point because of the complexity of the copyright legislation. One of the goals of copyright is to ensure that artists are adequately compensated for the work they do. If we fail to do that, we already have some components of the culture sector who are seriously underpaid for what they do, so we want to ensure they are compensated.

Many of us could get up in this House and talk about the importance of culture at the local level in our ridings. My riding is a great example. A number of years ago, the town of Chemainus was struggling because its major employer, the sawmill, shut down. The town of Chemainus reinvented itself and became known as the town of murals. Chemainus is now a vibrant artistic community that not only has these magnificent murals on the walls but has also generated a whole series of other activities. In addition, the town of Chemainus has a very good theatre company, and people come from all over the island to attend its productions.

In the town of Duncan, every July we have a folk festival that brings in singers and songwriters. This provides a venue for, particularly, new and emerging Canadian artists to perform and engage in other creative activities with other artists from across the country, and sometimes from afar as well.

The city of Nanaimo has a very vibrant theatre culture, and of course Gabriola is awash with world-renowned songwriters and performers. Bob Bossin is only one of many. A recent arts tour on Thanksgiving weekend highlighted the diversity of the arts culture on Gabriola.

I will conclude by saying that this is a very important piece of legislation that we need to get right in order to protect not only consumers but also producers of arts and culture in our country. I would strongly urge all members to take this bill back to some basics and get it right.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague's very eloquent exploration of the bill is greatly appreciated.

This country has enjoyed a massive burst of popularity due to the work that groups like Arcade Fire are expressing. Their ability to do their job is predicated on the fact that they do not have to literally go to McDonald's and flip burgers to make ends meet.

Could my hon. colleague comment on what losing this kind of income would mean to the creative capacity of our artists?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, that question is fundamental to part of what we should be talking about.

We often hear in this current economic climate about how important it is that we support job creation and that we support good-paying jobs. I would argue that as the arts and culture community is fundamental to so many of our communities, it is very important that we protect artists' rights to make a decent living.

That romantic notion of starving artists living in garrets to produce their great works does not retain much romance when they have to pay their bills at the end of the day. What we want is a thriving arts and culture community that can pay its bills.

Another colleague talked about the multiplier effect. The arts and culture sector is an enormous contributor to many of our communities. People see the finished product and think that is all we are dealing with. However, they are not talking about all the suppliers for the painters. They are not talking about the people who provide the framing of those goods.

I could go on about the economic contribution that arts and culture makes, but in the context of this particular bill, we need to ensure that we do the job of protecting both the consumer and the producer.

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

Madam Speaker, it was interesting that one point the member made was that at the very least we are able to have this debate and that the opposition, the official opposition in this case, is prepared to go to committee to hear from more witnesses. We spent a lot of time in the last Parliament on this matter. We have spent a lot of time in a number of Parliaments on it. All of us have probably reviewed some of the testimony we heard at committee, and it is gratifying to know that one part of the opposition is prepared to hear more testimony and hear from more Canadians.

I wonder if she might comment on some of the provisions in the bill that deal specifically with PVRs and time shifting, which would allow Canadians to no longer live in fear of how they watch their TV. I wonder if she would also comment on the notice and notice provisions that we have put in the bill with respect to Internet service providers.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think what the parliamentary secretary has raised in his questions is the very complexity of this particular piece of legislation. He is quite correct. In previous Parliaments, we did have committee hearings dealing with various aspects of this bill, and I was just looking for the direct quote on the legislative summary.

However, what we found in previous committee hearings was, in effect, that there was no consensus about how to deal with some of these issues. The reason New Democrats are supporting having this go back to committee is to deal with some of those very complex issues that are not currently reflected in the bill, in the hope that we can amend the bill to better reflect what we believe Canadians are telling us.

I look forward to future discussions on this particular piece of legislation, because it is very important that we engage in copyright reform in our country.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives have once again introduced a bill to modernize the Copyright Act.

Bill C-11 is identical to the previous copyright legislation introduced by the Conservative government in the last Parliament. Copyright modernization has been needed for a long time, especially with the advent of new technologies. The new legislative amendments would adapt Canadian rules to take into account new technologies and would also harmonize them with current international standards. This is a very complex issue because it involves the demands of stakeholders in artistic communities, universities, the technology sector, business and consumer protection groups.

This bill will create powerful new anti-circumvention rights for content owners, preventing access to copyrighted works. This will result in a situation where digital locks will practically trump all other rights, including fair dealing for students and journalists.

This gives rise to a number of problems that I would like to highlight. First, there is the danger of creating situations where consumers will not be allowed to use content for which they have already paid. Although the bill contains some concessions for consumers, they are undermined by the government's refusal to reach a compromise on the most contentious copyright issue in Canada: the provisions regarding digital locks. Many stakeholders from the areas concerned believe that digital locks are completely obsolete and that only a few industries, such as the video game and computer software industries, still use such protection.

Although the Conservative government continues to say that the proposed changes to the Copyright Act will protect the best interests of Canadian consumers, the reality is that the Conservatives have based their policy on the concerns of large copyright holders, especially those in the United States. The real winners with Bill C-11 are the major movie studios and record labels, and not Canadian consumers.

Recent information published by WikiLeaks also demonstrates that the main copyright owners in the United States conspired with the Conservatives regarding Canada's Copyright Act. One of the most worrying WikiLeaks revelations is that a key staff member under the industry minister at the time encouraged the United States to put Canada on their piracy watch list in order to pressure Parliament to pass new legislation that would weaken the rights of Canadian consumers.

I would also like to point out that digital locks supersede all other rights set out in the act. That includes changing the format for someone who is visually impaired, for example. The goal is to allow recording companies and movie studios to protect their declining capacity to generate profit.

These new provisions would require that, if a digital lock has been used, copies made for education purposes must automatically be erased in five days and class notes be destroyed within 30 days of the course ending. That will have serious consequences for students who take distance-education courses. When it comes to distance education, for example, the provisions in the new bill mean that people living in a remote community will have to burn their class notes 30 days after downloading them. That is not an improvement on the current situation and it is not an appropriate use of the copyright regulations.

I should point out that the Conservatives talk about fair dealing for purposes of education, but this is not defined in the legislation. Anyone can make a claim for this kind of use. For example, in Quebec, an agreement signed in 1982 between the educational sector and the collectives such as Copibec allows for certain products from authors and artists to be copied, in exchange for compensation. However, the Conservatives' Bill C-11 would encroach upon this agreement. This would lead to an estimated loss of $10 million. There is a lot of uncertainty about what teachers can do with these works. I should point out that a society that wants to expand its knowledge must regularly quote authors who are well educated and who are behind the creation of new knowledge that allows our society to advance and develop.

The compromise provisions in Bill C-11 would officially include current grey area practices, for example, practices that allow users to record television shows to watch later, provided that they do not create a library of recorded content, as well as practices that allow a user to transfer musical works from a CD to an MP3 player and make backups. The bill will also create new exceptions to the Copyright Act for fair dealing, including exceptions for teachers and for parody and satire. The exceptions in Bill C-11 are among the most controversial elements of the new bill. The long and complex list of exceptions does not adequately recognize the rights of creators. In fact, these exceptions create new means for consumers to access protected content without also creating new ways to compensate creators for the use of their work.

With this bill, the Conservatives have intentionally avoided addressing the question of a possible extension of the private copying exception. An exception for private copying has been very effective in the past concerning cassettes, DVDs and CDs. The NDP agrees that the Copyright Act needs to be modernized, but we feel that this bill has too many glaring problems. In some cases, it even creates new problems where there were none before.

The NDP wants to and is willing to amend the bill so that it betters reflects the interests of Canadian authors and consumers. We in the NDP strongly believe that changes to copyright in Canada can strike a balance between creators' rights to be fairly compensated for their work and consumers' rights to have reasonable access to content. For the benefit of the various stakeholders, we need to create a fair system of royalties for artists. This bill grants several new privileges concerning access to content, but it does not provide any new ways to pay artists. In its current state, this bill deprives artists of several million dollars in revenue. The Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists estimates that Canada's arts and culture industries contribute $85 billion per year to our economy, which represents 7.4% of Canada's GNI, and support some 1.1 million jobs, or about 6% of the Canadian labour force. These industries and the jobs that depend on them can only survive in an environment where intellectual property is protected.

Despite the important contribution made by these industries, according to the figures for 2009-10, the average income of an artist in Canada is $12,900 a year. The money the artist invests in production must also be subtracted from this amount. As a result, artists make an average annual income of approximately $8,000.

It appears that all efforts to reform the Copyright Act in Canada in recent years have had very little to do with creating a system that balances the rights of creators and those of the public. Rather, these efforts seem to be attempts to meet the demands of large content owners in the United States, such as movie studios, recording companies and video game developers.

We are therefore proposing to delete from the copyright modernization bill the clauses that criminalize the removal of digital locks for personal, non-commercial purposes. We support shorter sentences for those found guilty of violating the Copyright Act because this would prevent excessive recourse to litigation against individuals, a situation that is problematic in the United States.

Furthermore, the legal uncertainty surrounding the terms “fair dealing for the purpose of education” and “reasonable grounds” will lead creators to take legal action against users. A court decision can take years and such procedures will be extremely costly for both creators and users, and will result in costs that are higher than the penalties set out in the bill. The Conservatives have ignored the opinions of the experts heard in committee and the findings of their own copyright consultations in 2009.

As a result, they have introduced a bill that could do more harm than good. This bill will violate creators' rights and compromise our ability to compete in the digital realm of the world economy. Losses for all Canadian creators are estimated at $126 million.

That is why, although the NDP firmly believes that it is high time to update the Copyright Act, we cannot support this bill, which has too many obvious problems. Contrary to the Conservatives, we in the NDP will work hard to amend the bill—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. member. He could perhaps finish his comments during the period for questions and comments.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

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

Madam Speaker, I hate to keep pointing out the obvious, but the opposition has again pointed out that the best way to solve a lot of the copyright issues is to tax Canadians more. This is not something that we on this side of the House are contemplating.

Could my colleague discuss a bit the provisions of the bill which make it an infringement to induce or to enable others to steal the work of artists, such as movies, sound recordings and video games? Does the hon. member agree with those provisions in the bill that would protect those artists? Is that one of the sections that not only he but the rest of the members in his caucus will support?

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, compensation for artists' work cannot be considered a tax. In the past, there were levies placed on every blank CD and cassette tape sold. This allowed people to record music. It is important for authors to receive royalties for their products. With the new iPods, everything is downloaded for free. People think that they have the right to do so, when that is obviously not the case. It is important for artists to be compensated for their work.

When an iPod is produced, everyone is paid: the iPod manufacturer, the box manufacturer and the packaging manufacturer. Everyone is compensated. This product is designed to hold music. But the artist who created the music is not compensated. It is completely absurd to encourage such a situation. Yes, we must prevent people from downloading for free, but we must also compensate the artists who produce these works.

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

Madam Speaker, we hear the word tax being thrown around a lot in this conversation.

I come from an area which benefits from the use fees that are attributed to intellectual property. What is being looked for is use fees. If someone uses a product, then that individual should pay for that product.

My colleague brought up the fact that the people who created the iPod are paid. Patent holders, which is a type of copyright, hold a number of patents on various aspects of the iPod and other MP3 players and they are paid with each unit they have sold.

Why is it so hard to understand that the creators of the content that goes on to these patented objects should want to be paid as well? Why is it referred to as a tax because of that? Could my colleague elaborate on that?

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

I thank my colleague for his question. A fee for use cannot be considered a tax. Creators produce music, which is available on the Internet. People think that they can download it for free and put it on their MP3 players. Everyone was paid for the MP3 player, the product that plays the music—even the manufacturer of the paper and packaging. Everyone was paid, but the artist who created the work that users put on their iPods is not. That is completely absurd and we cannot allow that. Artists must be compensated for their work. We cannot consider that to be a tax. My colleague is absolutely right: it is not a tax; it is a fee for use.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me the floor.

I have the honour of rising today in the House to debate Bill C-11. As we all know, the purpose of this bill is to update the Copyright Act, which has not been changed in a number of years, in order to take the new digital technologies into account. We commend the fact that the government has finally decided to address this matter and we support the efforts to update the Copyright Act if they are geared toward justice and fairness.

The government could have taken this opportunity to resolve copyright-related problems, but instead it has once again demonstrated its narrow ideology by introducing a bill that satisfies American interests more than Canadian interests.

Last year, during the study of former Bill C-32, more than 200 submissions and proposals were made in committee, and each party offered criticism to improve this bill. These submissions and proposals gave us a better idea of the needs of our authors, creators and consumers. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have once again ignored Canadians. They are so arrogant as to brag about not having made any changes, since they prefer to get their orders from Washington.

I could ask why the Conservatives are ignoring these many in-depth consultations that were held in Parliament, but we already know the answer: for the Conservatives there is no room for reason, facts and evidence. This government insists on introducing these bills despite the many voices that speak out against them every time. This bill has a significant number of deficiencies that fail to serve either users or the authors.

Let us begin with the new rights and new exceptions with regard to fair dealing, especially for the purpose of education. A number of writers and publishers are strongly opposed to these exemptions, as they fear their works will be reproduced and distributed freely to students, which will result in lost income for them and constitutes, to some extent, an expropriation of their rights.

This is particularly problematic in Quebec and various francophone communities in Canada, given that, because of demographics, there is only a small pool of potential buyers.

Of course, a number of academic institutions support education exemptions because it will mean considerable savings and they will be able to use audiovisual products more often to facilitate student learning.

Creators live off their works and should be compensated when these works are used. A balanced bill would take the needs of creators and educational institutions into account, but this bill is not balanced and in no way compensates for the losses that certain authors will face. We are also asking the government to help artists adjust to the new digital reality and for transitional funding to help artists compensate for lost revenue resulting from the abolition of ephemeral recording rights, for example.

Another provision that we find extremely worrisome concerns digital locks. Bill C-11 introduces new rules for reproducing copyright-protected works for personal use but negates those rights by making it illegal to bypass a digital lock.

Someone who buys a DVD and wants to transfer its contents to a digital tablet, such as the Canadian PlayBook or the American iPad, will not be able to do so if the DVD has a digital lock. As we all know, various electronic media are making increased use of these locks to fight piracy and theft.

Therefore, the use of purchased works will be limited and buyers will be considered criminals if they break the lock in order to copy the work for personal use. This government will punish people who have legally obtained a work by limiting the ways they can use it and making criminals of those who want to use their legitimate purchase as they wish.

However, pirates have full use of the works they obtain illegally and will be considered just as guilty as someone who breaks a digital lock. Knowing how easy it is today for Internet users to illegally download works, pirated copies may appeal more to young Canadians than copies limited by a digital lock.

For example, why would a young person want to purchase a DVD if he cannot legally use the content on other platforms, whereas he could use a pirated copy, which is easy to obtain, as he sees fit? Bill C-11 is contradictory because, on the one hand, it allows copying of copyrighted material for personal use and, on the other, it prevents users from breaking locks that prohibit copying.

The provisions of this bill concerning digital locks are among the most restrictive in the world and cancel out the new personal use rights. This will ensure that, once again, Canadian users will be the losers. We must allow digital locks to be circumvented as long as it is for lawful and personal use.

It is not just political parties who are opposed to this bill. The Union des écrivaines et des écrivains québécois, the National Assembly of Quebec, the Fédération des commissions scolaires du Québec, the Association des libraires du Québec and many other groups have all publicly raised their concerns about this bill. As usual, this government is stubbornly ignoring Canadian interests. It prefers to address American interests under the pretext that it can do as it sees fit because it has a majority.

In fact, diplomatic cables clearly show that the Conservatives want to impose these restrictive measures as a result of pressure from the Americans. Once again, the Conservatives have decided to kowtow to the United States, which may try to impose its will on Canada more and more frequently, knowing that Canada will do what it asks without any opposition. It is high time that this government understood that it was elected by Canadians, not Americans, and high time that it started standing up for our people's rights rather than for the interests of American industries.

Many artists also spoke of their desire to have a resale right added to the bill to allow them to claim the revenue that they are currently losing. The government did not take this request into account, demonstrating once again that it does not care about the real and legitimate needs of creators, unless perhaps those creators are American.

Yes, the Liberal Party supports the modernization of the Copyright Act, but not in the form in which it has been presented to us today by this government. The bill is not balanced and does not pay enough attention to the needs of creators and consumers. The Conservative Party should have taken into account the many consultations pertaining to Bill C-32, which were held during the previous Parliament, rather than reintroducing an old bill that has not been changed despite the many amendments proposed. This government must stop ignoring the interests of Canadians and start standing up for them. It must stop doing nothing and amend this bill in order to address its many shortcomings.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from across the way for his presentation. I listened intently to what he said and I do have to question him though.

There are many groups across the country that support this legislation because it does get tough on IP crimes. That ensures that people who produce work, the creators, are protected.

For example, the Entertainment Software Association of Canada supports the bill. It said:

By deterring those who profit and benefit from stealing creator’s work, this legislation will help provide a framework for the digital marketplace and allow creators and companies to distribute their works in the manner that best suits them.

A further quote:

We strongly support the principles underlying this bill and look forward to working with Members of Parliament to adopt any technical changes needed to ensure the bill fully reflects those principles and avoid unintended consequences.

In addition, the Canadian Anti-Counterfeiting Network said:

We're pleased that the government is committed to getting tough on IP crimes. Piracy is a massive problem in Canada which has a tangible economic impact on government revenue, legitimate retailers, rights holders and consumers. It's extremely difficult for legitimate retailers to compete with those who abandon all ethics as they steal and rip,

This is supported by creators across the country. I ask the member of the opposition to get behind the bill as well.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member just read a quote that one of the associations is in favour of the bill, except it would like to see amendments. That is what we are doing. The Liberal Party is making amendments. We are ready to put the amendments forward now. If the government accepts our amendments, the bill is done and it is passed.

What does it take for the government to listen? What part of the quotes does he not understand? That is what I do not understand. It is in the quote. We are ready to work with the government, to make amendments. The Liberal Party is making amendments. They are ready, let us go, let us pass this bill. Make the amendments. It is not complicated.

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

Madam Speaker, I am always stunned by the Conservatives' comments.

They say that Canadians all over the country support this bill.

They have a talent for always referring to the only doughnut that everyone wants from the dozen, and passing over the 11 doughnuts that no one wants. That is always the Conservative way.

I would like to ask my Liberal colleague if he has any idea of the number of signatories from the Canada Council—which has nearly 80 organizations that are against this bill.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. He is a new member, so perhaps he is not aware that, during the previous session, there were over 200 people. This bill has been before us for about two weeks and everyone thought it would be amended. Everyone was a little reluctant. To date, there are perhaps 80 signatories, but I am sure there will be over 200, for we continue to receive emails every day from people who want to modernize the bill, but on the condition that the current bill is amended.

As I said to my Conservative colleague, I do not know what it will take to convince the government. Maybe if we were American they would listen to us. I do not know how this is going to work out. On our side, we are ready. We have proposed amendments. If the bill were amended, we could pass it right away.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville may ask a brief question.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be brief. We know that the average income of artists in Canada is quite low—less than $13,000 a year. It seems to me we should be helping these artists, encouraging them and trying to increase their income a bit.

I would like the hon. member to say a few words about this bill to explain how it is contrary to what we should be doing and how we can help these artists.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. The hon. member talked about a sum of $13,000 a year, but that was just the average. There is an artist named Céline Dion who earns more than $1 billion. It is her salary that raises the average because 80% of artists earn less than $10,000 a year. That is the problem.

How can we help them? We can create a separate fund. There are a number of ways to do so. We can work together. We have already held a number of meetings during the last Parliament. We can help bring the new parliamentarians up to speed. There are a great number of ways to help artists. They do enough lobbying. We all know artists. We are here for them.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, as we know, copyright is a complicated issue and features competing demands from different stakeholders. We have artistic, academic, business, technology and consumer rights that we need to balance.

I am pleased to speak to this bill because just a few years ago I did not actually know very much about copyright. I was invited to participate in a panel discussion and a movie viewing. I was invited by some Dalhousie law students and some Nova Scotia College of Art and Design, or NSCAD, students, law students and art students working together to shed some light on the issue of copyright.

They had a screening of RiP, a remix manifesto, which is a great Canadian documentary featuring the artist Girl Talk. Girl Talk does a lot of work doing mash-ups, putting different songs together to create a completely new song. There is a big question around whether Girl Talk actually violates copyright law. I threatened to do a mash-up in the House today but I will leave that to Girl Talk.

However, I thank the students at Dalhousie and NSCAD for holding that panel because it enlightened me on the issue of copyright and made me realize how important an issue it is to the riding of Halifax, as well as across Canada.

This bill, as we know, was brought forward in the last Parliament as Bill C-32. Despite a lot of feedback from stakeholders and community organizations that the bill did not strike the right balance, it has been reintroduced and it is exactly the same bill as before. The NDP believes that copyright legislation needs to be modernized and that it is long overdue, but this bill has a lot of errors, some glaring omissions and, in certain cases, it actually creates problems where none existed before. The NDP will work to try to amend this bill to ensure it reflects the best interests of Canadians.

The NDP believes that copyright laws in Canada can balance the rights of creators and their right to be fairly compensated for their work, and the right of consumers to have reasonable access to copyrighted materials. We will look for all possible amendments. This is what committee is for. It is to bring people forward, talk about what the solutions are and to look at amendments. We will look at all possible amendments to the bill that will create a fair royalty system for creators because, as it stands, this bill would wipe away millions of dollars in revenues for artists.

As I mentioned, the constituents of Halifax have a lot at stake with this bill. First, there is a very high student population in Halifax. Students are the creators and owners of copyrighted material in their articles, essays and works of art, but, at the same time, they are also consumers. In order to study and learn, students need access to the copyrighted works of others.

I met with the Canadian Federation of Students and it pointed out that this three part perspective of use, creation and ownership of copyright gives students special credibility when it comes to the struggle for fair and balanced copyright law. I met with CFS representatives and they have reinforced to me how much any copyright reform needs to strike that balance. It needs to be fair and balanced.

With so many students in my riding, it follows that we have libraries. We have law libraries, medical libraries, archives, university and college libraries and public libraries. I have met with many librarians and they have told me that they need balance. If we are looking at this issue, no matter where in Nova Scotia or Canada we are, balance is needed. Most of the librarians I have spoken to have pointed out the fact that this legislation does not get the balance right, especially when it comes to digital locks.

As we have heard in the House, the bill would create powerful new anti-circumvention rights for content owners. I want to take a second to point out that I said “content owners”. That does not necessarily mean creators or artists. It means owners. Often the owners are not the creators or the artists themselves.

The rights for owners prevent access to copyrighted works and they can be backed with fines of up to $1 million and five years in jail. That would create a situation where digital locks could actually supersede all other rights, including charter rights. If we look at people being able to modify the way they can see material because they have a visual impairment, that penalty would impact someone who has an actual charter right to view this material, which is not what anyone would intend to happen.

What does this mean? It means there is a very real danger for consumers that they could be prohibited from using content that they have already paid for. Sometimes the format just needs to be changed. It has already been paid for. There should not be anything wrong with that.

The legislation is really important to people in Halifax because my community is rich with artists and creators. We are home to movie and television studios. We have video game developers, song writers and playwrights, authors, designers, sculptors and dancers. It is really incredible to think that there could be that much talent in one small city, but we are a hub of creativity and innovation.

In being elected by those people, I have been sent to the House to protect their rights, to protect their ownership interests in their creations and to stand up for fair compensation for their work. We will bring forward all possible amendments to the bill to create a fair royalty system for artists because, as the bill stands now, it would wipe away millions of dollars in potential revenue for artists.

The bill would grant a range of new access privileges but it would not increase opportunities for remuneration for artists. This new playing field would profoundly affect the ability of artists to survive, something that all of us have seen first-hand in our ridings. Artists and creators make our communities worth living in. They deserve access to fair compensation opportunities for their work. Without those opportunities, we risk destroying our creative communities altogether.

In the bill, there is a long and complicated list of exceptions, and I do not think it adequately recognizes creators' rights. In fact, it would create new ways for consumers to access copyrighted content. We talk about balance and we are creating new ways but at the same time we are not providing new avenues to remunerate creators for their work.

The no compromise provisions in the bill would provide sweeping powers to rights holders that would supersede all other rights. If enacted, the bill would ensure that artists could not access their work despite the fact that they own it. In the example that has been shared with me, if people are studying abroad or doing long distance education they cannot keep those materials. I would go so far as to say that it is draconian and inappropriate to ask people to destroy class notes within 30 days of the course ending. This is knowledge they have learned. They have paid for this material. It seems absurd that they would need to destroy them at the end of the course.

What are the propositions? We really need to come together at committee and hear from people who are impacted by this legislation. There is a lot of opportunity to do some very good work and modernize the bill while balancing the rights of creators and the public.

I look forward to the bill getting to committee to see what happens. I am very hopeful that the Conservatives are listening and that they will take feedback into account and work with the NDP to bring forward good, solid amendments that will benefit everyone.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is right, and, hopefully, once we defeat the Liberal motion, we will have an opportunity to bring the bill before committee to hear some more witness testimony. As I said in earlier comments, we have heard testimony from a vast array of people.

Graham Henderson of Music Canada said, we are “pleased to see long overdue copyright reform legislation back on the...agenda and a strong commitment to get it passed”.

The Canadian Publishers' Council said that the government was demonstrating “a clear understanding of the need to amend the current Copyright Act to bring it more in line with our times”. It strikes me that much of this bill would do just that. It would bring our legislation in line with copyright legislation around the world.

Jurisdictions around the world talk a lot about digital locks, or technical protection measures. However, in jurisdictions around the world where TPMs are protected there is actually more content available. That can protect artists but they need to ensure that consumers have access to a vast array of products.

It is frustrating to hear yet again another NDP speaker talk about the only solution for Canadian artists and Canadians is to tax them more and that will solve all the problems.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, my colleague pointed out that committee provides the opportunity to hear from stakeholders and from people in the community about the pluses and minuses, the good points and bad points. He also pointed out that, the last time the bill came around, the committee heard from all types of people from around Canada who gave feedback about this legislation. So, why is the bill exactly the same as last time?

If we really care about feedback from Canadians, if we really are listening to them, why would the bill be exactly the same as last time? I hope that this time the Conservatives actually listen.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I fail to understand why we, as legislators, are constantly pitting consumers against creators.

As a consumer of music or any other art form, I would like to be able to buy a work and know for sure that the creator who produced it was compensated.

From what I understand of the current bill—and I would like clarification from the hon. member on this—if we pass it in its current form, the coming weeks will have to be spent creating fair trade music and fair trade art, like the fair trade coffee and chocolate we get from developing countries. It does not seem to me that we are going completely in the right direction.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his observation that so often the government is not actually looking out for creators.

If we look critically at this legislation, we can see that it would protect owners. As I said in my speech, owners are not necessarily creators, owners are not necessarily artists and owners are not necessarily users. They are publishers. They are music companies. They are industry.

This is one-sided legislation where the rights of owners would be protected but everybody else would be left out in the cold.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Madam Speaker, I can tell the member who we are looking out for. This party will always stand up and look out for consumers across this country.

One of the opposition amendments is to place an iPod tax on MP3 players, on telephones and on other pieces of technology that actually play some of the music that is downloaded illegally.

I would first congratulate the member for Halifax and all Nova Scotians for the Halifax Irving Shipyard's winning bid this week. It is a tremendous opportunity, of course.

What will the member do for consumers in her riding, particularly single parents trying to buy Christmas presents for their children?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his congratulations and extend them to him because a lot of the shipbuilders live in his riding.

With respect to representing consumers, I will not send them to jail for five years and I will not fine them $1 million because they may have made a mistake or tried to bust a digital lock on something that they actually already own.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, no one is against the modernization of the act, which has not been updated since 1988 and is considered obsolete because of the advent of the Internet and digital technologies. Many Quebec and Canadian creators have been waiting a long time for the legislation to be overhauled. Their expectations have been shattered and now they realize that the government has responded to institutional and, above all, corporate needs, and definitely not to the basic need of supporting creation.

If there is to be no creation, no support for the creative instinct that inspires any material that could be subject to the principles of copyright, why are we wasting our time setting copyright guidelines? This bill has drawn a great deal of criticism from all stakeholders affected by Bill C-11, be they academics, whom the bill is trying to please, or artists, who provide a revenue stream on which the government has always counted. There are also the members of the general public, who will be criminalized for the personal use of artistic material that they purchase. Pierre-Paul Noreau, of the newspaper Le Soleil had this to say:

What is astounding about the government's approach is that Bill C-11 is the exact replica of Bill C-32, which died on the order paper when the federal election was called.

But there was a long series of consultations between the two bills. Experts, artists and spokespeople from groups concerned with copyright testified during 20 meetings of a hard-working legislative committee. But since the government had already made up its mind, nothing that was said changed the original bill. The government did not even listen to constructive criticism of its approach. Cabinet reacts to such criticism by saying that amendments are still possible.

In its current form, Bill C-11 is a catastrophe for authors, since it directly undermines copyright, which is how authors earn their meagre incomes. The proposal reduces the potential to earn real dollars and does not offer any alternatives. For example, the education system will now have much more freedom to use works in class, whereas it currently pays tens of millions of dollars to authors every year. Similarly, the logical principle of a levy on blank cassettes and CDs that had existed until now, but that has been bringing in less and less money, will not apply to digital audio recorders such as iPods, which have replaced these formats for storing copied music and images. This means that artists will see their revenue sources dry up in the interest of more freedom for users.

The answer is sad, yet clear. Since the government has said that it is open only to technical amendments, creators will have to cling to the hope of the mandatory review that will be conducted in five years, if they are able to hold out that long. This long-awaited update contains several well-targeted elements. Unfortunately, it has one major weakness. The reform fails to consider the minor creators. Some creators and participants in the cultural industry have criticized the government for failing to extend the royalties they receive on blank CDs to new technologies, such as the iPod, in order to compensate them for the reproduction of their works.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. It being 1:30 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the hon. member. The hon. member will have six minutes left the next time this bill is called for debate.

The House will now proceed to consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from October 21 consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to speak today to defend creators.

The massive use of new recording and copying technologies has caused major upheaval in the cultural sector. For years now, in sectors such as literature and the medical industry, for example, or even the gaming and software sectors, artists have been posting major losses in revenue, essentially because of piracy and illegal downloads.

Instead of lending an ear to the creators who make up the true foundation of Quebec's cultural industry, the government has chosen, once again, to try to impose a plan that will further reduce creators' revenues and benefit big corporations.

Quebec is unanimous in its opposition to the bill. Quebec's creators have condemned Bill C-32 and Bill C-11 with all their might, underscoring the inconsistency of Ottawa's position: “We recognize that music is worth something when it is copied to a CD, but it is worth nothing when it is copied to a digital audio recorder”. Quebec's cultural industry and its artists are against Bill C-11.

Stakeholders have called for such essential provisions as the imposition of royalties on Internet service providers, in order to compensate for the losses caused by illegal downloading, but those calls remain unanswered to this day. Yet people across Quebec are speaking in support of creators.

Only 8% of music revenues are given to copyright holders in the music sector, while Internet service providers keep 83%. Since cultural products are attractive to Internet service providers and represent a huge portion of their inventory, it is only fair that artists get a share of the revenues generated from distributing their works on the Internet.

The National Assembly has unanimously rejected the government's bill and called for substantial amendments. Organizations that are well aware of the consequences of adopting the provisions currently on the table, such as the Barreau du Québec and the Union des consommateurs, have protested in similar fashion. Even the Fédération des commissions scolaires du Québec finds that the damage caused to the creation industry outweighs the benefits the Conservative bill promises to provide to the education sector.

The Bloc Québécois believes that we must modernize the private copying system by taking into account the reality facing creators and other artists, so that they can receive fair compensation for their work. We must maintain the contributions coming from educational uses, as well as the royalties paid by broadcasters for ephemeral recording. Artists and other creators need this income. Without legitimate compensation, Quebec's creation industry itself is in jeopardy in the medium term.

By introducing a new copyright bill—which is a carbon copy of Bill C-32, a bill categorically rejected by creators—the Conservatives are once again showing their contempt for the vitality of Quebec culture. The Conservatives' bill forgets a fundamental principle: artists need an income to survive and to continue to create.

It is clear that this bill will make our artists poorer and will benefit big corporations. The Conservatives did not listen to any of the legitimate criticisms and are proposing amendments that would significantly benefit the software, gaming, film and broadcasting industries, at the expense of our artists' rights.

The Fédération des commissions scolaires du Québec said:

Accepting the principle that access to copyrighted works is synonymous with offering them free of charge would negate the importance of authors' contribution to our children's education, and weaken the school publishing sector.

The Union des artistes said:

The bill...does away with private copying and completely strips Internet service providers of any responsibility, when they already profit from cultural content free of charge. It exempts the education sector from paying copyright and kills reproduction rights.

To sum up, what are artists asking for? First of all, they want the government to implement a system of royalties on sales of digital audio players to compensate artists for their copyright. They also want legislation to prohibit illegal downloading of artistic creations, to amend the bill to ensure that educational institutions continue to pay copyright fees, to amend the bill to remove the YouTube exception, and to not limit pre-established damages. Artists also want to receive compensation that represents a fair percentage of the profits of Internet service providers, and to be able to distribute musical creations in exchange for compensation, rather than having them trapped behind a digital lock.

The Bloc Québécois would like to reiterate four important principles. First of all, it is not free. Artistic creations are not free. Creators, artists and artisans have created them and they deserve to be paid for their work, just as everyone else is paid for the work they do. We must encourage creation in all of its forms and ensure that artists are paid, that Internet service providers are assuming their responsibilities and that consumers can make copies for their personal use.

Second, we must support dissemination. Consumers must be able to take advantage of the increased accessibility provided by new technologies and artists must be able to take advantage of all these dissemination platforms. We must therefore promote the dissemination of artistic works on all existing platforms. Through its subsidy programs, the government must support dissemination via new media without negatively affecting conventional media, which are often where new works appear in the first place.

The third principle relates to increasing public awareness about the value of artistic creations. In order to protect against illegal copying, it is the government's duty to launch a public information campaign, targeted at youth in particular, to raise awareness about respecting artistic works and to explain that the law protects copyright.

The Bloc Québécois' fourth principle relates to cracking down on piracy. The new copyright legislation must also address illegal copies made by people for commercial purposes. The law should come down hard on professional pirates and known repeat offenders.

In short, the Bloc Québécois and artists want a bill that protects artists' copyright and pays them for their work. Helping our artists is another way we express our culture and the concept of our Quebec nation.

That is why the Bloc Québécois cannot support the bill in its present form.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his wonderful speech. We know that the Copyright Act has not aged well and clearly needs to be updated. What would the hon. member say is the main change that needs to be made, especially in terms of piracy? The member spoke about piracy in terms of going to a flea market and thinking that you are buying a real copy when it is not genuine.

Does the member feel that that is the most important thing to deal with, or should we be dealing with the overall issue of copying and Internet piracy?

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his excellent question. The law needs to be adapted to today's reality. We need to understand that new technologies are creating a new reality in which creators' copyright may be infringed. Copyright must be protected and we need to understand that. However, in improving the law, we need to ensure that those truly guilty of copyright infringement—the pirates—will suffer the consequences.

The government needs to do a better job of targeting real copyright infringement instead of punishing creators.

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

Mr. Speaker, by way of illustration, one of the major issues that would come out of this would be digital locks. There is not a lot of talk about the cultural arts and how this would be one of the mechanisms by which artists could protect their crafts.

I think, quite frankly, that the government is focusing way too much on this digital lock idea, and, of course, it is really just favouring a business model. When it comes to individual songs right now, digital locks are going by the wayside. We can see how the evolution of technology is basically indicating that we cannot afford to have an inflexible bill.

I am not too encouraged by the fact that there will not be a lot of changes and that the government will not be open to a lot of changes when the bill gets to committee.

I would ask my colleague about the cultural arts sector in Quebec that he spoke to in reference to the money that would be lost from the use of this levy. The government has tried to turn the debate around to this iPod tax idea, but this is still a lost revenue for artists.

What would my colleague propose that the government do to help get some of that revenue back and help our most vulnerable artists?

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when we spoke about a levy on digital audio players, the Conservatives said it was a new tax. However, it needs to be understood that this is not a new tax. A tax is revenue for the government, whereas a levy allows our artists and creators to receive fair compensation in light of the new reality. With the distribution of digital audio files comes copyright responsibility. There is a clear difference between imposing a new tax and collecting a fair levy on the purchase of a digital audio player.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was not going to participate in this debate but I need to given that the Bloc, the Liberals and the NDP have all commented on a copyright bill with regard to this idea of extending the levy.

My Bloc Québécois colleague calls it a levy.

It is astonishing to me that a member of Parliament would stand in this place with so much enthusiasm and speak in favour of something, the technology about which he clearly has no idea of what he is talking about. People do not download MP3s and burn them onto discs anymore. Therefore, the idea of an iPod tax or a levy for MP3s, which is what the Bloc Québécois has been proposing for years, does not work. How does his proposal work with Stitcher and iCloud and the new streaming media advances that are being made right now?

The Bloc Québécois and the NDP proposals with regard to the idea of an iPod tax, as we call it, or extending the private copying levy, make absolutely no sense whatsoever to anybody who has even the simplest understanding of how technology works.

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am still waiting for the question. That was more a statement or comment. What I have gathered from the minister's intervention is that the Conservatives, no matter what the vision of the opposition parties, clearly have an ideological vision. Hence, no matter what bill they introduce, they will defend it without taking into consideration the amendments or the suggestions of the opposition. Once again, the Conservatives do not understand the situation of creators. It has to be pointed out to them over and over again.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise this evening to speak to Bill C-11.

There is no question that Canada's Copyright Act is in dire need of an overhaul to reflect and to serve the needs and realities of artists, creators, rights holders and consumers in the 21st century. However, on too many counts Bill C-11 fails to meet the task at hand and for every problem that it attempts to fix, new problems are created.

We in the NDP and Canadians across the country have serious concerns about the bill in its present state, and we look forward to working constructively with the government to amend elements of the bill to address concerns that Canadian stakeholders have.

As we know, the bill was introduced in the last Parliament exactly in the state it appears before us today. This is not the first time the government has done this in the 41st Parliament. Indeed, since the election in May, it has introduced several bills that have been virtually word for word the same as the bills it put forward in previous Parliaments.

It is a bit early in the mandate of a government to show inertia, but from the recycling of bills, the omnibus crime bill, the ending of the long gun registry and the recycling of Bill C-11, this is a government that has begun to run out of ideas already. By limiting debate and railroading committees, the Conservatives have shown that they do not have any ideas themselves, and they sure are not interested in the ideas of Canadians who want to speak to the bill.

Notwithstanding the fact that the legislative committee looking at Bill C-32, as it was called in the 40th Parliament, met with over 100 witnesses who all spoke about the many serious problems that existed in the legislation, the legislation has not changed. What is more, we hear that the government is not interested in any more input from Canadians on the substance of the bill, and that is too bad. The government is missing an important and historic opportunity to craft a made in Canada copyright act that would stimulate innovation in digital industries and that would truly protect artists, other content creators and rights holders and at the same time balance the needs of consumers.

While the government does not seem interested any longer in what Canadians have to say about copyright, it certainly cares about the big boys in Hollywood and New York who want Canada to toe the line, and a deeply flawed line it is, that creative industries and consumers toe south of the border. The government's anti-circumvention position as it pertains to technological prevention measures, TPMs or digital locks, is a case in point.

I understand that if someone makes available thousands upon thousands of songs, movies, or pieces of software and is profiting from that activity, that person is clearly infringing on copyright for commercial purposes. Pirated DVDs sold on street markets or making semi-conductors specifically to allow gamers to hack their gaming platform to play pirated software are other examples. Someone is making money off of the blood, sweat, tears and creativity of artists and entrepreneurs, but the creators are not getting paid, and that goes beyond the regular practices of consumers to share and enjoy content.

However, much of the scare-mongering from major record labels and film studios unfortunately has tried to conflate the practices I have just described as the common practices of music and movie fans. This has led to the bizarre circumstances that we all know of, such as grandmothers being sued for downloading some tunes on the Internet.

The Conservatives could have crafted a Canadian-made solution to this very complex set of circumstances. Instead they caved to their U.S. buddies again. On the one hand, Bill C-11 finally recognizes common consumer practices which should be for the benefit of consumers and creators, such as time shifting, recording TV for later viewing, format shifting, as well as parody, satire and education as fair-dealing exceptions. On the other hand, all of this is moot if there is a digital lock on the content since that measure in the anti-circumvention measure that is attached to it supersedes all else.

What Canadian consumers win with one hand, they lose with the other. If there is a digital lock on a CD, they will not be able to make a back-up copy. If there is a digital lock on an e-book, they cannot change its format for use on a different type of e-reader. If there is a digital lock on a DVD, journalists will not be able to use part of it under the fair-dealing rights. It does not make sense that digital locks could supersede other rights that are guaranteed in the very same piece of legislation.

What is worse, not only do digital locks prevent Canadians from fully enjoying materials that they have legally purchased, they are also backed by incredibly unreasonable punitive damages with fines of up to $1 million and five years in jail for doing something that, if it were not for the presence of the digital lock, would be entirely acceptable. It is beyond logic.

While we in the NDP have an issue with the practice of suing fans and suing consumers, I would like to point out that it is only the very large multinational media outlets that could avail themselves of this kind of protection anyway. For example, members of the Canadian Independent Music Association as a block represent 24% of all music sales in Canada, which is larger than EMI and Warner music sales combined and greater than Sony music sales. This organization is made up of Canadian-owned companies, mostly small- and medium-size businesses which include record producers, labels, publishers, recording studios, managers, agents, and so on. In other words, they are the heart, soul and bones of the English language Canadian music business.

Few, if any, of the member organizations could pursue those who under C-11 infringe copyright through the courts. It would be cost prohibitive for them. While executives at the big multinationals slap themselves on the back at how compliant the government has been with C-11, the bill really does not help the independent music industry. It does not help the small businesses. It does not help the small entrepreneurs.

There is no question the music industry has gone through a very difficult time over the last 15 years. Therefore, it is all the more pressing that we craft copyright legislation that addresses the profound need to invest in new business models and innovation in the Canadian cultural industries. Instead, C-11 takes tens of millions of dollars out of the hands of artists annually by waiving the so-called broadcast mechanical tariff and by playing politics with the blank copying levy.

Prior to my election to this place in May 2011, I derived my primary income in the arts and culture sector as a musician, a songwriter, a producer, a composer, and a journalist. I can tell the House that it is a very difficult way to make a living and raise a family. Most in that profession work terribly long hours for many years and most barely earn a dollar. Having been lucky enough to make my living in the arts, I can say it is potentially a good way to get rich, but a lousy way to make a living.

With the arrival of the digital era many believed this would herald a new day for artists, a dawning of a middle class where it was not always a feast or a famine, where new revenue streams and business models would raise the average income for Canadian artists from below the poverty line to something resembling a decent living. That is what we should be striving for always. I think it is fair to say that that dream has largely gone unfulfilled. Writers still make more money slinging burgers than they do from their work. The average annual income of Canadian artists is under $13,000.

It is important to remember that the spokespeople for the multinational music and movie businesses are not speaking for artists. They are speaking for their shareholders. Prior to the digital revolution, prior to Napster, BitTorrent sites and Netflix, artists were still struggling. Not a lot has changed for artists.

Let us be clear. Artists have always done most of the work and received the smallest share of the return. It was the same before the digital revolution and it is the same now. That is too bad, and Bill C-11 only makes the situation worse.

We know that Canadians support the arts and are willing to pay for it, but this bill wipes out $20 million in annual revenue that goes directly to artists and rights holders by eliminating the broadcast mechanical tariff. Surely in the hundreds of witness testimonies on Bill C-32 the government heard that this would be detrimental to artists and rights holders. Again, the government is very in touch with the business interests of private broadcasters and big Hollywood film studios, but it is out of touch with Canadian artists and their audience, the Canadian public, who supports them.

Bill C-11 could have set an innovative and exciting course for Canada's cultural industries and workers, the artists who create the content, as well as Canadian consumers.

In its current state, Bill C-11 would fall far short of moving Canada forward into the 21st century. However, we look forward to working with the government on constructive amendments to fix the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, as members may have heard, through the summer I had many meetings with a lot of different groups with respect to the bill. What I heard consistently is how important the sector is to the Canadian economy. It is a $40 billion industry. Hundreds of thousands of jobs are created or supported through this industry.

The hon. member talked earlier in his discussion about debate, when he knows that this is something that has been before the House for many years. There have been thousands of hours of testimony from hundreds of witnesses, and hon. members of Parliament have been hearing the exact same thing.

He talked about the technical protection measures. In our neck of the woods, it is extremely important for those who create video games that there be technical protection measures that would support and protect that industry. Does he not support that?

Has he looked at other jurisdictions where similar things to what we have put in place in Bill C-11 have actually not limited the public's access to quality digital content but have actually improved it? Is the only solution the NDP has to continue to tax Canadians? Does he actually think the only way to support Canadian artists is to punish the artists and to punish Canadians and that a $40 billion industry is somehow going to collapse under the threat, as he would project it, of a $20 million levy that he suggests would no longer exist?

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised the hon. member opposite would just wave his hand at $20 million for a sector where the average annual income is under $13,000. I think the hon. member owes artists across Canada an apology.

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

Mr. Speaker, I actually agree with my hon. colleague from the NDP. Not only that, I would add that the Conservatives did not seem to flinch when it came to the money that was potentially lost from the auto sector. It seems there was very little debate there.

The parliamentary secretary talked about the technological protection measures, TPMs, and this model that is out there to protect all of them. I will give him several examples of countries, including Australia and the United States, which looked at ways of circumventing TPMs for the reasons of education. As a matter of fact, they went fully into using TPMs and digital locks but backed away on several measures simply because they were too strong. Therefore, some exemptions were made.

I would humbly suggest using something like the three-step process by which we can judge TPMs as a way of circumventing them for instances such as education. That would be one of the measures. However, certainly he speaks truth to this matter by saying that it is just an all or naught measure that simply should be looked at once again, and in committee.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question this is a very complex bill. It is very difficult to balance all of the interests of all the stakeholders. It does Canadians no service to listen to this overheated rhetoric around taxing Canadians, taxing artists, hurting artists, and punishing artists. Canadians want to see some constructive debate. That is what we would like to see in committee.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we heard the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages a few minutes ago say that anyone who does not agree with him does not understand technology. I, of course, would like to comment on that.

First, people who are pirating movies are burning them onto DVDs and people who are downloading songs are putting them onto iPods. What is it that the minister does not understand?

My hon. colleague talked about a $13,000 average income and making a decent living. What kind of missed opportunities does my colleague think there would be with Bill C-11?

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the great examples of innovation and a business model that works spectacularly is the collection of performance royalties by SOCAN. It licenses the songs. Artists become members and the organization collects that licence and disperses it to its members. It has worked for years and years and is a cornerstone of many artists' annual income. It is a very effective tool. It is one example that we would have liked the government to look at, ways in which we could license content and recoup it in a different way.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, copyright modernization has been needed for a long time, especially to introduce the principles contained in the World Intellectual Property Organization treaties, which the Canadian government signed on December 22, 1997.

Since the comprehensive revision of the Copyright Act in 1997, the act has not been substantially amended because of the inability of previous governments, both Liberal and Conservative, to introduce a bill that would balance the interests of creators, the industry and consumers. Bill C-11, and its predecessor in the last Parliament, Bill C-32, are along the same lines. The government is continuing to stress access to creative content without providing adequate compensation for the authors.

The Conservatives took a stand from the beginning. They are firmly on the side of large content owners in the United States: the movie studios, record labels and video game developers. Unfortunately, consumers and creators will pay the price. Allow me to speak for a while about creators.

The Copyright Act is the legal foundation that ensures that creations can be reproduced, presented and communicated to the public while guaranteeing proper compensation for their creators. To weaken copyright by increasing the exceptions that allow people to use creations without authorization or any financial compensation is tantamount to preventing creators from earning a living from their trade. It also does away with collectives. To weaken copyright jeopardizes cultural industries by cutting off their supply of creations and by preventing them from developing markets that meet the needs of consumers while protecting their investments.

Bill C-11 introduces dozens of exceptions to copyright, including an exception for broadcasting and one for private copying. These exceptions give individuals and companies the right to use creations without compensating the creators. According to the Canadian Conference of the Arts, the ream of new exceptions introduced by Bill C-11 will deprive creators of over $126 million a year. The Union des artistes du Québec estimates that the cumulative effect of the exceptions will decrease creators' income by 70%.

We know that the arts and culture sector is an important economic sector. According to the Canadian Conference of the Arts, it generates spinoffs of over $46 billion and provides work for over 600,000 people in Canada. However, without creators, the arts and culture sector would not exist. Nevertheless, the government insists on strangling creators by increasing the exceptions and failing to propose any measures that would compensate them for the resulting loss of revenue. This will have a huge impact on creators' ability to survive.

It is appalling to see that artists and creators receive only a small portion of the $46 billion generated by their work. Artists in Quebec are the best paid in Canada. Yet, with an average income of $24,600, they make 25% less than the average income of the total labour force. Their income dropped by 11% in the past 15 years, and now the Conservative government wants to impose its unfair copyright reform on them, which would deprive them of tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

Meanwhile, despite the recession, commercial radio stations reported a pre-tax profit of 21% in 2009. They spent only $21 million on acquiring reproduction rights, which is less than 1.4% of their $1.5 billion in revenues.

Businesses have a right to earn a profit. However, creators also have a right to make a living from their work, and we must create a more balanced copyright regime.

If exceptions to the copyright principle are introduced, we must find another way to compensate creators. For example, some groups in the cultural sector have proposed extending the private copying exception to include digital audio recorders.

Instead of considering this proposal, the Conservatives preferred to stick to demagoguery. For example, they talked about a so-called iPod tax, when there is already a similar levy on traditional recording media. Furthermore, they were the ones who propose to increase the existing levies on cassettes, CDs and DVDs.

The problem with Bill C-11 is that it shows, once again, the Conservative government's contempt for artists and creators. This bill joins a long list of initiatives that weaken the arts and culture sector.

For example, I remind members of the cancellation in 2008 of the Trade Routes and PromArt cultural promotion programs; the Conservatives' refusal to double funding for the Canada Council for the Arts; their attack on the CBC, an important catalyst for our culture and our identity; cuts to the museum assistance program; and Bill C-10, which would allow them to censor films deemed contrary to public safety.

Next to creators, consumers are probably the biggest losers in this bill. By giving unprecedented powers to major multinational rights owners, Bill C-11 will result in a situation where digital locks will practically trump all other rights, including fair dealing for students.

Bill C-11 could mean that consumers, for example, would no longer have access to content they have paid for. In one example provided to us, distance-learning students would have to destroy their class notes within 30 days of the course's end in order to comply with provisions in Bill C-11. That is completely absurd, especially given that these provisions are subject to fines of more than $1 million and five-year prison terms. The NDP believes that Bill C-11 needs to be recalibrated to take consumers' rights into consideration.

To conclude, I should point out that this bill does contain some positive elements. Artists, creators and cultural workers in general are pleased with the amendments to distribution rights, performers' moral and reproduction rights, the longer duration of protection for musical works and the recognition of photographers' rights.

Nevertheless, Bill C-11 is unbalanced because it clearly favours the corporate sector. It needs significant amendments to meet the needs of consumers and creators as well. We hope that the government will listen to the artistic community, which is opposed to Bill C-11.

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

A couple of points need to be cleared up, Mr. Speaker.

First, the hon. member opposite said that our government had cut funding for museums. That is not true. We have created two new national museums, increased funding for existing museums and for local museums across the country.

Second, she mentioned PromArt and Trade Routes, two programs costing $7 million. It cost $5 million to deliver $2 million worth of benefits. We eliminated those programs, took that money, gave it to the Canada Council for the Arts, which now has its highest budget ever. We have increased the Canada Council for the Arts budget by 20% with regard to copyright. Therefore, her facts are just wrong. I do not know who wrote her speech, but it is just wrong.

With regard to copyright, the only proposal the NDP members have talked about, and she mentioned it again and again in her speech, is the need to compensate artists, that artists have a right to an income.

The reality is the only proposal that the NDP has put forward on that measure is private member's Bill C-499, by the member for Timmins—James Bay, and it does call for a new tax on consumers. It says that people are downloading MP3s and in this transaction we need to tax that and that money should be collected into the private copying levy and distributed to artists.

I mentioned this as well to the member from the Bloc Québécois, but how does that work with iCloud? How does that work with streaming services? On the proposal from the NDP to compensate artists, even if one agreed with the premise, which I do not, how does that proposal work with streaming media? It is technologically impossible for the proposal of the NDP members to even achieve what they pretend it will achieve. How does it work?

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I deplore the fact that the Conservative government refuses to support an industry that contributes $85 billion per year to our country's economy.

Despite these significant contributions, the median earnings of an artist in Canada is just $12,900 per year, so these artists need to live off other jobs. It is important to encourage our cultural industry by paying those artists well for the work they have completed.

As for the private copying levy, the NDP's position is that we should update this levy to accommodate modern technology. The member should not just take it from us, but he could also take it from the Canadian private copying collective that supports our position and that represents thousands and thousands of Canadians across the country.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there are a great deal of students across Canada who are quite concerned with regard to a potential impact of the bill if it were to pass as is. Would the member expand on this point?

For years, thousands of university students have done their reports and their studies at university. Now there is this whole cloud of confusion regarding what the obligation is as to whether they can retain their notes.

Could the member comment on the point that the legislation seems to imply that students will have to get rid of their studies after a 30-day period of time?

[Laurin Liu, NDP, 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.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, 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?

[Laurin Liu, NDP, 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—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. We have exhausted the time allowed.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Montcalm.

[Manon Perreault, NDP, 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.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, 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?

[Manon Perreault, NDP, 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.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, 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--

[Charlie Angus, NDP, 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--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. The hon. member knows that this is debate. I would ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to conclude as there is little time left for a response.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

I would like to respond to the point of order, Madam Speaker. One of the--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order. The matter is settled. This was not a point of order. Could the hon. parliamentary secretary conclude his response?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, 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--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Montcalm. There is one minute left to respond to the question.

[Manon Perreault, NDP, 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.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, 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.

[Peter Julian, NDP, 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?

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, 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.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, 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.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, 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.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for another excellent speech today. He spoke very eloquently about the importance of creativity.

That said, the hon. member also spoke about economic issues. I would like to ask him if he feels that this bill is yet another example of how the Conservative government favours big business over small businesses. Artists are SMEs, small businesses.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Madam Speaker, it would seem to be that this is the case, that once again we have Canadian legislation mirroring or mimicking legislation in the United States. It seems that it would be foreign owned and content owners who benefit from this copyright law and Canadian artists, who benefit us all so much, would be left out in spite of their very keen economic needs.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will take over my colleague's spot.

While I would like to commend the government for tabling legislation that seeks to bring about long overdue changes to bring Canada in line with advances in technology and current international standards--changes that New Democrats have been recommending since 2004, I might add--I cannot commend the bill in its current form, and will not, unless the government is willing to amend the digital lock provisions and restore royalty provisions for artists. The government has yet to create a copyright reform that would balance the rights of creators and the public. Rather, the legislation it has brought forward would satisfy the demands of large American content owners and trump the rights of Canadian consumers.

Canadians did not give the government a mandate to cater to the needs of already hugely profitable content owners while restricting the rights that consumers currently possess. They also did not elect it to waste time fixing problems that never existed in the first place. The government's own clause-by-clause analysis of the bill, obtained under the Access to Information Act, states that the digital lock provisions apply even when there is not an infringement of copyright and the defences to infringement of copyright are not defences to these prohibitions.

It is not hard to fathom why the government would not attempt to find balance in its legislation. We all know that nothing the government has done since May 2 has ever had anything to do with balance. In committee, witness after witness testified that while the bill brings to life some of the much-needed modernization of our outdated copyright laws, major flaws exist within these digital lock provisions. Witness after witness said these flaws could be fixed and that a balance could be found in the same way that many of our trading partners are achieving, including many European countries and now even the United States.

It is clear from everything the government has done since May 2 that the government is simply not interested in anything to do with balance. All of its actions and all of its legislation have been very obviously one-sided and, frankly, ideological. Nothing the government does has anything to do with consultation or with balance. One would think that it had a mandate from a majority of Canadians, but of course we all know that it has a mandate from fewer than 40% of Canadians. The majority of Canadians support neither the government nor its actions, yet the government has the arrogance to completely ignore the concerns of any Canadian who may question its rigid and inflexible agenda.

Ignoring the concerns and advice of witnesses testifying in committee comes as no surprise to anyone in and around this chamber.

Canadians need to know that the Conservative government is making a complete mockery of the time-honoured parliamentary committee process. Governments have used this process for many years to examine proposed legislation and to garner input and feedback from Canadians. This government does not want input and feedback from anyone with a different point of view.

Canadians need to know that this government wants to effectively shut down the committee process, and not just the committee looking at this bill, but most, if not all, committees. The government simply wants to act as a bully, forcing its narrow agenda on the Canadian public and on the majority of Canadians who did not, and do not, support its agenda.

What witnesses have told the government on the bill is that the provisions on digital locks will create problems, problems that do not exist now. They could have serious implications for many creators in the entertainment industry and also for students, who presumably, as has been demonstrated many times over, will have to destroy their notes after 30 days. This is insane. Frankly, it reminds me of Inspector Gadget and Mission Impossible, where notes self-destruct within 30 days.

It makes absolutely no sense that the government would adopt such restrictive digital lock rules, which have, by the way, been described as the most restrictive in the world. A more balanced approach is not only available but is being used with apparent success in most other jurisdictions. What is wrong with balance and flexibility? What is wrong with fairness? It seems those are rhetorical questions when dealing with this government, which knows nothing of the meaning of fairness, balance or flexibility.

It is clear to the majority of Canadians that digital locks as proposed in this legislation will have a devastating effect on our cultural community, a sector that currently contributes $85 billion a year to our economy and supports over 1.1 million jobs. These are very large and significant numbers, especially in the troubling economic times we are currently seeing. Representatives from this sector cannot simply be ignored, but the government is doing just that.

The Writers Guild of Canada told the government that digital locks might work for software. However, from my own background in technology, I would take a different point of view and remind the House that locks keep honest people out. There is a way around every single lock, and I think the hackers of the world have proven that point in their attacks on governments and industry. If a lock is there, somebody will find a way around it.

Also, according to the Writers Guild of Canada, digital locks

are likely to be selected against in the open market as they were with music. They are neither forward-looking nor in the consumers' or creators' best interests. Digital locks, at their best, would simply freeze current revenue streams for creators.

That is pretty clear advice.

The Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic told the government that:

Overall, these digital lock provisions are some of the most restrictive in the world.

To achieve a fair balance between users and copyright owners, the government needs to fix the digital lock provisions before this bill passes into law.

I could go on quoting from the cultural community, which told the government that it had a problem with the bill and that the government needed to change the digital lock provisions. Did the government listen? No.

It is as if the government is operating in a cone of silence. I would like to say that it is time to get smart. While we may not be using shoe phones, all of our phones nowadays do have the ability to download and receive copyrighted information. The levies and provisions that existed in former forms of media should be advanced onto the new forms.

The government has to start listening to Canadians. Trying to fix the situation after the demise of a whole industry will simply be too late. I call on the government to go back to the drawing board, rework this legislation and protect our vital cultural industry and the jobs it provides. If not, let us do it in committee.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have emphasized in the past a very offensive aspect that I think would cause concern for many Canadians. If the bill were to pass, it would by law prohibit post-secondary students, who have paid for their education, from retaining the studies and reports that they have done, as the bill has that 30-day clause. I wonder if the member would like to provide some additional comment on that issue.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to emphasize for the Conservatives that if they had actually read the bill, they might know that those provisions are in fact there. I think it is troubling that the parliamentary secretary did not know that this provision was in the bill. Conservatives just seem to be making it up as they go along.

Certainly with respect to the 5-day or 30-day provisions, it is inexcusable, given the tremendous cost and burden that students are facing to get their education, that they would not be able to retain that material and use it for years to come.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened intently. Could my hon. friend point out for me the sections in the bill that actually refer to requiring the class notes of students to be destroyed after 30 days?

Also, has the member read proposed subsection 30.01(5) of the act, which talks about 30 days for the taped version of the distance education course that the student watches? After 30 days, that is what cannot be kept. Nowhere does the bill suggest that students have to destroy or burn the class notes that they have created while watching a taped version. The assertion is absolutely ridiculous.

I would defer to the hon. member's scholarly knowledge of the bill if he could point out for me the sections of the bill that identify that students have to destroy their class notes. He mentioned that it is in the bill a number of times. I will sit and listen and wait for the hon. member's scholarly advice as to where those sections are in the bill.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I would ask all hon. members to wait until they are recognized to make comments or to ask questions.

For response, the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would first refer the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage back to my hon. colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster in reference to proposed subsection 30.01(5), which states in part:

However, the student shall destroy the reproduction 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.

Where did I say that they would have to destroy their class notes? Once again, the Conservatives are just making it up as they go along.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague.

SOCAN, the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, said it believes that Bill C-11 should be amended in order to facilitate access to creative content via new media and to ensure that creators are fairly compensated for the use of their creative content via new media.

How will artists be affected if this delicate balance is disturbed?

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Madam Speaker, it will definitely be disturbed if artists do not receive the money they deserve after the bill is amended.

Certainly if the provisions are not carried forward to new technologies, then artists are going to suffer. As my colleague from Davenport mentioned earlier, currently artists have an average income of $13,000 per year and cannot afford to lose any more.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Madam Speaker, the riding of Burnaby—New Westminster is one of the ridings where we are concerned about the bill that the government has brought forward, Bill C-11, which was supposed to be a modernization of copyright.

We on this side of the House, as a number of our very eloquent speakers have said, are fully in support of modernization in copyright law. We have said that. Our member for Timmins—James Bay, who was the critic in the former Parliament on digital issues and continues to be the critic in this Parliament, brought forward a whole variety of very positive amendments and suggestions to the government. As we know within the NDP caucus, one of the reasons we are 102 strong is that we did extensive consultations, which the government has consistently refused to do on this bill. We got from the artistic community, from those involved in digital issues, those involved in copyright issues, a series of amendments to fix this bad bill.

As has been the trend of the government since it was elected on May 2, since it took off the sweater vest and stopped talking about moderation and approaching government in a responsible way, the government has refused to acknowledge any of the concerns raised in the artistic community, any of the concerns raised in the educational community, any of the concerns raised across this country by members in this House and by many members of the public. It has not addressed any of those issues. That is why we are faced with, instead of a bill that would modernize copyright, a bill that would in many respects take us backward in time.

I have only a few minutes left, but I will be delighted to continue the discussion at a later date. This is a fundamentally important piece of legislation that has huge flaws, huge holes, and has been approached by the government in what is a wholly irresponsible way.

Let us talk about three of the elements that would take us back in time.

We have had a number of great speakers today talking about the impact on the artistic community and that, in a real sense, this so-called modernization of copyright for artists would take them back to the dirty thirties. That was a time when the artistic community did not receive the kind of supports for the works that it put forward to benefit our country, a time when artists basically were starving artists.

Subsequent to that, over the years, we have put in a variety of mechanisms so that artists could actually profit from their work. It is not a surprise that we are the foremost advocates for our artists in this House of Commons and we have a number of artists who have gone on to become members of Parliament.

However, the government is turning back the clock, ripping away those supports which the artistic community has and benefits from. As my colleague, the member for Scarborough Southwest, said just a few moments ago, the median earnings of an artist in Canada are under $13,000 a year. For the government, in a mean-spirited way, to rip away the supports that artists have through its provisions in Bill C-11, shows to what extent the government is willing to turn back the clock.

Now, let us look at some of the other provisions that would turn back the clock.

Madam Speaker, because you come from a riding where there is a good sense of history, Victoria, British Columbia, you are aware of the 19th century and the paupers' prisons. Those paupers' prisons were established because there were draconian laws that penalized the poor, that penalized the middle class. When those people could not afford to pay their fines, they were thrown into paupers' prisons.

What we have here when we look at the bill, and I am going to reference it for the Conservative members who have obviously not yet read the bill, at page 57, it talks about the penalties that this legislation would bring forward. I will refer to clause 48, which is proposed subsection 42(3.1)(a), where it says that on conviction on indictment--that is when an individual is guilty of an offence through this bill that is brought forward--an individual is liable to a fine not exceeding $1 million or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or to both.

Paupers' prisons and middle-age book-burning. That is how far back the government has turned the issue on copyright. Modernization of copyright--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. The hon. member will have five minutes left for further comments when the bill returns to the House.

The House resumed from November 14 consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Burnaby--New Westminster has five minutes left to conclude his remarks.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I would need to take a lot more time to paint the portrait of what the Conservatives have done in this particularly bad bill.

When I was speaking a few days ago, I was particularly incensed and appalled by the lack of knowledge of a number of Conservative members. Even though they were here to speak to Bill C-11, they obviously had not read the bill. The New Democrats on this side of the House always do our homework. We read the bill. We heard repeated comments that the retroactive book burning provisions of Bill C-11 were not in the bill. Many Conservatives have risen in the House and said unabashedly that there were no book burning provisions in the bill. What we were referring to were the retroactive electronic books that would be destroyed by this particular legislation.

It is important that Canadians understand what is in the bad bills that the Conservatives bring in front of the House. I will read directly from page 23 of Bill C-11, clause 30.01. It reads:

(5)...the student shall destroy the reproduction 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.

It could not be clearer than that. It says it in black on white right in the text of Bill C-11. As a result of the government's incredible irresponsibility in drafting this legislation, students across this country who get electronic books will need to destroy their course material. I will read it one more time, “A student shall destroy the reproduction within 30 days”. If not, they contravene the bill. They break the law.

I know the Conservative Party pled guilty to law-breaking just a few days ago. What the government is saying to students in this country, and educational institutions as well, who get their material and go through the course, is that the moment they receive their final course evaluations they must destroy all of the information they accumulated through the course of the lesson.

Having gone to university a number of years ago, I have kept much of my course material. My management and accounting courses still serve me when I do a variety of things in the House. A lot of the things that I learned in university continue to be useful today. The Conservatives are now saying that they will retroactively force students to burn their textbooks, destroy all that information, and they are doing it because lobbyists said that should be put in the bill.

The member for Timmins—James Bay, who is our digital critic, has talked about some of the other aspects of the bill and how they would make criminals out of ordinary Canadians. The government seems obsessed with trying to make everyone a criminal. However, the government has also put anti-circumvention rights on digital locks within the bill. This means that the simple action of copying information for personal use would make those individuals criminals. We are talking about very draconian penalties of up to $1 million that are contained within the bill.

We have spoken out against the digital lock provisions. We have spoken out against the retroactive book burning that the Conservatives now want to force on every student in the country who gets electronic textbooks. We have spoken out about that because Bill C-11 is simply bad legislation.

We are standing up for the rights of students to keep their course material. We are standing up for the rights of Canadians to copy material for personal use. We have said that we need to modernize the Copyright Act but not in this right-wing, ideological, lobbyist-based crusade that the Conservative government has brought about with some of the provisions in the bill.

We have offered to bring forward constructive amendments to change the retroactive book burning provisions and to change the incredible aspects around the digital locks and the criminalization of Canadians. However, the Conservative government, in its incredible arrogance, has said no, that it will not listen to Canadians on this. It will not even listen to Canadians in committee. It will simply try to ram the bill through.

Well, we are speaking out against this legislation and we are speaking out against the bad provisions that the Conservatives have put in it.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is good to hear that the hon. member is changing what he said last time. The last time he stood in the House, he talked about students having to burn their course notes; he has somewhat modified that statement, because he knows it is not true. The other thing he mentioned was making consumers into criminals for circumventing digital locks. He says he has read the bill, so I will ask him about two sections.

First, where in the bill does it say that individuals who circumvent digital locks will be made criminals? What part of the bill criminalizes them?

Second, could he point out any part in the bill that talks about students having to burn their personal course notes? I am talking about students who have created notes and done their work. Can he point out the specific clauses of the bill that criminalize individuals for breaking digital locks and point out any place in the bill that says students have to burn their personal notes?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is doing it again. He is doing it yet again. The poor quality of interventions from Conservatives in the House of Commons is incredible.

He did this a few days ago in debate. He tried to confuse course textbooks with handwritten course notes. Of course, everyone asked what he was talking about, and he was unable to explain it. He still continues to deny that course textbooks are in the bill.

I just read proposed subsection 30.01(5) twice. I read it twice, yet he still stands and says he has not read it anywhere. He has not read the bill and he has not bothered to look at the bill. I am not going to read proposed subsection 30.01(5) for a third time. I am simply not going to do it yet again, because the member should be doing his work and reading the bill on his own. Then he would realize that this is bad legislation and that he should be voting against it.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's speech and I too am appalled with this bill.

As an educator and a textbook author, the reason I write textbooks is not to make money but to provide students with information and material that they can take with them not only during the course but afterward. They can refer to it for future courses and, as the member alluded to, later in life when they have graduated. I wonder if my colleague would elaborate on that aspect a bit further.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I compliment the member for Burnaby—Douglas for his questions and the interventions he makes in the House of Commons. He comes from a proud history of NDP representation in Burnaby—Douglas: former members Svend Robinson and Bill Siksay. He has filled very large shoes. He is filling them in a very compelling way, and very eloquently. We are happy to have him in the House of Commons.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Tommy Douglas.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

The member points out Tommy Douglas, but that was not the riding of Burnaby—Douglas. That was the riding of Burnaby as a whole, which is now half mine and half his. I thank the member for Ottawa—Orléans for his point on that.

Proposed subsection 30.01(5) is absolutely deplorable. Within 30 days of their course evaluation, any students listening to us today would have to burn the course textbooks they received electronically. As the member for Burnaby—Douglas just pointed out, textbooks are essential for the long-term education of our students. Even today, students who graduate continue to use their course textbooks. It is absolutely absurd for the Conservatives to say they should be ripped up and burned and that students who did not do so would be breaking the law.

It is becoming evident in this debate that no Conservatives have actually read the bill. What they have done is read the PMO's talking points. They have not read the actual legislation. I implore them, before it is too late, before the vote, to read the bill and find out what it actually contains.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the previous speaker could give me a copy of that bill. I can read it to them another time.

Everyone agrees that Canada needs copyright reform. Everyone agrees that this reform should be fair to all parties, creators and consumers. Striking this balance is not an easy task. Given this general consensus, I am disappointed that the Conservatives' copyright bill has very little to do with the interests of Canadians and everything to do with appeasing U.S. studios and other large content owners. When will Canadians have copyright legislation that works for us?

The Conservatives ignored expert opinions raised in the committee and the findings of their own copyright consultations in 2009. Artists, educators, consumers and students all weighed in during the committee hearings, providing the Conservative Party with balanced information and weighted insight. Unfortunately, this information has been summarily ignored. As a result, the bill in front of us is a misguided piece of legislation and may end up doing more harm than good.

The copyright modernization act essentially gives with one hand while it takes with another. Conservatives continue to not deal with the issue of extending the private copying levy, as the NDP and many experts propose. The private copying levy has worked efficiently in the past for cassette tapes, CDs and DVDs. While this bill contains a few concessions for consumers, they are unfortunately undermined by the government's refusal to compromise on the single most controversial copyright issue in this country, which is digital lock provisions.

Digital locks supersede other rights guaranteed in the charter. They are a blunt instrument that does not distinguish between personal use and copying with intent to sell. In the case of long-distance education, for example, people in a remote, isolated community would have to burn their school notes after 30 days. This is hardly an improvement or an appropriate use of copyright law. Just in case our Conservative friends across the way do not know that section, I will remind them again that it is proposed subsection 30.01(5), and I will read it again if they choose to ask me their questions.

If we begin from the premise that a successful act would balance the right of creators to be compensated fairly for their work and the right of consumers to have reasonable access to content, then we can only conclude that Bill C-11 must undergo revision before this act can serve Canadians.

Here is what the Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic said on the digital lock provisions. It stated, in part:

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. To achieve a fair balance between users and copyright owners, the government needs to fix the digital lock provisions before this bill passes into law.

The Writers Guild of Canada said:

The only option that [the bill] offers creators is digital locks, which freezes current revenue streams for creators, and creates an illogical loophole in the copyright Bill by taking away the very rights the Bill grants to consumers in its other sections.

The government has said it is giving rights holders the tools they need in order to develop products, market them and get paid for them, and that this is about protecting creators from piracy, but digital locks are neither forward-looking nor in consumers' or creators' best interests. Digital locks, at the best, will simply freeze current revenue streams for creators.

On the one hand, the bill will deprive some citizens of access to works they have already paid for and have every right to use. It will be illegal to remove a lock, even if done so for a lawful purpose. If someone locks himself or herself out of the house, we do not drag them off to jail for trying to enter his or her locked property; why should digital property be any different?

On the other hand, the rights and interests of creators are not being supported either. It should simply be enough to quote SODRAC, the Society for Reproduction Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers in Canada, which states that:

...the bill tabled in the House of Commons will significantly affect creators' revenues.

By that I believe SODRAC talking about at least $30 million.

It continues:

Moreover, the desired balance between the interests of creators and those of consumers and users is, in our opinion, completely absent. Thus, it is imperative that [the bill] be revised before it is ultimately adopted into law.

We believe this copyright modernization act should not make criminals of everyday Canadians who break digital locks for personal non-commercial use.

We support amendments that actually benefit Canadian content creators, as these artists need the revenue streams. We do need a copyright modernization act, but we need one that is balanced and genuinely concerned with Canadian artists and Canadian consumers. Right now, the bill will leave all sides unhappy. It is one that has fallen short of its responsibility.

As I have a few more minutes, I will once again read the section that my friends are talking about. My colleague read it twice, but maybe after three or four times they may finally get it.

This is proposed subsection 30.01(5) at page 23 of the bill. It is speaking to reproducing lessons. These are students who are using notes.

It states:

It is not an infringement of copyright for a student who has received a lesson by means of communication by telecommunication under paragraph (3)(a) to reproduce the lesson in order to be able to listen to or view it at a more convenient time. However, the student shall destroy the reproduction 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.

I know how students work. Sometimes an assignment can be given for a term. When students have a document in front of them, it is not always possible to deal with all elements of that document within 30 days. Some documents, although they have been received completely legally, take a lot more time to go through.

The bill was introduced on September 29. We are near the end of November. If some members of the Conservative team over there have taken more than a month and a half to read the bill, how could they expect students to take a document that they have a right to study and destroy it within 30 days? That does not make sense.

Certainly, this component makes criminals out of ordinary Canadians. The people who would suffer most would really be the students and the artists who are not getting the fair compensation they should. We all know that these artists help to create an identity for Canada. A lot of artists live in poverty; they need more funds, and this bill does not serve them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to the hon. member's presentation on the bill.

We all know that the government had serious consultations across the country on this bill over the last couple of years. This is the same bill that was Bill C-32 in the last Parliament. I happened to have been the chair of the special legislative committee that looked at the bill and heard from well over 100 witnesses from 75 different groups.

We heard time and time again that Canada was seen as an outlaw. Canada had become a haven, an enabler, for pirates to steal intellectual property. Investments have not been made in our country in terms of businesses that want to have protection for intellectual property.

Would the hon. member support getting this bill to committee, so that once again we could hear those facts and stop Canada from being a haven for outlaws and pirates that steal intellectual property, so that investments in the Canadian economy can be made?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do know that Canada needs a new copyright act. No one would deny that. It needs a balanced act that would benefit artists and ensure that the people who are using the materials legally are not punished.

I was at one of the consultations in Toronto when the former minister of industry, now the President of the Treasury Board, was there. It was at the Royal York Hotel. However, the Canadian Federation of Students tried to come in to express their point of view and for some reason they were not allowed to do so. It was quite unfortunate because one of the fatal flaws of the bill is that it punishes students.

If some fundamental amendments could be made to this bill that deal with the digital lock issues and compensation for artists, then it could be a balanced bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is to follow on the point of my hon. colleague from Leeds—Grenville who said yes in the House to send the bill to committee to make fundamental changes.

I had discovered several years ago, and it is one of the major issues that I bring up from time to time, that we cannot make fundamental changes once we have said yes in principle to the bill. At second reading, if the majority votes for it, we have accepted the principles and the scope of the bill. Therefore, the fundamental changes that one had wished to put into the bill would not be accepted by the Speaker. It does not matter if everybody in the House agrees with the fundamental changes. The Speaker has the ultimate responsibility to see if it goes beyond the scope and principles of the bill.

To the point made by the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina that there is no grey area on some kind of recourse for a purchased material that could be transferred to another device, that can be trumped by the fact that we have what is called a digital lock. The bill would give us one of the harshest provisions for digital locks in the world.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that a bill cannot be fundamentally amended that way. The Speaker would say that it would not be in order. In the past the NDP has sometimes tried to get a bill through without a vote at second reading and send it to committee without recommendations so that it could be fundamentally amended. I think Canadians want us to work together that way so that some of these amendments could be accepted at committee. However, I do not think that is how the Conservative government wants to work in this term unfortunately.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-11.

Like the member for Trinity—Spadina, we both represent ridings, mine in Vancouver and the hon. member's in Toronto, that do have many artists and people who work in the cultural sector. We very much share that in terms of our ridings. We know how much concern there is about the bill and whether or not it does indeed strike the right balance.

Sometimes legislation can go through Parliament and not be noticed very much. Other times we find there is a huge amount of interest in legislation and there are campaigns to try to stop something, like we have seen with Bill C-10, the omnibus bill on drug crimes and other measures.

The bill before us has been very surprising because it is highly technical in nature. It is a complex issue when it comes to talking about copyright. Yet, in my community of east Vancouver, over the last couple of years, there has been significant debate about this issue because people recognize that copyright modernization is long overdue. They have of course been aware that the Conservative government was bringing forward legislation and in fact we have seen a previous version of the bill. It was identical in the last Parliament.

I have actually been surprised in a good way that there is so much debate out in the community about copyright, about the needs of cultural workers, artists, creators, as well as libraries. I am sure like many MPs, I have had visitations from, in my case, the Vancouver Public Library. I think I have met with them two or three times over the last few years about copyright issues.

A hallmark of public libraries is public accessibility. It is one of the few remaining places in our society where, no matter who individuals are, whether they are very wealthy or they are living on welfare and below the poverty line, they have access to a public library. It is a public institution. It is publicly owned and the services are publicly accessible.

Issues of public access and copyright are critically important when it comes to public libraries. The Canadian Library Association, the B.C. Library Association and the Vancouver Public Library have all brought forward very thoughtful comments, proposals and ideas about copyright, and what needs to be done. It has been a very interesting process to see the level of engagement around the bill.

Our copyright critic, the member for Timmins—James Bay, has done an incredible job of staying on top of this issue. As New Democrats we do believe that copyright modernization is long overdue. There is no question about that. I do not think there is any disagreement from any of us about that reality.

Obviously, the issue before us here today, though, is the bill. Does the bill, as it is currently manifested, contain the right balance in terms of public access for students? We just heard from the member for Trinity—Spadina who read one clause of the bill that seems particularly onerous. Is there an adequate balance of those rights and provisions in terms of protecting creators' artistic copyright as well as ensuring that there is public access?

Our member for Timmins—James Bay has gone through this with a magnifying glass in great detail and has also had numerous public consultations, town hall meetings, and an enormous response from stakeholders. He has come to the conclusion, and we have had discussions about this within our own caucus as well, that the bill unfortunately does not have the right balance and, in fact, there are many glaring problems. In some situations, and this is very unfortunate, the bill itself would even create problems when none existed before.

The principle of modernization is good but, of course, the devil is in the details, as we all know. It is really important that if this particular bill, as it is being debated in the House at second reading, which is in principle, does go committee, and I assume that it will because the government has a majority, there be a very close examination. We want to ensure that copyright laws in Canada can balance the right of creators to be fairly compensated for their work and the right of consumers to have reasonable access to copyrighted content.

I know that the government believes that the bill would do that. Unfortunately, upon close examination, we believe that there are serious problems with the bill, that there are flaws, and that if there is a genuine interest to work on the bill and to improve it, then I think we could end up with a bill that would actually reflect the balance that we all want to see.

I say that with maybe some optimism and hope, but also with the knowledge that this is the government that has rammed through legislation in the last few weeks since we came back and brought in time allocation, I think it is seven times now, and is hell-bent on forcing Bill C-10 through committee and having it come back into the House.

I truly believe that if as legislators we are to do our job, one of the most important processes of the legislative process is what happens in committee and it is not a matter of just playing for time or being frivolous. There is a real process that takes place. I have been part of that on a number of committees over the years and I know other members of this House have as well. When that happens, we actually can end up with something that is a better product, that is truly a reflection of what experts are telling us and what the prospective is of the political elements within this House.

I do hope that on this bill, because it does have such a long history and it is now the third time around that it has come forward, there actually will be a commitment from the Conservative government and the minister to allow the committee to actually do its work, and then it would not just simply be rammed through.

There are people in Canadian society who are incredibly expert on this issue. They do need to be heard. Now, I know the government is going to say it did all these consultations and it has done it all. This is before a legislative committee, though. This is part of a real process where people need to be heard.

The NDP is willing to work on this bill. We think there are serious problems, but we are willing to work on it. However, in its current form, it is not something that we think is supportable.

In terms of some of the specifics which I would just like to go into, one of the problems that we have is that this bill would formally enshrine in legislation commonplace grey area practices that enable users to record TV programs for later viewing as long as they do not compile a library of recorded content, which is often called time shifting, transfer songs from CDs onto their MP3 players, called format shifting, and make backup copies.

We are also very concerned that it would create new limited exceptions to the fair dealing provision of the Copyright Act, including the exceptions for educators, and exceptions for parody and satire that Canadian artists have been asking for. The exceptions to fair dealing contained in Bill C-11 represent some of the most contentious elements of the proposed legislation.

I know that there is also a very serious concern about the digital locks and that this would override many aspects of the balance that is being sought here. Experts like Michael Geist and the cultural industries have all spoken to this issue. For example, Michael Geist, who is a renowned technology commentator, said:

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 clearly is a problem and something that needs to be fixed.

The statement of cultural industries, which represents 80 arts and cultural organizations across the country, argues that the bill may be “toxic to Canada's digital economy” and has a lot of concerns about the bill. The bill needs to be changed and fixed. If there is goodwill from the government to do that, and it acts in good faith, then maybe that is possible to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member expand a bit on some of the discussions she had with the stakeholders with respect to online piracy and how we could do a better job to ensure Canada would no longer be a haven for online pirates?

We know that in Europe there is much greater support for TPMs and that has not actually reduced the availability of content online. Does she have any rationale for thinking Canada's less stringent use of TPMs through the bill would somehow reduce the availability of content for Canadian consumers? How can we on one hand suggest that we will protect Canadian consumers, but on the other hand try to bring forward a levy that would make it far more expensive for consumers to access these types of products?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we believe a bill can be formulated that strikes the right balance. Unfortunately, this bill does not do that. I have a whole list of organizations and individuals. I mentioned one, Michael Geist. I mentioned the statement of cultural industries. However, many other organizations and individuals are bringing forward very legitimate concerns, not only on the digital locks but on other issues. They include the Writers Guild of Canada, the Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers in Canada, Howard Knopf, who is a patent lawyer, the Society for Reproduction Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers, and the list goes on and on.

It is very difficult to deal with the individual aspects of the bill. This is why what we want to hear that the government is committed to hearing what these people have to say in committee and that it is willing and open to addressing the inconsistencies and problems within the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if I agree with the statement about TPMs being harsher in other regions of the world. Other people dealt with the same issue, when digital locks were really stringent in the beginning, and then eased back on some of those restrictions later on, especially when it dealt with the education exemption.

One thing that gets overlooked in the House, and also gets overlooked in the bill, is the issue of artist resale rights. Basically, it allows artists in many other countries, especially Europe, to gain a percentage of sales as they sell their works of art. This would be a great situation for Canadian artists. As the art appreciates in value over the years, that percentage will certainly be beneficial, especially in the aboriginal communities where we have a lot of art at play. Could my hon. colleague comment on that?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, again, I know in my community we have very well-known and renowned artists who travel internationally and have shows. Our ability to support our artists in the international setting is very important, but it is also important to ensure that as artistic creators they have some control over their work, that where wealth and value is produced, they have the ability to share in that. That is a very important principle.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, over the last six months I have heard a number of debates in the House. From what I have seen in the last six months, the Conservatives are against small businesses because they will be increasing taxes. They are against veterans because they cut their funding. With this bill, it would appear they are against the consumers. Could my hon. colleague elaborate on that?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is one of the problems with the bill. It includes some very onerous provisions in terms of public access, but it also has problems for artists. I guess we could add two more groups to the list the member has brought forward, and that is consumers and artists. Many of these groups want to speak out on the bill.

Again, we want to know if the government is willing, in good faith, to work on the bill, to hear what people have to say at the committee and to fix the flaws in the bill.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to talk about this bill. In Quebec especially, we understand the importance of protecting our creators and being able to use their creations. That is the crux of the NDP's position on this bill. A balance must be struck between protecting consumers and allowing them to contribute to our culture in that way, and the creators’ right to be adequately protected.

In my speech, I am going to address a specific aspect of the bill: its impact on education, and opportunities for teachers to teach and for students to take advantage of what is provided for them during their studies.

By way of introduction, I am going to cite a few interesting statistics. Libraries are increasingly popular in Quebec. There has been an uptick in revenue and the number of items loaned by libraries since 2002. It is worth noting that in 2007 alone, there were about 300 million items loaned out by libraries in Quebec. There is a clear trend in terms of Quebeckers' desire to share and participate in this creation, in culture, in education and in teaching.

Having said that, I have had the opportunity in recent months, since the beginning of my mandate, to meet with many stakeholders on this issue, particularly from the education community. For example, the Fédération des associations étudiantes du campus de l'Université de Montréal, the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, and the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations have all had an opportunity to share their opinions on this bill. Having referred to these groups, I would now like to turn to their opinion of this bill.

The major problems with this bill have been discussed on several occasions, but I would like to revisit the issue of fair dealing. The bill has a clause that pertains to “fair dealing” in an educational context. It is important to stress that other clauses in the bill contradict the concept of fair dealing. Allow me to explain.

To begin with, there is the concept of digital locks. This is the kind of proposal that requires a collaborative effort on the part of both government and opposition members. As my colleague from Vancouver East mentioned, we agree entirely that in this digital era, in 2011, it is very important to take a look at technology and its potential impact on creations and copyright. However, in the case of digital locks, there is no fair deal for students and teachers. They would be treated in exactly the same way as an individual flouting copyright.

That means that if a student or a teacher uses a creation that is available in a digital format for purposes that do not breach copyright, they would be punished in the same way as an individual engaging in piracy. It would be tantamount to breaking the law and breaching copyright. The other factor that impinges on fair dealing is the mandatory destruction after a five-day period of digital documents obtained via inter-library loans.

When you are a university student, you often have an opportunity to take part in programs for sharing between various libraries. When I was attending McGill University, I was able to borrow documents from other universities such as the Université de Montréal, Concordia University and the Université du Québec à Montréal—UQAM — and it was very helpful. Not all universities have expertise in every subject and they do not all have the same resources. So this allows a student or professor to share various resources and thus to expand their knowledge and the knowledge of the people they teach.

In this case, it is completely absurd to say that the documents should be destroyed or returned after five days. To think that in five days a student will be able to get everything they need out of the documents they have borrowed and be able to use them in their work for the purposes of education is to fail to understand what life is like for students today.

This is the kind of thing we could rework to be sure we find a happy medium, to take into account the reality of the digital era in 2011 and at the same time allow students to get the full benefit of works that have been produced precisely to contribute to their education.

And the third point that runs counter to the fair dealing aspect in this bill is the destruction of course notes 30 days after the end of a session. Once again, this presents a problem, because we are talking precisely about copyright, when the student has already paid for the copyright attached to their course notes. They contributed to that process, and they would be obliged to destroy their course notes.

This is not the only problem. First, a student who has already participated in a process and who wants to benefit from a situation and benefit, by personal use, from the education they have paid for is being prevented from doing that. That being said, we are talking here about private and personal use and not public use, which actually would infringe copyright. And second, this situation also affects professors who want precisely to adapt the material so they are better able to work with students who need special material because of a disability, for example.

This problem has been raised by the students I have had the good fortune to meet during my term, and in my opinion it is a very serious problem.

I also mentioned that we have had an opportunity to meet with professors. That is interesting, because often, at the university level, professors are not just the people who communicate the information in question, they are also the creators, the authors in this situation. I am thinking in particular of the people at the Fédération québécoise des professeures et professeurs d'université, who were so kind as to share their concerns about this bill with us. Specifically, they talked about the three points I have just mentioned, which run counter to the concept of fair dealing. But they also talked, in their own way, about teaching their courses better.

That is a very important point, because not only would students have to destroy class notes, but the course instructors would also have to destroy their course plans. And that is problematic. First, course instructors have to start somewhere. They have to learn from their own mistakes or successes in doing their job. They should be able to reuse a course plan—something they created from whatever was available—to do a better job the next time or improve on a job well done.

There is another, similar problem: course instructors are often asked to come up with innovative ideas and improve how they do their job, but they are also asked to find ways to keep youth interested and make the education system and teaching interesting. If the instructors know they will be forced to destroy their work 30 days after a session ends, where is the incentive to work hard to improve the process? They will not want to put in more time than necessary, knowing full well that in a year or in four or six months, they will have to start over. Those are a few of the issues that come up.

To conclude, as my colleagues said, we are looking for a compromise. We know that we need to adapt to the digital age and that important provisions need to be implemented. However, this needs to be done for creators and consumers, not for the large corporations and big businesses that will reap the benefits to the detriment of our creators and users.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague and neighbour from Chambly—Borduas. I really liked his approach and his perspective when he talked about the fact that, when it comes to academic work and students, the goal is not to make money, but really to enhance students' knowledge and enrich this country through our students.

I wonder if my colleague could elaborate on the point of view of students, specifically, the fact that they do not want to profit or make money from course notes, but rather enhance knowledge and improve the lifeblood of the future.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague and neighbour. We share a very beautiful region. That said, he raises an excellent point, because I think that is where we wanted to go with our comments and arguments about this bill.

For instance, the United States has the Copyright Act, which protects schools, libraries and their staff—including librarians, researchers, teachers and users such as students—in situations in which, as we know, the use of the information and the creations in question is meant to benefit the individual, the student in this case, in the context of his or her instruction and education. In such a context, I think any reasonable person would agree that this use does not infringe copyright. No one is trying to pirate anything or do something that goes against the interest of an author or creator; rather, they are simply trying to improve themselves and take part in a dialogue when it comes to artistic, cultural or other creations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hate going back to this section, but the bill just simply does not say, as the member for Trinity—Spadina and the member said, that students will need to burn their school notes after 30 days. It is simply not in the legislation. I am not certain why the NDP continues to suggest to Canadian students that they are going to be forced to burn their school notes after 30 days when it is just simply not in the bill.

Could the member point out the section where it specifically says that students will need to burn their notes with respect to the course material? It is not the section he is reading, because I read it in French and English and it does not say that. It says nowhere in the bill that students will need to burn their course notes.

The second point is about balance. The member says that we need to protect creators, but then he says that those creators who want to protect their works with a digital lock are somehow wrong.

How does putting a levy on consumers protect or help consumers? How does it make it more affordable for consumers by putting on a levy such as the NDP is suggesting?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are many points to address in my colleague's comments. I will try to do so in the time available to me.

First of all, I would say that we are not talking about punishing creators. I do not see a contradiction in what I said because, in this situation, we are talking specifically about having a certain flexibility in the bill with respect to appropriate uses, as in the case of education. Naturally, if we are talking about an artist who makes music or a movie, for example, in that case we are very open to finding ways to protect creators and to ensure that they receive their fair share because they make a substantial contribution to our society. At the same time, it is very important to point out that, in this case, we really are trying to make exceptions for students for the purposes of education to improve our society.

I will quickly touch on the other point mentioned by my colleague. The bill does not specifically state that students have to burn their course notes. However, it is understood that this is implied by the bill. These are concerns expressed to us by students and professors, and not the other way around. As the elected members of this House, we must convey the concerns of the people in an environment that benefits greatly from these creations.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-11, the copyright modernization act.

This bill is a redirection of Bill C-32 from the last Parliament, that contains sweeping changes to our copyright laws and it has received a huge amount of opposition. I have received hundreds of letters from my riding, which I will talk about later.

The copyright modernization act in this country is long overdue. There is no doubt about that. Changes need to be made. Unfortunately, my Conservative colleagues have taken the wrong approach on this and the result is that Bill C-11 is filled with holes and problems. Conservatives could have used the expert opinions heard in committee to help draft this legislation or they could have followed the findings of their own consultations in 2009. Instead, as we have seen many times, they ignored the facts, and they have also ignored the facts from the experts, and ended up reintroducing fundamentally flawed legislation. This does not reflect the best interests of Canadians and might end up doing more harm than good.

I have received hundreds of letters from my constituents and talked to a number of them over the phone. Here are some of their concerns. They say that their rights are trumped by an all-encompassing protection for digital locks and that the empty circumvention provisions included in Bill C-11 give too much power to corporate copyright owners to exercise absolute control over Canadians' interaction with media and technology. The letters say that they are concerned about the bill's unintended consequences generated by the broad protection for digital locks and they do not want to hand control of Canadian digital rights over to corporations.

I am going to read some of their names so their opposition to this bill will be recorded in this House. I received letters opposing Bill C-11 from: Christopher Madge, Tyler Goulding, Kyle Geddes, Nick Gailloux, H. Hinkel, Michael Leung, Philip Qumsieh, David Martin, David Lysne, Lance Hathaway, Reg Natarajan, Darya Smirnow, Quinton Weir, Bill Dagoe, Rod Kovacs, Amanpreet Bains, Vah Jazle, Luke Zukowski, Alex Weatherston, Michael Ross, Daryl Christensen, Owen Morley, Sally Hawkins, Colinda Lovely, Ross Smirnov and Gloria Maria Fredette.

These people are moms and pops, consumers, educators, professionals. They come from different backgrounds. They cover a very wide perspective in opposition to Bill C-11.

I responded to these constituents by telling them that New Democrats believe strongly that Canada's copyright legislation needs to be brought into a digital age, that we need to fix this. There is no doubt about it, from this side of the House, and we have pushed to make this happen. Members have heard the speeches we have made here this afternoon and no Conservative is speaking up on this particular bill. New Democrats share the concerns. I share the concerns that my constituents have shared with me and that is why I am speaking here today, on their behalf.

New Democrats believe that access for consumers and remuneration for artists are crucial to copyright in a digital environment. Rights that are guaranteed to citizens under existing copyright legislation should not be overridden. Furthermore, we oppose the digital lock provisions that go well beyond our obligation under the WIPO copyright treaty.

Another concern is that this bill offers consumers rights they will not be able to exercise. The blanket provisions for digital locks would allow corporate interests to decide what legal rights people may or may not exercise, which would ultimately hurt artists, educators, students and, of course, many other consumers.

Unless the government is willing to amend the digital lock provisions and restore royalty provisions for artists, frankly, I cannot support Bill C-11. There are measures within the bill that New Democrats cannot support and measures that we can support. We would like to see this deeply flawed piece of legislation improved and I request that of my colleagues opposite.

We would like to amend the digital lock provisions to make sure that there is a balance between the rights of creators to protect their work and the rights of consumers to access content to which they are legally entitled. We want to make sure that students and educators have fair access to works in the classroom. I encourage the minister and members of the government to listen to the concerns of citizens across this country. Educators, students, artists and many others are writing letters, signing petitions and speaking out against the glaring problems contained in this flawed legislation, Bill C-11.

There are many groups validating our position: the Writers Guild of Canada; the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada; and over 80 arts and cultural organizations from Quebec, British Columbia, Ontario and across the country. I encourage my colleagues to listen to their concerns so that we can make amendments that make sense for Canadians and we can have a balanced bill that works in the best interests of Canada.

We need to create a fair royalty system for creators, one that supports the digital economy and the creation of creative content by Canadians. Copyright laws in Canada can balance the right of creators to be compensated fairly for their work and the right of consumers, educators and students to have reasonable access to copyrighted content.

We need to make our copyright laws better, there is no doubt. New Democrats are willing to work with the Conservatives to move this copyright bill into the 21st century. I urge my colleagues to listen to the suggestions that we have offered to amend the bill and make it better, so that we can move into the new digital age.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to my colleague's speech and I wanted to raise something really important to all Canadians. It is about jobs and the economy.

I would like to mention an industry that he should be aware of because it is a huge industry in British Columbia and in Quebec. It is the video game industry. I will give an example. A video game company spends literally tens of thousands of hours to put together a video game. This intellectual property is very important to them for their business model. Theoretically, a member of Parliament in the NDP could take that video game and, because of the technology, the member could break that lock and upload it onto the Internet. Everyone around the world could now be utilizing that intellectual property, that video game that the creator or the industry put tens of thousands of hours and millions of dollars into developing it.

I see that as a fundamental breach of personal rights and property rights. If the NDP holds onto this position, as the member has said, the NDP will not supporting any piece of legislation that has digital locks, hundreds of jobs in British Columbia would be lost and hundreds or thousands of jobs in Quebec would be lost.

I was wondering how the member could reconcile this. Different models can be put forward on the Internet. People can download and share games in different ways. However, if I, as a consumer, choose to buy a video game that has a digital lock, what is wrong with that? What will the member to say to all of his constituents in British Columbia who could lose their jobs because of this irresponsible policy of the NDP?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is funny that the member talked about jobs. We have lost 72,000 jobs in the last month and that is because of economic inaction on the government's part. We have been encouraging the government to get an economic policy in place so that we can generate jobs. I am glad the member is talking about jobs. Small businesses are the ones that generate jobs in this country. They are the drivers of our economic engine and yet the government will be raising taxes on small businesses beginning in the new year.

I want to answer the member's question very briefly. We need to take a balanced approach. I urge my colleagues to work with the NDP so that we can have a balanced copyright modernization act.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Oshawa makes some good, valid points. I think we are getting off the topic of copyright again.

However, before we go on, he is right in the sense that there is a fundamental role for digital locks played in that particular area. As a matter of fact, I think digital locks for the video game industry is a good thing. It is a fundamental concept of protecting the investment to which the member spoke.

The problem is that the digital lock becomes the ultimate machine in the operation, if I can use that term. There are no ways to test, like he burn test, the burn convention test, and the three-step, six-step test, those sorts of thing, that allows, in certain circumstances, such as education, to circumvent that digital lock, the flexibility and freedom of fair dealing. I think that is at the core of it. The points from the member from Oshawa are correct.

Unfortunately, because the digital locks have gone that far it does not give us much flexibility, so the balance that he is seeking here could be worked out with things like a six-step or a three-step test process?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely. We have been pushing to work with the government, not only on this bill but many other bills, co-operatively to look at solutions and how we can move forward as a country, whether it is on the omnibus bill, the gun registry or the Senate reform.

The NDP has put forward a number of amendments and solutions. We need to have a balanced approach. I would agree with what my colleague has said, that we need to have that balanced approach.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

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

As my colleague said earlier, we believe that changes to the Copyright Act are long overdue and we need to bring Canada up to current standards in the tech industries and to meet industrial standards in other countries.

As we can tell from the debate in the House today, this is an extremely complex issue. There are many interests to be considered and it should not be rushed through. That is why we are saying that the overwhelming message from this side of the House is that we have to take in the interests of all groups when we are moving ahead with such a complex piece of legislation.

The key word that we should focus on is balance. We need to find the right mix between the different interests in Canada and to ensure the bill strikes the right balance and that one group is not favoured too much over another group. We, on this side of the House, believe that the bill does not actually hit the right mix and does not actually provide the right balance.

For example, we have heard a lot of talk today about digital locks. We are saying that the provisions on digital locks are too stringent. They tip the balance too far in favour of the very big corporations and do not really look after the interests of a number of consumers and, in fact, may actually hurt artists, not the large corporate artists but the smaller artists.

There is a real danger that consumers will be unable to access content they have already purchased, for example. This tips the balance toward protecting large corporations and not really allowing consumers full access to something they purchased. In some sense, it will actually be more like renting the information than owning it.

We think the bill is tipped too far in favour of industry and needs to be rethought. This whole debate reminds me of the same debate we had in the 1990s concerning drug patents. There again, the balance was not achieved between consumers and businesses. Consumers and one part of the drug industry ended up on the short side of the stick, where the giant pharmaceutical companies ended up with most of the benefits.

I will take hon. members back to that time. In 1992, Brian Mulroney's Conservative government modified the Patent Act under Bill C-91, the Patent Act Amendment Act. The bill eliminated compulsory licences for pharmaceutical products and the law tipped the balance to patented drugs manufacturers and greatly injured mostly Canadian-based genetic drug industry. There was a huge controversy.

The number of responses that my colleague from Surrey has mentioned and that we have all received on this all say that there is huge controversy on the proposed bill, that we are just rushing through it and that again we are tipping the balance too much toward industry.

In this case, in the reform of the Patent Act in 1992, we really hurt the generic drug industry. Drugs are now more expensive and the R and D that was promised by the giant pharmaceutical companies was not actually invested in Canada as was promised. Bill C-91 was viewed by many as a major victory for giant pharma. It offered greater patent protection to those big companies, it abolished compulsory licensing and it created regulations to ensure generic drugs did not infringe upon the patent.

As we argued in that case and we will argue in this case, we need to look at all the people who would be affected by the bill, and we are not feeling that the current bill, Bill C-11, hits the right mix.

We do think, however, that modernization is long overdue, as we have stood up and said many times in the House. However, the bill has too many glaring problems and, unfortunately, it even creates problems where none currently exists. The ultimate test of bad policy is when we actually cause more problems than we are fixing.

We have suggested and will continue to suggest a system to create a fairer royalty system for creators. These industries generate a lot of profits but we want to ensure they are shared evenly among creators.

I find it troubling how Bill C-11 would wipe away millions of dollars in revenue for artists, local artists, artists from the Canadian Independent Musical Artists. It would hurt this community and it really would not provide any new opportunities for artists' remuneration. It would give with one hand and take away with the other.

Many people share our fears. We on this side of the House are not making this up. We have had plenty of people say that they are against this. For example, the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, which is a group I used to be part of when I was a professional musician, say that these:

...copyright law amendments should facilitate access to creative content on new media and ensure that creators are fairly compensated for the use of their creative content on new media. Access must go hand in hand with compensation. Without this balance, the creation of creative content will eventually decrease, as Canadian creators will be unable to make a living.

As a former independent artist, we all know that local artists do not make any money from selling albums. They make money from playing live. We are not talking about Céline Dion or Bryan Adams or any of the large, multinational corporate type of entertainers. We are talking about local entertainers. For example, we are talking about Joel Plaskett Emergency, Stars, The Weakerthans, Said The Whale, Caribou, D.O.A., Arkells, City and Colour, Dan Mangan, Valentines and Billy the Kid, just to name a few artists who are working to produce material to entertain and bring joy to people's lives. They are being left aside under this copyright legislation.

The government tends to favour the big corporations, but does not look after the smaller producers. I will give a sense of what independent artists make. They make about $12,000 a year. I know this having been one of those artists in the past, I know that members from Toronto and northern Ontario have performed in independent Canadian bands and have travelled in what I deem to be stinky bands, driving from venue to venue. However, artists are not making a lot of money off their album sales. They use their albums to promote themselves and try to draw people to their live gigs where they make their modest living.

The bill should look at the majority of artists in this country who are independent artists eking out a living and make sure that we strike a balance with the laws we are putting in place, not only to protect large corporate interests but also to make life easier for the artists and all the people they entertain.

Other validators of our position on this bill include Michael Geist, a well-known technological commentator. He says:

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.

Again, this is where balance has not come into play in the bill. In fact, it is a bit of overkill that we have seen time and time again from the government. It is tipping things too far to one side and not really taking the interests of all Canadians into consideration.

Mr. Geist says that the new digital lock means that “both the existing fair dealing rights and...new rights all cease to function effectively so long as the rights holder places a digital lock on their content or device”.

I will switch as an educator again and speak about the textbooks that I have authored. It is a shame that, under the bill, students, in some cases, would be penalized from keeping those textbooks and using them later in life. They would essentially, as my colleague says, need to burn them because they are digital, which would limit education in this country. Everyone knows that we do not absorb all the information from a textbook. We go back and refer to it as we go through life.

The legislation misses the mark. We need more balance and we are hoping to work with the government to achieve that.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before moving on to questions and comments, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges, Infrastructure; the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou, Small and Medium-Sized Businesses.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the hon. member's presentation. It is clear the NDP and the member will not support the bill. Earlier we heard earlier the member for Trinity—Spadina say that the bill was all about pleasing American movie studios.

The fact is that foreign location production is at $1.5 billion annually. Film and TV production generated more than 117,000 full-time job equivalents in 2009-10, including 36,000 in foreign location and service production. A lot of jobs are at stake. We have heard that many companies are concerned about the fact that Canada is very much an outlaw in terms of protecting intellectual property.

The hon. member represents a riding in Vancouver and Vancouver is an area that has benefited from much of this film production. Would the hon. member not agree that we really need to protect investment in Canada, even in his own city of Vancouver?

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that question points out to me how the government has missed the point here. It is not that we are against modernization. It is not that we are against helping companies protect their interests or their intellectual property. What we are against is how far this legislation would go, and it is too far. As with the patent drug act in the 1990s, it will hurt other sectors of the Canadian industry that really need to be protected.

I hope the government will look at the legislation again because there are deep flaws in it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the bill does send some mixed messages to individuals who are following this debate. On the one hand, we recognize that jobs in the gaming industry for example, whether in Winnipeg, Vancouver or Ontario, are important and valuable. We also recognize that individuals have the right to protect their interests. On the other hand, this legislation gives us serious concerns because it deals with what a student at a local university would be able to keep, that the student would have to dispose of homework. A lot of university students love to keep the work they did during their studies. Some of them will keep it for years. Could the member provide his thoughts on that issue?

There are some good things in the bill, but there are also some things which would have a profound negative impact.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as an educator for decades and as somebody who writes textbooks, what often happens is students are not aware of what they are learning as they go through their courses, but it is only upon further reflection that what they are learning sinks in deeply.

From my understanding, 30 days after a course ends a great deal of the material that a student might collect has to be destroyed. That is contrary to my sense of what learning actually is. The government has to take another look at this because that is not going to move Canada ahead. It is going to undermine our education system. The government has to have another look at it.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to share concerns from my area. A couple of universities are in my riding, Simon Fraser University and Kwantlen University.

My colleague has quite a bit of experience as he was a professor at a university. Would he comment briefly on the impact this legislation would have on educators and students?

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Surrey North is a fine educator of high repute in his own right .

The problem is this law is so complex that the ramifications have probably not filtered down to universities and colleges and perhaps even to high schools. That is why we need to discuss this more. The government should ensure that it consults a bit more and talks to universities to find out what they will do to ensure that education continues in the way it should.

[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.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening intently to my colleague's speech and I want to ask her a question about jobs and the economy.

She comes from Toronto, where one industry that relies on digital locks is the video game industry, as I mentioned a little earlier. As a consumer, I have the right to purchase copies of video games in many different formats and utilize them in many different fashions. For example, I can go online and find companies that will sell previews of their games. If people like a game, they can sign up and do it month by month. One business model is to purchase one copy of a game on a disk and utilize that game for one's enjoyment. The business relies on that model to employ thousands of Canadians in her riding and the area of Toronto.

I believe in property rights myself. It is a fundamental right that if I own property, I should be able to utilize it at my desire. If a company wants to sell a locked copy of a digital game, which is its business model, and I as a consumer want to buy it, what is wrong with that? We have heard over and over from New Democrats that they are not going to support any legislation with digital locks, but Canadian jobs depend on this in the member's community. What is wrong with consumers choosing to purchase a certain format and utilizing it as they wish? What does the NDP have against that?

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

Mr. Speaker, jobs are being lost in this country. There were 72,000 full-time jobs lost in one month. I see that as a big problem. I know that many of my constituents are in precarious employment situations right now and that many of them probably did lose the good full-time jobs that the member across is speaking about, but copyright legislation was created to protect the creators and to have a balance between the rights of creators and consumers. This legislation does not respect that balance.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again we have gotten off the rails in our debate, which is on the idea that digital locks have become way too powerful. Smashing a mosquito with a sledgehammer is a little much, and we end up without the flexibility around this issue that we need in order to be successful.

I agree with my colleagues about the video game industry and how digital locks protect that investment. There is no doubt that they do, but I would be careful in marrying oneself to the idea that we have to legislate around a particular business model by which this legislation will change every year, not just every five years, as this legislation would suggest.

My question for the hon. member is about the consultation process. What I find particularly egregious is that we have heard from a few particular people and should probably hear from them again at committee, because she, as a new member, has not heard them yet. I would like her comments about all the people who should be involved in the special legislative committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is important for me and for many of the new members of the House who did not have an opportunity to participate in the consultation process during the last Parliament to hear not only from corporate Canada, large moviemakers and industry but also individual artists, educators and students who are being affected by this legislation.

This legislation affects and boosts not only large industry players; it also affects the small people, the individual students, the universities, the colleges, the professors and the textbook authors who will now have to ensure that their textbooks will not be available to students 30 days after the completion of their course. That is problematic for me.

[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--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville.

[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, any piece of legislation that includes a mandatory review is a good idea. However, I have had a lot of experience with mandatory five year reviews. I recall the first mandatory five year review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The review took seven years.

I do not think we can count on mandatory reviews every five years, when we know we have an opportunity right now to get it right. Therefore, let us get it right in committee, bring it back to the House at report stage for its passage, and have it go on to the other place with the digital lock provisions fixed.

This is a rare piece of legislation and that one fix will bring most of the critics on board.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen over and over where the Conservatives have been inflexible. They have been very extreme in their measures, whether it is the omnibus bill, the amendments being introduced by the opposition, or the gun registry data that the province of Quebec wants to use to establish its own gun registry.

Does the member think that a balanced approach would be more acceptable?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do. This is a piece of legislation that is so close to fixed that it is in fact fixable. There is one form of pressure, which we believe comes from U.S. interests that want excessive protection through digital locks.

If we look at what Canadians are saying, namely, legal experts, academic experts, and those in the vast field of creativity, whether they are songwriters, writers or artists, they are all saying one thing; that is, fix the digital lock provisions and then we will have a bill we can support.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is well-read on this issue. She talks about the preamble very eloquently and brings up some aspects that were pointed out to me, especially with respect to the five year review. Sometimes when one thinks about it, that is even too long itself.

She mentioned WIPO, which was signed around the mid-nineties. It seems as though every time technology pushes ahead, the legislation's regulations are way behind and trying to catch up on how it works. For example, look at how long it took Tim Hortons to catch up with a cafe latte. That is an idea of what we are talking about.

Therefore, if we look at it in this particular sense, I would like the member to comment on artists. One of the glowing omissions to me pertain to artist resale, which is an intensive issue throughout Europe and the world really. For some reason, it is not taken as seriously here.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are a few holes in the legislation. I have spoken primarily to the digital lock provisions and to the conflict that exists constitutionally. However, there are a number of places where the artists' interests are not adequately protected.

One that comes to mind is what is called the YouTube exemption, where user-generated content might be exempted in order to allow things to be posted on YouTube without going back to the creator and without ensuring that this will really work in the interests of our creators.

Other members have said this today. Most of the people in the artistic community in Canada are not Céline Dion. Most are struggling and producing their income through their performances. They need to protect their creative material. This legislation goes some of the way, but fails to protect them as completely as they should be protected.

[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.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska will have five minutes remaining when the House resumes debate on the motion.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from November 22 consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Resuming debate. The member for Richmond—Arthabaska has five minutes remaining for questions and comments.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am interested in the views of my colleague from the Bloc Québécois that were laid out for us when Bill C-11 was being debated the last time in the House of Commons.

I understand from his remarks that he disagrees profoundly with the federal government in its treatment of the copyright legislation. He believes that Bill C-11 is riddled with flaws from one end to the other. In fact, there is very little merit in the bill whatsoever. It would require a great deal more analysis and study before we could safely say that it would be ready to be implemented as such a critically important piece of regulatory legislation to govern and guide something as important as copyright in this country.

I would like my colleague, in the few moments he has left, to expand and summarize for Canadians the legitimate reservations he has about this legislation.

[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.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, specifically in northern regions like mine, we are concerned about the concept of digital locks and how that would reflect on distance education. I have three post-secondary institutions in my riding. I would like to hear the member's comments on digital locks inhibiting distance learning and the education process.

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

Madam Speaker, that will definitely be the case. I would like to thank the hon. member for his question. We recently met with university students who spoke to us about this issue. Not only will the bill harm creators and artists, but it will help large corporations use digital locks. That will keep people at home from transferring music—or electronic versions of other things like books, etc.—that they purchased legally on the Internet or elsewhere. These things would no longer be transferable because of the infamous digital locks.

What this bill does not do is fairly compensate creators. The bill also harms the education system by solely favouring large corporations. In responding to questions, the minister often lists a group of companies that support Bill C-11. And we see that as a serious problem. We cannot accept this bill as is. More and more people are seeing that it is full of flaws.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the debate on the Copyright Act.

First, I will congratulate my good friend and colleague, the member for Timmins—James Bay, who has been working on copyright legislation for, I think, the last three Parliaments, and trying to find a way to find a balance.

It truly is a balance between those of us who are consumers and those who are creators. I must admit that I am only a consumer of materials not a creator. I can neither write songs nor do I write poetry. The members who have been in the House when I sing “O Canada” probably recognize that I do not sing that well either, at least not well enough that someone would pay for it.

However, there are many folks across our great land who are indeed creators. They write, make movies, create music and do it wonderfully well and want to engage in it as a career. They want it to be their life's work and deserve to be remunerated by that life's work. I think all hon. members would agree that they deserve that. The difficulty with the act is that it does not address those Canadian creators in a significant way that would help compensate them for all of the hard work that they do, because, indeed, it is hard work.

I do have the good fortune of having a younger brother who is a creator. He writes music and does it very well. He deserves to be compensated if that work is put on the market and sold or copyrighted. He deserves some sense of remuneration for that.

We saw in the past, levies on cassettes. I betray my age when I talk about cassettes because they are what one might consider to be the dinosaurs of the technology age, let alone eight-tracks and reel-to-reel. That would really betray our age for those of us who had a reel-to-reel tape recorder.

We have been copyrighting other folks' work for a long time. That is how we give remuneration back to those individuals who create it. It is important because we want them to continue to do the things they have done in the past, which is create new works to entertain us, because that is really what they do when we buy that material, whether it be music, a book, a movie or whatever form it happens to be. The reason we want to consume it is for personal enjoyment. If those creators are not remunerated, we will not be the beneficiaries of that entertainment because it will stop. We will lose that creative class.

That reminds me of professor Richard Florida, who is an American but who has been in Toronto for a number of years now. He wrote a report about seven years ago about the creative class and what it meant to the economy and how we could have creative class clusters. He actually used my old hometown of Glasgow as being one of the new European creative class enterprises. He talked about literally hundreds of billions of dollars of economic spinoff from the creative class. When I thought about it, it dawned on me that it was more. In Glasgow, it was the opera house. We had all these wonderful performers from around the world who sang tremendously well. Looking at the stage, one would think maybe there were 40 performers. That is probably a high number. We might wonder what the economic spinoff of that would be until we think about set design, which carpenters needed to do; lighting, which electricians needed to do; costume design required designers and the folks who make the costumes; and it goes on and on. Therefore, when we look at that creative class and the opportunities for economic development from that, it is one of the key things the government continues to talk about.

There is no question that this world has a fragile economy. Members understand that on that side, as this side does as well. One would think that we would not want to impinge upon a piece of society that can generate economic activity for us.

Denying creators an opportunity to make a living is clearly what will happen. I heard that in the previous Parliament when I had artists coming to me and talking to me about the previous bill, which was very much like this one. They talked about how the bill did not address the needs of Canadian creators.

Our legislation should be written for us, Canadian consumers and the creators of that particular piece of work, whatever it happens to be. However, it would seem that there are pieces in this legislation that are being driven by large movie producers in the United States. That does not benefit Canadian creators. That is not helping our folks who are actually engaged in this work.

Why do I say that? Well, it really hinges on one piece of the legislation, and that is what is called a “digital lock”. For some of us, digital locks seem like an odd thing. We understand the idea of a padlock. I think those of us in the 40th Parliament understood padlocks well. There was one on the front door here when the government prorogued on numerous occasions. I remember the Parliament being prorogued and the padlock being on that door more than once.

If we are equating the digital lock to prorogation in this House, where we padlocked the people's House, that is not a good thing. If we are equating digital locks to what we have seen in Parliament with time allocation and closure, that is not a good thing.

The creators are telling us that the digital lock is not for their protection and is not for ensuring they can go forward in creating new works and making a living at it.

Are we asking the creators to get a second or third job instead of simply doing the work that is in their very soul? When they create works, when they write songs or poetry or novels, it comes from deep within them. Are we going to send them off to work three shifts some place and tell them to write the book at some other time or in their spare time at night, because we will not be helping them to protect their work and get remunerated?

If we are headed down that road, I do not know why we do not just take patents off medicines. We could say that it is for the general public good and we should all get them without having to give compensation to the folks who actually have the patent. That is what we are saying about creators, that they are not allowed to patent their music. Creators ought to be able to keep it copyrighted and find a way to make a living at it because that is really what they are trying to do.

The digital locks are insidious. Young folks today, as many of us know, are extremely adept at using the digital world. Some would argue that they are better at it than us. When I say us, I mean folks who look more like me, who are somewhat mature and who do not necessarily know how the digital world works. I will freely admit that I could not transfer music from the computer to an iPod or from an iPod to an MP3. I could not do that in four months of Sundays. I do not have the faintest idea of how to do that.

I am sure I could probably learn but it is not something that I necessarily want to do. My goodness, if I were to sit down with my young nephew, who I think is about nine now, he would certainly know. It is amazing how young folks know how to do work in this digital world in such a fashion that it betrays the actual age that they are.

Ultimately, we need copyright legislation that balances us as consumers and those who are creators. We on this side of the House want to help the government with amendments to make that happen. Our copyright legislation, as it stands today, is archaic and it needs to be changed. We. on this side of the House. are willing to help the government. Many times the Prime Minister has said that if we have good ideas we should put them on the table. What we are saying to the government is that we have some brilliant ideas and all it needs to do is listen to those ideas and then put them in the legislation. We would then have a copyright act that acts on behalf of creators and consumers, and that would help Canadians across the board from coast to coast to coast.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague clearly explained the challenges facing creators, yet I see no reaction from the other side of the House. It defies all logic.

Are there not major economic interests behind this? For example, in the negotiations between Canada and the United States, if we offer enormous concessions to the Americans regarding copyright and distribution of cultural products in general, we might get some crumbs in return. I see no other logic behind this bill, because there is nothing in it to protect creators. This bill only protects businesses that deal in cultural products, particularly large American and multinational corporations.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. This is about an economic interest that comes from abroad. It does not necessarily come from inside this country because if it did, we would reward creators. If we want to drive this economy and actually put some oomph into it, so to speak, we would make sure our creators were rewarded so that they could continue to do what they do and generate economic activity. There is a reason why movie studios in Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia are competing north-south as well as east-west. It is because of the large number of dollars. Why would we want to give it away?

My hon. colleague's comments reminded me of the softwood lumber deal. We made a deal with the U.S. on softwood lumber and we have been paying ever since. We thought we got a deal and we got less than crumbs. We seem to get fined all the time. We always seem to be the ones at the bottom.

If we are not going to fight for our own creators, who will? If we are not going to stand up for the creative class in this country, who write for us, perform for us, produce the things we love to see, hear and read, who will? It certainly will not be the Americans. They will be happy to sell their stuff to us. They will not be so happy about us selling to them. The group of Canadian performers and writers will diminish when they end up having to work in other fields because they cannot make a living doing the very things they are passionate about.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member spoke about his brother being a creator and making a living. I would like to know how much of a living he makes. He must be making millions and billions of dollars. That is the impression of most Canadians. Every time we see entertainers, all we talk about is how many millions and billions of dollars they make, but we do not talk about the 90% of creators who actually do not make any money. Perhaps he could speak about that.

At the same time what we have to remember is the consumers' interest in all of this. What is the balance? How do we balance between making sure creators continue to create and consumers continue to have products available to them?

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Madam Speaker, my brother is a graphic designer by profession. The member is absolutely right. He is part of the 90% who cannot make a living creating music, even though he has written hundreds of songs and sent them to production houses to try to get them recorded or recorded them himself.

On the other issue, the member is absolutely correct. There is a balance in protecting consumers. In questioning earlier, the member for Sudbury raised the extended education piece. When I went to university, if I had five days to read a particular article that I had photocopied, I would not get through it. Other things would get in the way. That is what happens.

Clearly there are boundaries and we need to find a way to balance the two. Consumers deserve to have material available to them without feeling under threat that they are breaking a law and that someone is going to knock on their doors to arrest them because they have broken a lock inadvertently. The lock should not have existed. Locks seem to be the answer for everything. Digital locks are the answer, according to this legislation. They are not.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-11 and the good and bad things that would come from this. I am going to focus on the problem with digital locks.

There are some good things that would come from this bill. It does clarify certain things, like using a CD and putting the contents of it on one's iPod. Already owning something and putting it on a different device that is owned by the same person is no longer a grey area. There is also the YouTube clause which means that Canadians can put creative things together for private use.

A lot of what people do with media has been a grey area since 1997 when the Copyright Act was last amended, as it is for private use. As a result, it would be good to update this to international treaty standards. This would soften the blow to consumers. However, the big problem is digital locks. This issue trumps consumer rights and it does not allow people to back up any kind of media, including CDs, DVDs, e-books, et cetera, that people already own.

The problem with this is that all these new lovely things that we would take out of the grey area, making it okay for people to use these things privately, would be trumped by the digital locks. That is the major problem.That seems kind of silly.

Digital locks basically create a blanket ban. A digital lock is a piece of software designed to prevent ordinary consumers from utilizing a piece of technology in any way they see fit. Such locks, for instance, are often used to prevent people from making copies of songs and videos but they are also used to prevent consumers from installing software on their cellphones and even fixing their own cars. Similar digital locks are used on movie and software CDs, DVDs, and Blu-ray disks. This is taken from the National Post of October 27.

A company that owns the rights is to be distinguished from the creator of the art, the movie or the song. The artists or creators are not the ones putting on digital locks. It is just too expensive for them to do so. It is the companies that own the copyright, and in many cases the artist produces the work for the company. The companies impose these digital locks in order to prevent stealing.

The problem is that a lot of people are not stealing on purpose. They are simply backing up CDs or DVDs on their computers, perhaps so that their children cannot destroy them, or because they want to keep them or they want to use them on different devices. This is frustrating for the consumer. I am of the generation of people who know how to break digital locks, although I do not personally know how to break digital locks. Most of the time, when there is no digital lock we are able to back material up or copy material for personal use. Thanks to this bill, we would not be able to when there is a digital lock.

This initiative is controlled by companies. It is quite clear that we are not balancing consumer and creator rights here. We are giving a default button or a veto button to the big companies that own the rights.

Again, this does not favour the consumers or creators.

Just because people break a digital lock, it does not mean that they are violating copyright laws. If they have legally purchased a DVD on a computer or something from iTunes, it needs to be decrypted in order to be freely available for their use. It just seems silly to prevent people from using, for their own personal purpose, things that now have this lock on them.

Michael Geist stated in the Toronto Star, on October 2, that the digital lock provisions undermine any attempt to strike a balance because they create this loophole. Companies are now basically in charge of whether people can use things freely which they would otherwise be allowed to do. Most people are not breaking digital locks simply to sell millions of copies but are doing it to back material up and use it on other devices.

The digital lock rules go far beyond what is expected by international standards. I do not see why we are doing this, unless the government is simply trying to play into the hands of big companies. There has been a lot of consultation on this issue. It has been shown to be a problem, but no one in the government seems to care. It can be frustrating to see this happen, as we are trying to make good amendments or bring forward solutions and we are consulting the public. The Conservatives are not listening. This legislation does not have to be a partisan issue. We should instead care about the consumers and the creators, because we know that consuming and creating drive the economy. We have thriving artistic communities in Canada and in Quebec and we should be making the balance there, not with the companies.

It is good that the fines have been brought down, but the digital lock takes away consumers' rights. This is silly. I do not understand why the government has not changed the legislation to make it better as the NDP has been arguing.

This bill creates powerful new anti-circumvention rights for content owners. Once again, it is important to distinguish between content owners, companies against copyright and content creators. This prevents access to copyrighted works. These new provisions are supported by fines of over $1 million and five-year prison terms. This will result in a situation where digital locks will practically trump all other rights, including fair dealing for students and journalists. This presents a real threat, because consumers will not be authorized to use content for which they have already paid.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, we are talking about balancing personal use and consumer rights with the artists' rights. When an artist enters into a contract with a company the artist receives royalties and payments. It is similar to an athlete who has a contract with a corporation. The company in some respects pays the artist's wages and purchases the artist's product or provides that contract.

We should not focus just on the selling of the product; there is the utilization of it as well. When I purchase a product, I would like to be free to transfer the music or book that I purchased to other devices. What we are trying to provide, and what the companies need, is protection so that when people download things, it is not that they are going to sell them, but that they are not going to disseminate broadly a huge collection of music or books to all their friends.

How do we go about preventing that dissemination of information not in terms of sales, but in terms of disseminating it to the purchaser's friends?

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is an extremely complicated issue. I also want to be able to use what I buy, the media content, et cetera, freely. We can most of the time, but companies can impose digital locks. It is up to the discretion of the company whether the consumer can have it, and even if the artist wants to give it, the artist cannot. That does not seem to be a good solution.

New Democrats have worked hard at bringing forward constructive solutions. I hope that the Conservatives will listen to the amendments and propositions my hon. colleague from Timmins—James Bay has made.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel for the tone and the content of her remarks. She made some insights in the context of this debate that are sometimes overlooked from a personal point of view. I liked her emphasis on consumer rights. I liked the attention to detail that she brought to the House on those issues as they affect the consumer. Ultimately, that is why we are gathered here today, to look after the best interests of those people who gave us their confidence in the last federal election.

I would like the member to expand on a very important point that she raised. She mentioned that the arts, culture and entertainment are an engine for economic growth that perhaps gets the least attention of any economic sector in our society today. As we lose smokestack industries, where are the new jobs going to come from? The answer is right under our noses. I argue this is being dealt with very clumsily by the government and even by the regulators as it exists today. I look forward to her personal reflections on this new engine for economic growth, the creators of arts, and the entertainment and cultural industries.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg Centre for his excellent question.

The Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists, or ACTRA, estimates that Canada's arts and culture industry contributes $85 billion per year to our country's economy. That is huge. We should really be focusing on that. On this side of the House, we in the NDP have great appreciation for Canadian and Quebec artists. The arts and culture industry generates 1.1 million jobs. This industry and these jobs depend on artists' ability to disseminate their work. So, I would like the government to work on that.

[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.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, there is one rather obvious point about copyright that I would like my colleague to elaborate on a little. It is an extremely complex issue, so we need to really think carefully about this. It requires a lot of work, because it involves a variety of factors and a number of different technologies. In addition to the existing technology, there is also emerging technology, so the issue will become even more complex.

In politics, as in all other sectors, the same is true: society is becoming increasingly complex and technology is having more and more of an impact on our lives. Demagogues are always tempted to find simple solutions, which usually do not work, and when they are confronted with a problem they really cannot solve, they put it off to deal with later.

[José Nunez-Melo, NDP, Laval, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. It is very obvious. He is quite right to be worried about the complexity of the technology involved in copyright. For instance, large corporations in the artistic sector want to take advantage of it in order to impose certain rules and make more money at the expense of artists and creators.

My colleague just explained one of the most important points of this bill. Technology is constantly changing and there was a time when, in my own experience, I really had to deal with that. Indeed, I once published a little local newspaper in Montreal. Thus, I perfectly understand all the intricacies involved in publishing photos and text that are copyrighted materials. It is very technical.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the intelligent and thoughtful perspective that he brings to a very complex debate. The real gift in the analysis of such a complex bill is to render these complex situations down to the practical reality of enforcement in the modern age of regulatory regimes that seek to make sense of a constantly evolving spectrum of very detailed and complex situations.

I too would like my colleague to dwell on the question that we have for academic material, library material or journalistic material that is generously shared on a non-profit basis for the elevation of the standards of information and knowledge instead of for profit. This is the complexity we are dealing with. It is not just the industrial application of a copyright of profitable material, but the sharing and distribution of knowledge as we move forward as a species. It is the control and the ownership of knowledge--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. The hon. member for Laval has 30 seconds to respond.

[José Nunez-Melo, NDP, Laval, QC]

Madam Speaker, 30 seconds is a very short time to talk about all these complexities. As our hon. colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, our distinguished colleague from Winnipeg Centre and my colleague from the north shore of Laval have said, this is very technical and complex and there are specific criteria. I would like to ask the Conservative caucus to consider our amendments.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this morning to speak to Bill C-11. I think this may be one of the most important bills I have seen in the time I have been a member of Parliament. Why do I say this? Because we are starting to build the future here. Up to now, there have been many bills that dealt with the present or the immediate future, but with this bill we are really talking about the future of our society, the way that young people in our society will live and will grow old.

Talking about copyright is one way to start building the digital society of tomorrow. We can talk about copyright and the digital economy strategy, as the government is doing, but to start with, we have to look at the big picture and talk about the digital society. We have to decide how, in the age of the Internet, globalization and planetary connectivity, we should be organizing our behaviour so that everyone has what they need to do what they want to do freely.

We often talk about balance between creators and consumers, but we tend to forget the distributors. With the Internet, some creators have started to distribute their own works, while under the physical model that has existed for decades, works go through a distributor as intermediary. Several of my colleagues have talked about digital locks, which are obviously intended to satisfy the appetite of distributors more than anything else.

We are trying to promote a balance. Everyone is trying to strike a balance between ease of access and creators’ right to remuneration. Here again, when we talk about creators in the world of the Internet, we are taking a completely different perspective. Because of the ease with which content can now be obtained, everyone can become a creator and distribute what they create on the Internet. I am pleased to see, for example, changes to photographers’ copyright. This is quite a trivial and simple example, but everyone has a digital camera. Anyone can be in the right place at the right time and take a photograph that impresses the entire world, and they too would like to be able to earn income from it. We can see that the concept of creator is being extended. There are those who do it as their occupation, who want to earn a living from it. I think we have to protect that and find a way of balancing use and remuneration. And I am not certain that this is going to be done.

I am very curious about the fact that for consumers, the bill essentially just legalizes certain existing practices. Yes, we have no choice, because everyone can do it. But there seems to be a lack of thought about the future. We are quite simply just transposing our practices in relation to a book or a cassette onto digital formats, when the reality is very different. That is why I am pleased that there are a lot of young members in the House. Young people have experience in the digital world. We are going to have to listen carefully to our young members in this debate because they use these devices day to day more than we do. They manipulate information, and there are tonnes of information being published. For example, every minute, 2,000 pages of scientific content are published. That means that if one of us wanted to read only the scientific content published today, there would be enough for five years. It is enormous.

It cannot be managed the same way that books are managed.

There is also another interesting statistic: we currently have 2 billion Internet users. With that in mind, I would like to address the global nature of the phenomenon. In the material world as we know it, there are borders. However, in the digital world the lines are a little more blurred. Scant attention is paid to this fact; we look at the Internet as if it were a in physical country when, in fact, the world of the immaterial, the world of the Internet, is global. We saw this, for example, with the Arab spring. It illustrates what can happen given the fluidity of information and how it is transmitted. These realities cannot be denied.

To begin with, treaties must have a more international aspect concerning jurisdictions and protection, and this is starting to happen. Given the speed at which information and tools evolve in the digital world, it is not possible to just take a bill that was introduced last year and reintroduce it as is, because it is already outdated, and quite substantially so. It is hard to imagine how anyone could keep up to date with this kind of legislation by simply looking at the work that is being done.

Building the digital society is a work in progress. It is unstoppable. We are starting to build something. We must look beyond our perceptions of the material world and begin to look little more at how this new world can be built. I know that there are a lot of consultations going on, however it is imperative that we continue to listen on this subject, especially to young people. Otherwise, in two years there will be another new bill dealing with copyright with still more major changes because all we will have done is codify existing practices. We should instead be thinking of how to build the digital society for all Canadians who, in fact, are part of this global movement.

A number of countries are starting to put legislation in place. We are going to have to keep a close eye, strategically speaking, on that legislation in order to determine what works and what does not. It is not enough to just listen to certain lobby groups wishing to defend their own interests. In that respect, it is not just about business, it is about use, it is about life. All of these factors must be taken into consideration.

Incidentally, the bill refers to students, but I prefer to talk of youth in general. With today's software tools, it is possible to piece together content from multiple sources and create something new. This is not science fiction; it is something that has been going on for some years now. It is important, therefore, to do more than just protect these works. For instance, when a work is reconstituted, how can the person responsible be compensated for the value of the work that they have done, work that may be different from what goes into reproducing a film or reading a book?

Another example would be a presentation on any subject that a student wishes to use in making an argument. It cannot be stressed enough that there are artistic and literary creations that are, first and foremost, educational. The point of these works is essentially to advance knowledge and culture, as well as to be disseminated. A balance needs to be struck, in my opinion, that is still is not evident in this bill.

I shall close with an example. I had a talk with the director of the Laval University library about the use of books and digital books. Digital books are still being managed just like printed books, one by one. Evidently, there is still much to be done.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague has certainly done his homework on the youth involvement in all of this and on how the technology has changed.

We strive to be technologically neutral, so we give the legislation the flexibility it needs to be nimble enough to deal with the technology as it develops. The problem is that it is not black or white, yes or no. We have to deal with infusing elements such as a three-step or six-step process into it to judge whether copyright has actually been infringed. An example is the education exemption; we like to use the step test to see that it is not being used for copyright infringement.

The NDP brought up the situation of the lessons that would have to be destroyed after 30 days upon completion of a course. That too is a very important element, but the digital lock provision is troubling for all of us simply because it is an overwhelming way of dealing with the technology. Any rights that are inherent in the bill for fair dealing have been trumped by the digital lock process.

I wonder if my colleague has any comment on that aspect.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his observations and comments.

I said at the start that a fair balance has not yet been achieved and we should continue to strive for it. This is a very clear illustration that a lot of work remains to be done. I understand the intent. However, we have to recognize that there is still a lot of work to do to achieve this balance in education for this digital world.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my colleague for both the tone and the content of his remarks. He has clearly taken this issue very seriously, he has done his research and he raises important and legitimate concerns.

One concern is the balancing act of granting a new range of access privileges, which is important in this day of digital information. However, the fact is that the bill does nothing to guarantee compensation for creators. It fails on the issue of ensuring that artists, creators and producers of content would be compensated fairly.

Given that the area of arts, culture, heritage, music, theatre, et cetera is a growth industry in Canada and one of our new engines of economic growth, what are doing to protect it? Given the context that we deal with the Copyright Act only once every 30 or 40 years, what are we doing to protect the creators and developers of this economic engine of growth that is the arts, culture and heritage?

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member.

This demonstrates that the legislative process quite often lags behind reality. In the lock example, for instance, it is as though this bill visualized digital reality as a physical book that we carry around with us and cannot load into our television.

We have to take advantage of the innovative nature of the digital world in order to modernize the tools that will allow us to both use and refer to works and to remunerate their creators. If we do not shed the mentality of the physical book, as I was illustrating, and shift toward digital methods for managing copyright and remuneration, no one will win.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Madam Speaker, many people in my riding are very concerned about this bill. It is not just the many artists in my riding, but everyone who is concerned about Bill C-11. By everyone I mean artists as well.

Artists make an absolutely extraordinary contribution to our society. I can see it in my riding. Take the Saint-Viateur neighbourhood as one example among many. When that neighbourhood was slowly dying and losing its factories, the artists arrived en masse, rented out work spaces and created areas where they could work together. And, just like that, the neighbourhood was revived. All of sudden small restaurants started opening up. Shops and larger creative enterprises started opening up in the same area. A dying neighbourhood got a second chance at life. Now the artists are paying the price for that second wind because, unfortunately, rents have now gone up in the area and artists are finding it increasingly difficult to pay for space.

However, artists contribute to more than just the life of our society; they also make a significant economic contribution. I will not go into the numbers in terms of gross domestic product, economic spinoffs and so on. We have already heard those numbers. My colleagues have already mentioned them.

I would like to talk about a personal experience I had. A very well-known Quebec artist came to see me in my office to discuss her concerns about Bill C-11. She told me that she has a small business that employs sound technicians, graphic artists, musicians and set designers. She said her business is really small and that it gets by on next to nothing. She also said that this bill will deprive her of a significant portion of her income. This was a heartfelt appeal from someone who has been working in the arts for years and who makes an important contribution to our lives, our society and our economy.

As always, however, the Conservative government prefers to favour large corporations over small and medium-sized businesses artists often have. It prefers to favour large American content owners, rather than our own creators.

Indeed, this bill does not have adequate mechanisms to protect creators' rights and, as a result, it deprives artists of millions of dollars in revenue. Our artists are already poor enough, and I think everyone knows that. Existing mechanisms provide artists with some income through royalties that allow them to get by. Not only does the bill deprive artists of millions of dollars in revenue, but it provides no alternate funding method.

Solutions do exist and suggestions have been made. But, as with so many other issues, the Conservatives will not listen to anyone. As a result, our artists, who already have very difficult lives, will no longer be able to survive. The creation of creative content will eventually decrease, because our creators will be unable to make a living. We need to protect our artists. We need to protect them because of the contribution they make to the vitality of our society and because of the economic contribution they make.

I would like to quote one of my constituents who wrote, “Canada's future relies on creativity and imagination, which promote innovation and contribute to the quality of life in our communities and, as a result, increase our capacities to grow socially and economically.”

That is a fundamental problem with this bill, but there are others. First, in addition to its content and effect—not only on artists but also on our economy and society as a whole—this bill has some legal shortcomings. I would like to quote Mr. de Beer, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, who spoke about this bill:

There are doubts whether Parliament has the authority to legislate in respect of TPMs and RMI systems.... Although there is a tangential link to the federal Copyrights power, the matter might be more appropriately placed within provincial authority over Property and Civil Rights. Similarly, although this is a commercial matter, it seems not to fall within the federal Trade and Commerce power and is consequently for the provinces to deal with.

He goes on to say:

It is unclear whether the federal government has a general treaty-implementation power that would justify its proposed legislation. In general, the broader the proposed provisions, the further they are from federal jurisdiction and the more they trench into provincial powers.... At minimum, there are aspects of this matter that fall within the provincial sphere. All of this suggests that provincial Attorney Generals and other provincial policy-makers ought to actively participate in the debate.

Once again, we can see how the Conservatives operate: they lack respect for producers and small producers in Canada, grant all the privileges to the major corporations, refuse to listen, refuse to be open to proposed solutions and have little respect for existing laws. This bill itself contains several examples of problems we have noted in the House when examining a large number of bills.

I would like to point out another issue that is close to my heart, which is the destruction of course notes after 30 days. During the last year of my master's degree, while I was writing my thesis, I was still using course notes that I took during my first year, and I used them again while working on my doctorate.

Will this bill prevent students who are continuing their studies from keeping their course notes to use them again later? I wonder.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's commentary.

However, one provision in this bill that has not received a lot of attention pertains to the export of materials for the perceptually disabled. This includes braille and audio books for people who require access in this manner. The bill would actually legalize the export of works by an author who is a Canadian or a citizen of the country of import, subject to payment of a royalty that, as I understand it, would be set out in the regulations. My research indicates that.

Does the hon. member have views on this provision, which would place Canada in the forefront of international developments on accessibility for disabled people?

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would be very happy to see Canada become a leader in producing materials for people with all types of disabilities. That said, we are still talking about exports, and I have nothing against exports. The main point that I raised in my speech was about defending the producers and artists, many of whom are young, who work here and who are the precursors to a new artistic elite that will someday be known around the world.

But that will not come out of nowhere. We must truly allow artists to grow, work and create synergies. Right now, we are pulling the rug out from under them. By not allowing this group of artists, who often live in difficult conditions, to do their work, we are destroying the foundations of our cultural home.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, the cultural industries have issued a statement. Thousands of people are directly affected by this bill. They have said that if the government does not amend the copyright modernization bill to ensure adequate compensation to Canadian content owners, it will lead to a decline in the production of Canadian content and its distribution within Canada and abroad.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this. In response to such a statement from the entire Canadian cultural industry, the current government, in this morning's debate, has done practically nothing. It is not defending its position and it is asking very few questions. Some people opposite are reading newspapers. What is my colleague's impression?

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his excellent two-part question.

First, the representatives from the entire cultural community in Canada have spelled out in black and white, repeatedly, saying that this bill is inadequate. We want a bill that balances the needs of the consumers with those of the artists. I did not talk about consumer needs, but this bill has major flaws in that regard. When it comes to the artists, this bill has been described to me as a disaster. The current government is refusing to listen to any other arguments or any other points of view.

The other part of the hon. member's question had to do with the decline in the production of Canadian content for use in Canada and abroad. That is terrible for Canada's image abroad, which is already suffering. If our artists can no longer flourish, that is bad news.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to join in this debate on a topic that has been near and dear to my heart for many years in my role as a union representative for broadcasters and, more recently, for newspapers.

We perhaps have lost sight of what the whole purpose of this legislation ought to be. When we talk about copyright, we are talking about the right of individuals to protect their intellectual property from being reproduced without their receiving remuneration for it. In other words, it is about protecting the rights of individuals to be fairly and properly compensated when they produce a work.

Some history may be what we need to remind our friends here in the House of how Canada has dealt with this issue over the past century and perhaps before.

In the 1920s, we discovered a new technology, and this appears to be where we are going with all of this to deal with new technology. The 1920s had a new technology called radio. Immediately upon the broadcasting of the first radio programs, radio broadcasters discovered a need for content and they discovered that a cheap and easy way to get content was to play recordings made by artists. They would purchase those recordings in record stores, which was where they were coming from.

Rather than broadcasting the artists live, they would broadcast the artist on record and the artist immediately said, “Wait a minute. We got paid when we were sitting in a musical hall and actually performing for you. We're not getting paid for our work when you are merely re-broadcasting something we've recorded”. Thus began the debate, almost 100 years ago, about how artists were to be compensated for their work when that work was not live and immediate.

Over many years, the debate raged between the artists who said that broadcasters were getting the ability to sell advertising on their radio stations as a result of their good work. The radio stations replied that they were giving the artists free advertising and making them household names so they should actually pay the radio stations for the privilege of having their music played on their radio stations. That debate raged on for several years until finally we have a system in Canada and the United States today by which musicians are rewarded by royalties that are paid by these radio stations, and, ultimately, other forms of distribution, for recorded works. That system worked quite well and was a proper Canadian response to a copyright issue.

We did not go around looking to make criminals of people. We did not go around looking to punish people. We went looking for a way to make the system fair. We discovered that the distribution mechanism was the best way to pay the artists, that the artists were now receiving money as a result of the distribution of their work. It created, and held dear to Canadians' hearts, an industry that flourished.

However, we fast forward to the 1970s, and maybe the 1960s before it, when it became clear to regulators in this country that Canadian artists were suffering. Canadian artists were not flourishing the way we thought they would when they were going to get paid because there was a discovery by Canadians that the American television and radio systems were easy to receive over our close border and, therefore, because of that, artists were not getting the royalties they needed to stay alive.

Therefore, the Canadian content regulations were created in this country, that, again, did not make criminals out of anybody, but made it possible for a Canadian music industry to flourish, and not just flourish but become world-renowned as one of the best music industries in the world.

We have world-renowned performers who have been paid for their work as a result of the Canadian content regulations developed in the 1970s that forced radio stations to ensure their broadcast contained a percentage of Canadian original works. That concept flowed to television as well, and Canadian television companies were also forced to play Canadian content.

Then we had another wrinkle in this mix. It was becoming easier for consumers, the listeners, to not listen to the radio station and therefore provide royalties to the performers but, instead, to record those radio broadcasts themselves. The performers rightly said, "Wait a minute", as they did in the 1920s with radio. They said that the radio stations' works were now being copied by other people and that they needed a way in the Canadian model for that to pay them. They said that they needed a way for the Canadian system to ensure that the copyright owners would get money for this.

One reaction would have been to just ban it and say that it was illegal to copy it. However, in the good Canadian way, we do not like making criminals of law-abiding citizens. We like to find ways to compromise. So, a levy was created and administered by an arm's-length agency that would provide funding for the artists for their material that was put onto cassette tapes and, ultimately, CDs and DVDs. We found a mechanism whereby the distribution system for the artists' works paid the artists. That worked. We did not make criminals. We made artists prosper in this country. We ensured that the artists got their royalties and were fairly compensated for their works.

Those two historical events have led us now to a new system whereby the distribution mechanism has changed. People are not copying onto a cassette tape, CD or DVD. They are recording material that is available on the Internet. It is sometimes put on the Internet by the artists themselves, but it is often by other more nefarious means. I believe that we need to find a mechanism whereby that distribution system is in fact a way of providing royalties to the artists so that they can continue.

Instead, the legislation we have in front of us purports to make criminals out of ordinary citizens who might use this system to record material. It provides for locks, handcuffs, to prevent people from putting themselves in a position of being able to use and reuse Canadian artists' material in a way that pays those Canadian artists for that use. We are creating a system, which has now gone away from the traditional Canadian method of compensating artists, of making the distribution mechanism pay them. Now we are moving to a system of forbidding, a system of locks, of chains, of protection for essentially the distributors, not the artists, and preventing the free and easy use of this material. That prevention now threatens to make criminals of ordinary Canadians who, for whatever reason, want to time-shift a radio program or a television program or listen to a piece of music that they might be particularly interested in and are quite willing to pay a fee to listen to. Now they will be prevented from doing that.

The chaos that will result of lawsuits, charges and countercharges can only be imagined but it will happen and we will have a system that does not protect artists or pay them appropriately but rather chases ordinary Canadians and turns them into criminals. That is not the Canadian way.

I will also briefly comment on the notion that disabled persons, particularly blind individuals, would continue to have access. I have had representations made to me, as deputy critic for persons with disabilities, from members of the blind community who suggest that their current software would become invalid, that they would not be able to use it and that this law would prevent them from having books read to them.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, sometimes I wish more Canadians were tuned in to this debate. It has been thoughtful, knowledgeable, constructive and legitimate in almost every way. This is exactly how Parliament is supposed to work, testing the merits of legislation with meaningful debate of substance and quality.

I want to ask my colleague about the fullness of the legislation. He began his remarks by going back to the early days of copyright. We only revisit the Copyright Act once every 30-some odd years. We will create legislation that will last another generation and we do not even have any idea what innovations and changes might take place in that period of time.

Is it not an obligation and duty of parliamentarians to ensure the legislation is fully gestated before we foist it on an unsuspecting industry sector? If it is full of so many inadequacies and holes, as we pointed out, do we not owe it to Canadians to do a more thorough and robust job in testing the merits of—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for York South—Weston.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is a very apt question. Absolutely, we owe it to the Canadian public, consumers of the material and content providers. As newspaper and television broadcasters will say, content is king and the providers of that content need to be protected. The legislation does not do that. It does not protect their income streams, which is the issue.

The member is absolutely right. Nobody could guess what the Internet would entail when legislation was drafted in the 1920s to protect artists from radio stations using their material for free. We cannot anticipate whether we will have implants in our heads that will broadcast propaganda to us in the next decade, but we can and should ensure that what we design does the job for today, and this one does not.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Louis-Hébert for a quick question.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his speech, specifically the fact that he illustrated the need for compromise in moving forward with copyright.

I would like him to say a few words about the possible compromise that could be satisfactory with regard to today's technologies.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe the comprise solution is one in which the income stream of the content creator is protected. We have traditionally in our country found ways for the distribution mechanism to be the method by which content creators have been compensated. That is the method we should use now.

I am not talking about a tax or somehow making it impossible for Canadians to continue to do the things they are doing now. However, I want to ensure that when we use material that is provided by Canadian artists and professionals in the content-creation business, they in fact can continue to earn a living in Canada. One of the ways to accomplish that is to ensure the distribution mechanisms, as they evolve, continue to provide them with incomes. If that means there needs to be a 1¢ per month levy on an ISP, maybe that is something at which we should look. Nobody has had the opportunity to look at those kinds of issues because we are faced with a bill that talks about locks and only about prevention, not trying to create a mechanism where individuals will be properly compensated.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to Bill C-11, Copyright Modernization Act. The legislation seeks to bring long overdue changes that would bring Canada in line with advances in technology and current international standards.

We know copyright is a highly complex issue that features competing demands from stakeholders in the artistic, academic, business, technology and consumer rights communities. However, I would argue that the bill does not do a good job of properly balancing these competing demands.

Before delving into some of the reasons why I oppose Bill C-11, I would first like to briefly review some of the main points that the bill seeks to accomplish.

Bill C-11 would create powerful new anti-circumvention rights for content owners through the use of digital locks. The punishment for circumventing digital locks would include fines of up to $1 million and five years in jail. This is concerning as it could mean that consumers are prohibited from using content for which they already paid. It would also have implications for those enrolled in long distance education courses.

While the bill would create limited exceptions to the fair dealing provision of the copyright modernization act for people such as educators, I believe these exceptions do not adequately recognize creators' rights and in fact create new ways for consumers to circumvent compensating creators for the use of their work. What the bill would not do would be to deal with the issue of extending a private copying levy, as has been the case in the past for cassettes, DVDs and CDs.

Why do New Democrats oppose the bill? Put simply, New Democrats believe Canadian copyright laws can and should strike a proper balance between the right of creators to receive fair compensation for their work and the right of consumers to have reasonable access to content.

As it stands, Bill C-11 means millions of dollars in lost revenues for artists. New Democrats will consider all possible amendments to the bill that would create a more fair royalty system for creators.

We propose removing sections of the copyright modernization act that make criminals out of everyday Canadians who break digital locks for personal, non-commercial use. We want to avoid the same kind of excessive lawsuits against ordinary citizens that we have heard so much about in the United States.

I have been amazed by the number of Canadians who are engaged on the issue of copyright reform. Thousands upon thousands of Canadians have written letters and emails about the copyright modernization act, and this is a wonderful thing. My office has received hundreds of letters and emails from constituents on Bill C-11. The vast majority have serious reservations about the bill, calling it flawed to the core.

I would like to take a few moments to quote directly from some of the emails that I have received, which many members in the House have also received. One email states:

As a Canadian, I am both concerned and disheartened by how easily my rights are trumped by the overriding and all encompassing protection for digital locks contained in this legislation.

The anti-circumvention provisions included in Bill C-11, unduly equip corporate copyright owners and distributors in the music, movie and video game industries with a powerful set of tools that can be utilized to exercise absolute control over Canadians' interaction with media and technology and may even undermine Canadians' constitutional rights.

I would also like to quote from an email I received from an author living in my riding in New Westminster--Coquitlam--Port Moody. Annabel writes:

I support modernizing the Copyright Act, but Bill C-11, an Act to amend the Copyright Act, proposes to cut back on rights that are the underpinning of writers' survival. There are more than 30 new exceptions affecting rightsholders. Many of these new exceptions take away or reduce the ability I currently have to control my work and to be compensated for it.

Among the most troubling of these exceptions is the extension of “fair dealing”, (which means uncompensated use) to “education”. If much more of the work of creators can be used for free and educational settings, the educational market is at risk of being legislated away. For Canadian writers and publishers, this will be devastating. At a time when the government has declared the goal of having more Canadian history taught in our classrooms, it is surely counterproductive to harm the market for the creators and publishers of that history.

I am not asking for anything new or anything more. I am asking that my longstanding property rights not be severely limited in C-11, so that I can continue to make my cultural and economic contributions.

The majority of emails I received were copied to the offices of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Based on the number of emails that my office has received from people who are opposed to Bill C-11, I would estimate that the offices of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Canadian Heritage have each received upward of 100,000 emails from Canadians who have serious concerns about the implications of the copyright modernization act.

However, it is not just Canadians that the Conservatives are ignoring on this issue. They are also ignoring expert opinions raised in committee and the findings of their own copyright consultations in 2009. As a result, we have before us today flawed legislation that will end up doing more harm than good.

I would like to ask the government to seriously consider amendments to its copyright modernization act that would create a more fair balance between the right of creators to be fairly compensated for their work and the right of consumers to have reasonable access to copyrighted content. Amendments should also be considered that would create a more fair royalty system for creators.

Finally, I would like to thank the hundreds of constituents who have written to me about this issue, and I encourage them and all Canadians to stay engaged on this important issue.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I notice that on this side of the House, all my colleagues seem to have worked very hard and done a lot of research on this subject. I am wondering about something and I would like my colleague to give me his impression.

Digital locks to limit access have somewhat the same effect as if someone published a book where the ink might disappear after 30 days. It is not particularly logical. And yet this is the kind of bill that my colleagues from the Neolithic age on the other side have presented.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is at the heart of the bill. It has not been thought through enough to realize there are some serious flaws in its practical application. The practical application of how this is to work has not been thought through.

As he quite rightly pointed out, the intent of the industry would be to have the artists or the creators re-initiate or somehow reapply in a very brief time. That is impractical. This will not encourage the use of art and music and the written form in a way that is practical in distributing to our community and supporting the needs of what we would call fair, balanced, creative creation and access to consumers in a fair and reasonable manner.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague made reference to the sheer volume of constituents who had contacted his office over this very bill. It is an indication of the importance that Canadians sense around our Copyright Act and the fact that we had better get it right because we are going to have to live with this for a long, long time.

The innovation and the change that has been happening so rapidly in the last few years is going to continue to grow exponentially, yet we are possibly putting in place legislation that we believe is inadequate and outdated to deal with what we have to deal with today. For heaven's sake, what could be happening a year from now?

Did we consult the right people? Did we have an exhaustive consultation process around the country and did we accommodate the legitimate concerns brought forward by those people we did consult?

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, in fact, that is the case. As elected officials, we are deliberating over a piece of legislation that will be in effect for a long time and will have application potentially for at least a generation or longer. It is incumbent upon us in the House to do a wide range of consultation, to consult far and wide, and listen to as much input as we can. That is one of the shortcomings of the government here in terms of ignoring expert opinions, many of which were raised at committee, and even by the findings in its own copyright consultation in 2009.

I would like to quote one individual. Michael Geist is a renowned technology commentator and he puts it succinctly when he says:

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 holders place a digital lock on their content or device. The importance of consultation is needed and then once we get that consultation, we need to listen to that advice.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are looking at a bill to which an overwhelming majority of the groups that will be affected have objected. Only the big corporations that distribute content seem to be pleased with it. Journalists, artists, authors, new media specialists and copyright law specialists, all these groups object to the bill as it stands. Despite the fact that there are senior ministers present in the House, the government is not participating at all in the debate this morning. How can we interpret that kind of attitude toward all these groups, representing thousands of Canadians who produce books and songs and who have a positive effect on the lives of millions of Canadians? How can we interpret that silence this morning? How can we not see it as complete contempt for the issue of intellectual property? Canadians will be the judges.

Copyright issues have not been lagging behind other legislation in Canada just recently. Twenty years ago, I had the good fortune to take several courses taught by an expert in this field, Gilles Valiquette, as part of an audio technician programmer course. Even then we were surprised to learn that Canadian copyright law had long been managed by the Department of Agriculture. It took nearly 100 years to correct that situation.

We were also very surprised to learn that the way copyright was managed in Canada, unlike under a number of European laws, the author was not paid until the very end. At that time, we were talking just about CDs, because there was as yet no great diversity in digital formats. Sales had to be reported, say 50,000 copies sold, in order for authors to receive their share, while under a number of European laws, a CD, for example, could not leave the plant before the authors received what was coming to them.

For comparison purposes, it is as if a law in Canada had prevented a bricklayer from being paid until there was enough money for the shopping centre and until enough consumers had visited that shopping centre. That approach is quite absurd and has prevented a lot of creators from earning a living with dignity in Canada.

In the early years of this century I owned a small business where creators produced music. The industry went through a very difficult period with the diversification of digital formats and the ease of copying them. We saw extraordinary artists who ordinarily sold 100,000 or 150,000 or 200,000 copies suddenly, even though they had the same fan base, selling 50,000 or 40,000 or 35,000 copies. When we see a bill that talks about modernizing copyright, the first reaction is to rejoice and say “finally”.

But this bill demonstrates extreme hypocrisy. Even its title should be questioned. Can we really call it a copyright bill when its effect will be to cut creative people’s incomes by millions of dollars? The title of the bill should be changed to make it a little less hypocritical to “an act to support the big distributors” or something along those lines. But no, this bill claims to be about copyright, about authors' rights.

The introduction of this bill was accompanied by completely absurd rhetoric with the government saying, among other things, that copyright is comparable to a tax on iPods.

To say that to authors is just as absurd as saying to any other consultant—someone who does not put down an object in exchange for money, for example the consultants hired by the ministers opposite—that we do not know if they will be paid, because it would be considered a tax. Paying them would be like imposing a surtax on the consumer or the public. We would never make this argument to consultants hired by the departments of our colleagues opposite. It is that absurd.

Such contempt of intellectual property and copyright has consequences. This has been pointed out not just by the NDP, but also by copyright legislation experts. If this bill is passed in its present form, the cultural output of Canada and Quebec will be impoverished. I will give a simple example: I do not want my children living in a world where the only major cultural event of the week, in 2030, is the release of Indiana Jones 27. I hope that my children will live in a world where such talented writers as Yann Martel can make a living writing books and such talented composers as Karkwa can make a living recording music. That is my hope. This bill guarantees that the opposite—the impoverishment of Quebec and Canadian culture—will occur.

In closing, I would like to lend my voice to a group of authors who express, better than I, the current problems with this legislation in an opinion letter entitled “Preserving the dignity of works and their creators”, which was published in Le Devoir.

...this is what is proposed in Bill C-32 [the old nomenclature]: broadening the scope of fair dealing to include education, the possibility of creating a new work from existing works without the consent or remuneration of the author, private copying without payment of additional royalties [the creator is paid once, money is made for 1,000 years; that is inadequate], the mandatory use of digital locks to protect one's work on the Internet, the elimination of the responsibility of Internet service providers, and so forth. These are all situations where respect for intellectual property will disappear [this is the harsh but quite justified conclusion of this group of authors]. With [this] bill..., the exceptions overtake the rule.

We also perceive in this bill a deep-seated contempt for creators and a stubborn refusal to recognize their contribution to the development of our society.

To digress a little: many creators are suffering great hardship. Some great creators with whom I worked were barely able to make a living from their art, if at all. However, I would like to point out that a career as extraordinary as that of Leonard Cohen may have helped him to become a millionaire, and that is wonderful. I want the next Leonard Cohen to also be a millionaire.

My little boy, who is six years old, loves to go for snowmobile rides, and this enriches my everyday life. So thank you, Mr. Bombardier. I am very happy that the Bombardiers are billionaires. My son loves it when we listen to three of Leonard Cohen's songs in particular when we go on road trips. It makes him happy. These two things are very important in my son's life.

It is good that some successful creators simply get rich from their work and their success. I would like to come back to the editorial:

...the bill...calls for the exact opposite. At a time when our government is prepared to spend amounts that defy reason to build up its military arsenal, it is upset about the money that the education sector is paying creators for using their works....

By the way, I have never heard a single teacher ask that creators not be given payment for the use of their works in the classroom. I have never heard of it. I do not know where this is coming from.

In closing, I once again deplore the total lack of interest demonstrated by the members opposite in a situation that is so critical to the future of intellectual property and our country's culture.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear from my colleague's thoughtful remarks that he has done his research. He has listened to Canadians and the people in his constituency in Quebec who have serious reservations about this legislation, that we have not achieved the balance desired or required on a regime of copyright regulation that would serve the needs and interests of the next generation.

My colleague made the point that sometimes legislation benefits from robust, intelligent debate. I wish more Canadians would tune in to debates like the one we are having today where thoughtful, considerate remarks and recommendations are being made on important legislation. This legislation deserves our attention and our full engagement, not just the cursory oversight of a government that is unwilling to listen to legitimate points of view.

I would ask my colleague to put on the record some of the points from our platform in the last federal election that dealt with the fair remuneration of artists and the way that we value the creators of arts, culture and heritage industries as an engine for economic growth.

Does the member agree that we should allow creators to average their income for the purpose of taxation over a period of five years, instead of the unfair way that artists are treated today?

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising this issue, which is not directly related to the bill but is still very relevant.

In reality, it is nearly impossible to think that artists will bring in a stable income over several years, simply because they may have some success with launching an album, but since there is a cycle of about 18 months, artists may not necessarily be able to launch an album right away after 18 months. Therefore, artists may make a lot of money some years and less other years. So any legislation that would help stabilize that income would be necessary and would help the cultural community.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in his very thoughtful comments, my colleague mentioned at least two Quebec artists, Yann Martel and Leonard Cohen, who have flourished under the regime in place today. My concern, and I suspect it is his concern as well, is that the next generation of artists would be hamstrung and prevented from making a good sound living by some of the failures of the bill to adequately provide protection for the income of artists.

Would the member like to comment on their future under this bill?

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a concern shared by all of the people I still consider my friends, people who work in record producing and music producing, and who are authors and composers. They are concerned about that. Two things are happening: digital copying and the ease of making copies at home have caused the market to collapse. Artists have a hard time selling copies, and as soon as they sell one, it turns into as many as 14 illegal copies. Now, if we add to that pressure such as what is in this bill, where what little there is left gives them even less in the way of copyright revenue, it is very likely that extraordinarily talented people, after trying for one, two or three years, after one album or one book, simply will not be able to make an adequate living—we are talking about a roof over their heads and some peanut butter, not much. It is very likely that the next Yann Martel, Karkwa or Arcade Fire will end up in this position and will stop creating. It is very likely that this will happen many times in the years to come.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter into the debate on Bill C-11.

I must confess, when the legislation was in the House at earlier stages, I did not enter into the debate partly because of the sheer complexity of the subject. I think one has to have a certain knowledge of the issues to do this particular subject matter justice.

All of us as members of Parliament have been elevated in our information, knowledge and competency in this regard, partly because of the sheer volume of activity and information that we have been getting from concerned Canadians. I wish more Canadians could have tuned into the debate earlier today to hear some of the legitimate concerns brought forward in a very thoughtful and reasoned way to draw attention to the fact that this bill has not achieved its full gestation.

This legislation is not ready to be passed, implemented and made into the law that will govern this sector for the next generation. It is not done yet. It is not baked. It should be put back in the oven. It should at least be given another fulsome round of consultation with the stakeholders.

It appears that all recent Canadian efforts to address our copyright legislation have had very little to do with protecting the interests of Canadian artists, musicians and creators of culture and heritage that are in fact such an engine of economic growth. They have everything to do with satisfying the demands of the U.S. corporate giants that dominate this field. We only seem to be stimulated to open up our Copyright Act when we are under pressure from the corporate giants that are concerned, whether they be the movie studios, the music labels or the video game developers.

We want to know when we will be developing copyright legislation to put the best interests of Quebec and other Canadian artists first, not as some afterthought. There is very little in this bill that actually deals with increasing the opportunities for artists for fair compensation.

The bill does grant a range of new access privileges, but they are not offset with the corresponding recognition of the creators and protection for them. Those are our constituents. Most of us were not put here by the American corporate media giants. Some are unduly influenced by the interests of those giants, but we were sent here by ordinary Canadians to look after their best interests and to put their interests first.

We have been trying to emphasize that especially in this day and age we have to recognize the economic development opportunities of sponsoring a robust and healthy arts, culture and heritage industry and communities. As we lose the smokestack industries, as the garment industries close in the riding of Winnipeg Centre, there is a burgeoning film industry. As we lose the smokestack industries in many Canadian cities, artists are generating economic activity.

I was interested to learn from one of my colleagues, and this will give an example of the substantive debate we are having today, that the sum total is in the neighbourhood of $80 billion a year, and growing. It is one of those industries that is showing a projection in a positive way.

The legislation warrants our attention. It deserves our consideration. We have to get it right, because we are going to be living with it for a long time.

A hallmark of the government is to force through legislation at breakneck speed, many times without the due diligence, without the scrutiny, without the oversight, without the consideration, without testing the merits of the legislation with robust and fulsome debate. The very principle of Parliament, its prime function, is to hold the government to account. If the government suggests the bill is right for Canadians, we should test every clause and every detail of that bill to make sure it is as good as it can be.

In that context, we put forward amendments, not to sabotage the will of the government but to try to make the legislation the best it can possibly be, so that it does not miss anything and that it puts Canadians first and addresses as many of the legitimate concerns of the copyright regime as can possibly be done in one piece of legislation. It is broad. It is sweeping. It is complicated. It is evolving. It is a moving target. It is like shadow boxing, trying to predict what changes we need to put in place to anticipate the changes necessary for a generation from now, because it is only every 30 years or so that this Parliament is seized with this issue.

It is a cautionary tale. We run the risk of not only doing a disservice to the practitioners in those industries today, but we run the risk of a missed opportunity that we are not going to take full advantage of one of Canada's growth industries. If we leave too much on the table, believe me, it will be gobbled up by others.

How do small artists become great artists? They need support. Virtually all industries get corporate handouts and corporate welfare. There is not a single industry that seems willing to renovate its plant without getting the government to pay for half of it. However, we do not consider an $87 billion industry in the same context.

Yes, we have the Canada Council. We have sprinklings of grants that are rationed out, but it is like winning the lottery to get a grant.

The NDP put forward what I thought was a good consideration in the last federal election. We said that in order to encourage and enable small creators, whether it is in music, art, culture, writing or whatever it is, we should let them average their earnings over a period of five years for the purposes of income tax. Any artists or creators will tell us that they might have a good year one year. A painter will have a showing one year and maybe make $100,000 that year by selling 20 paintings, but the next year, the artist will sell none, zero. The artist is taxed at the highest income tax bracket for the one year that the artist made a lot of money. In the next two or three years the artist may make very little. One simple amendment that could have been made to the Income Tax Act to help artists, writ large, would be income averaging.

I have a private member's initiative that would let the first $100,000 of earnings by an artist be income tax free. That is a legitimate proposal. Instead of winning the lottery in this potentially biased way of offering Canada Council grants to those lucky people who are connected to the Canada Council, let us encourage all creators by saying that the first $100,000 a year they earn from their art or craft should not be taxed at all. That is the kind of tax measure we could support if we were serious about enabling our creators in arts, culture and heritage. That is a private member's initiative of mine that I would be happy to expand upon at some other time.

The consultation has been inadequate. We have to get this legislation right and it is not right yet. It is not ready to graduate to its next stage of implementation. We would be stuck with something that would not serve our needs and would not protect the best interests of the very artists who voted for us with the confidence that we would stand up for them. We are going to stand up for Sony and Disney and protect their interests with this bill, but are we really protecting the creators, the Canadian artists who are driving the economy in this new burgeoning industry sector?

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to my colleague's remarks, particularly the portion where he talked about income tax and so forth.

He suggested that $100,000 should be tax free for artists. He also suggested income averaging over five years. That idea, I think, is fairly intriguing.

On the income averaging, would the hon. member be interested in extending that in a much more general way to broader elements of society, to perhaps the whole population? If so, why? If not, why not?

Does the hon. member also think there are other occupations that should have their first $100,000 income tax free?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in strategic industries, such as arts, culture and heritage, we have the opportunity to encourage small actors to develop into large actors in that field. Yes, I absolutely support this. Income averaging is a reasonable and sensible way to deal with self-employed people, especially in the arts community.

With the $100,000 threshold, we would essentially be raising the basic personal income tax exemption for artists only on the earnings they make from their creation, which is the proposal. If they have two jobs, a real estate agent and a painter, I do not think the tax system should be subsidizing their earnings from another source. However, their earnings from their creations is a far more equitable way to stimulate and encourage creators than the current grant systems that exist now, which are complex. There is a great deal of line loss associated with the Canada Council for the Arts and other grant systems, where a lot of the tax dollars are actually burned up in the delivery and the administration of the system. It would be simpler and more straightforward to give them that tax credit.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it appears, from the discussions we are hearing today, that this bill needs a lot of fine-tuning and that not enough time is being given to zero in on the problems and reach a good, healthy compromise. We have seen this with other pieces of legislation that have been rammed through.

I would like to ask my colleague to comment on the following point. This bill would require that, where a digital lock exists, copies made for the purpose of study self-destruct within five days and that course materials be destroyed no later than 30 days after the conclusion of a course. This would pose large problems for those pursuing long distance education and is not an appropriate use of copyrighted material.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising another perfectly legitimate point. We have been dealing with the commercial implications for both the creator and the owner of the copyright of the knowledge. We have spent very little time on the dissemination of knowledge for academic, non-profit and education purposes. It is a whole other element of this bill that requires a lot more study and detail.

My colleague raises a perfectly legitimate concern that, frankly, would strike most people as ridiculous. This is not like Mission: Impossible where the message that we receive will go up in smoke after 30 seconds. This is elevating the human condition through the free exchange of knowledge and information. That is how society and civilization moves forward. If we put limits and constraints on the free distribution of information, we will be holding ourselves back.

It is very unbaked. It is like a turkey dinner at Christmastime. We put it in the oven when it is frozen, take it out four hours later to eat it, cut it open and realize that it is raw and not ready to eat. We need to shove it back in the oven and let it finish cooking before we can enjoy it because it is not ready for human consumption at this point in time.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by acknowledging all the artists in my riding, namely those from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Montreal West, Lachine and Dorval, who have written to me on several occasions to explain how they are directly affected by this bill. I also acknowledge the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations, whose representatives came to meet with me and tell me about the impact of this legislation on Canadian students.

I am proud to take part in the debate on copyright modernization. I want to be clear. There is no doubt that we, on this side, think that a review of the Copyright Act is long overdue. Indeed, this legislation is not up to date, and some things need to be improved. We also think that some provisions included in the bill are beneficial to both authors and consumers. However, we want to propose amendments, because we believe that, as it stands, the bill is very flawed and that, as parliamentarians, it is our duty to improve it.

The government keeps saying that we vote against various bills, that we are against the budget, that we oppose all sorts of measures, but that is false. We support many initiatives that are good for the public. Today, we are trying to make proposals so that the Conservatives pay attention to all the measures presented in this House.

We want to achieve a balance between creators and consumers. Right now, as my colleagues pointed out, artists in Canada are missing out on millions of dollars with this bill. The average income of an artist is around $12,900 a year, but we know that Canada's culture industry brings in millions of dollars for the government.

This bill seems to target certain consumers who should pay more than others for rights to which they are entitled.

The first thing that bothered me when I read the bill is the fines that the government wants to impose on those who remove digital locks for personal, non-commercial purposes. While there is no doubt that we have to deal with certain issues in this regard, the bill provides for fines of up to $1 million and a five-year term of imprisonment.

Before becoming a member of Parliament, I worked in a detention centre in Quebec. I taught there for some time. Among those there, I saw people who had assaulted children and received sentences of two years less a day. I also saw people who had participated in all kinds of illegal activities and were in a detention centre for two years less a day.

Today, I read in the bill that an individual who has pirated copyrighted material—obviously something that I do not encourage—will get five years in prison, whereas someone who has raped a child will be handed a lesser sentence. I think that there are absurdities of this nature in the bill that absolutely must be addressed, because sentences like that seem somewhat disproportionate to me.

The other thing that disturbed me about this bill is that digital locks essentially trump all other rights including the fair dealing rights of students and journalists. Allow me to explain what I mean.

Currently, where digital locks are concerned, it is a requirement that copies made for educational purposes automatically erase themselves after five days and that course notes be destroyed within 30 days of the course ending.

I was a student less than two years ago, and I still have course notes I reread at home because I find them useful and I paid for them. As a student, I was asked early in the session to pay student fees, and there was always a fee for the material we would require in class. Having paid for this material, I consider it only normal that I should still be able to use it today. Students participating in distance education are asked to do the same thing. Distance education courses are not completed overnight. And yet, data is supposed to be automatically erased within five days and course notes are to be destroyed within 30 days of the course ending. In the case of distance education, five days is clearly not enough time to make use of this data.

The other problem is that our society is increasingly trying to use digitization for ecological and environmental reasons. This creates an imbalance and stalls the promotion of the very innovative cultural formats of our time. That is what upsets me the most. Several groups came and told us that change was critical in this regard.

According to the Cultural Industries' Statement, left unamended, this bill would be toxic to Canada's digital economy.

The Writers Guild of Canada stated that “the only option that Bill C-11 offers creators is digital locks, which freezes current revenue streams for creators, and creates an illogical loophole in the copyright Bill by taking away the very rights the Bill grants to consumers in its other sections.”

More work really needs to be done on this.

The reason why we in the NDP are proposing amendments is not that we are against copyright or that we are against doing some housecleaning on this issue. We are proposing amendments because we believe that, rather than encouraging certain large cultural industries in Canada, we must go to the source and help the creators and artists in my riding and in the ridings of every member of the House. That would allow creators to make money from their work and to be paid a fair price for it, and ensure that consumer rights are not violated. In this regard, a student came to see me and told me that he had paid for class notes that he has to destroy at the end of the course. That is completely ridiculous.

In addition, the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada believes that amendments must be made to the bill to facilitate access to creative content through new media and to ensure that creators are fairly compensated for the use of their creative content through new media. This comes back to what I just said. Creators provide something to us: culture, a story, a product that is part of our identity. Yet, instead of compensating those creators, we are telling them that they will not be given a fair return under this bill.

Howard Knopf, a copyright, patent and trademark lawyer, has said that the measures to apply digital locks continue to divide Canadians and defy consensus. They are stronger than required by the WIPO treaties and stronger than necessary or desirable.

In conclusion, we are of the opinion that we must move this bill forward because a cleanup is needed. However, the amendments proposed by the NDP must also be taken into consideration so that we can accept this bill and so that it is fair for consumers, producers, artists, students and everyone who wants to have a stake in today's culture.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for shedding a different light on the issues surrounding this bill. I was struck by her discussion of sentences and her comparison of them. Many members of the public make copies. There are many court cases about it in the United States.

Could my colleague talk to us about the changes she thinks could be made so that people do not break the law and become serious criminals while others who commit more serious offences are given more lenient sentences?

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Louis-Hébert for his question. Certainly in the United States there are relatively severe sentences for digital copying. I am not saying that people who violate copyright should necessarily be cleared, not at all. I think that people who make copies should be punished, but perhaps a fine would be enough.

We know that with these bills being introduced by the Conservatives, prisons will be even more full. But I cannot see myself standing before my constituents to defend the fact that they will pay taxes so that people go to prison because they illegally copied a digital file that belonged to an author.

As I said earlier, there is something incoherent about that. As I said earlier, I personally find it much more serious when someone abuses other people than when someone makes an illegal copy of a copyright protected work.

I think that balance needs to be restored and a slightly less serious sentence should be handed down.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, here on this side of the House, we think the copyright modernization bill gives with one hand and takes back with the other. I wonder if my colleague could comment on that.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my hon. colleague for the question. As I said at the beginning of my speech, it is time to clean this mess up, because there is no balance here. On the one hand, we have artists who want to give their work to the country to share their culture, their history—and this can include scientific and other research—and who currently earn $13,000 a year. On the other hand, we have the consumers. Students, in particular, have come to see me and told me that they are paying for course notes that they are obliged to destroy afterwards. They do not believe that, with this bill, they are paying for something that belongs to them.

We in the NDP believe that a balance must be struck so that what we are proposing satisfies artists and creators, as well as consumers, who want to be able to say that they paid a reasonable price for something that belongs to them. That is the basic principle of consumerism.

If something is not working, we need to take the time to amend it now, in order to ensure that the legislation is honest and beneficial for all parties involved.

[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.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. During the speech she focused on a reality that is too often forgotten, which is that aside from the big stars, most artists and creators earn rather low incomes, often below the average wage.

I would like to hear the member talk about some consequences of this loss of revenue, for which there will be no compensation. Personally, I am afraid that we will see creators producing fewer works.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his important question. As you heard, I focused on the fact that the average artist is barely making ends meet. I was not talking about stars, nor about the people who cannot make ends meet at all. They are the people we are concerned about. Unfortunately, with this bill, major corporations will have the right to provide services and not the average artist.

That is my main concern, and this also has to do with accessibility for students. Unfortunately, after 30 days, their course books will be erased. Once again, this makes people even poorer by indirectly taking away a source of income.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite talks about protecting the artist. The Copyright Act did not have the means for copyright owners to protect their works. At the announcement of the copyright bill, the president of bitHeads said they were losing 90% of their sales to online piracy. Does the opposition not support a law that provides more to creators and goes after the thieves, the online piracy sites?

A creator's right to protect his or her works is important. When creators cannot get the right to make a living from what they make, they will either stop creating or move somewhere else. Why does the opposition not stand up for creators? Will the member support this bill that will help owners protect their work?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague on the other side for her question about the protection of copyright.

Unfortunately, as we have already heard, this bill does not really benefit creators. It gives more latitude and powers to major corporations. I understand and I am also concerned about piracy. However, as my colleagues mentioned this morning, young people say that they can break digital locks. The digital locks we have been talking about will not be very useful for the average creator and producer. We are not talking about stars of Hollywood proportions.

[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.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite talked about new technologies. We know that the Association of Universities and Colleges support this bill. It said:

This bill reflects a fair balance between the interests of creators and users of copyright works and is a positive step forward for university communities across Canada. It clarifies important questions and will help ensure students and learners have access to the content they need, including digital material.

The Copyright Act currently permits certain uses by educational institutions, in many cases without payment to the copyright holder. The bill makes many of these flexible for use in the future by removing references to specific technologies such as flip charts and overhead projectors, and introduces new exceptions to facilitate new models for education outside of the physical classroom.

Does the hon. member agree that the Copyright Act must adapt to new and emerging technologies, reinforcing the government's significant investments in the Internet, infrastructure, education and skills development?

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

Mr. Speaker, do we need to modernize the act? Yes, of course. Are some parts of the act outdated? Yes, of course. Is this a balanced bill that takes into consideration consumers, students and artists? The answer is no. This bill is completely unbalanced and represents a backward step for copyright and artists' compensation.

I believe I was quite clear in my presentation. All the associations that represent these people, in Montreal and the rest of Quebec, have told us that they are very worried and that their income will drop. There may be a group somewhere that is happy, but that does not mean that this bill makes sense, that it moves our society forward and that it promotes culture. On the contrary, we will be taking a step backward. This is an unbalanced bill that only benefits big business. Universities and the education sector do not accept this exemption. They can and they must continue to compensate the people who produce the works that they use.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative member brought up an example of how it was supported in one way. My hon. colleague had a point in saying that one person's version of fair and balanced was not necessarily fair and balanced for another stakeholder in the same group. Therein lies a broad exemption. We need to apply a test by which it would not have commercially bad implications for creators.

There are three steps in the Berne convention. This is a clear and concise way of saying that if we use this exemption and by using it, we would impede the commercial potential of a particular creator's book, for example, then that is wrong. That is not the point of the exemption. Other countries have worked their way around this and talked about it.

Not all stakeholders involved have been heard in this regard. We have different opinions from wide-ranging stakeholders, the stakeholders about which the hon. member spoke. Would he support the idea that we still have not heard enough from the people affected by, say, just the education exemption?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. We do not want to leave any stone unturned, because many of the issues regarding Bill C-11 are very important.

The Conservative government would benefit from broader consultation, a broader public discussion. But that does not appear to be what this government wants. Instead, it prefers to steamroll everything and suppress debate. It refuses to discuss things or listen to anyone else. It is unfortunate, because this affects a lot of people in many sectors and many areas of activity in our society. This will be a fundamental issue in the years to come.

We must therefore take the time to conduct a thorough study, look at what is being done in other parts of the world, assess the interests of everyone involved, including creators, consumers and people in academia—both educators and students—and ensure that we have the best, most comprehensive bill possible, one that takes everyone's suggestions into account.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act. I am part of the generation that was born with technology at our fingertips. I think many of the members on this side of the House are part of that generation and have had digital technology at their fingertips from birth. We have a great deal to offer this government, thanks to our vast experience with digital technology, when it comes to its future in relation to copyright. Any time we talk about copyright, it invariably concerns this technology.

Seeing any initiative to modernize copyright makes me very hopeful. However, when I open this bill, I see many shortcomings that will or could create problems. When I get up in the morning, I organize my entire day on my smart phone. I organize all aspects of my day, including my work, my personal life and my family life. It is also my source of entertainment. My entire world is becoming digitized and will become even more so.

Right now, I have the notes for my speech on a tablet computer. I can transfer data on my tablet, which I can take with me, to my office computer or to my desktop at home, for personal use. In this bill, there are grey areas with regard to the transfer of data that we purchase for personal use. We do not know exactly what will happen. That is one of my concerns about this bill. We do not know what we will legally be able to do with products we have paid for.

I am now going to talk about the impact that this bill will have on the school system. When I finished school—high school, college and skills training—I kept all my notes and all the relevant manuals that I bought or that were given to me at school. There are many that I still use. If today's students cannot use information for more than 30 days during their studies, how will they be able to do reasonably good work without paying even more? They should at least be able to use the information that they purchase throughout the entire course of their studies.

In the past, people had to fight over the two or three copies of a book that the university had and that they needed for their studies. Today, universities have implemented systems to solve this problem. The last thing we want to do is throw a wrench into this system, as my colleague mentioned earlier. We also do not want to impose time limits on the use of information that people will obtain in the future.

I am part of the generation that grew up with this technology. How can emerging artists, who are often young people, succeed if they reap hardly any economic benefit at all from their new creations? Royalties were paid to artists on videocassettes and CDs when they first came out, and that is still the case today. However, artists are receiving fewer and fewer royalties and eventually they will no longer receive any at all. It would be nice if we could adapt royalties to new technology. For example, artists could be paid royalties for every digital player to which their content is added.

That is something that is not in this bill. It complicates the lives of emerging artists, which are complicated enough as it is. These artists are not as well-off and they are unable to profit from their creativity and earn a living from it.

There is something else that I find a little disturbing. My colleague who spoke before me addressed this issue, which is the attitude of the current Conservative government. Right off the bat, with every bill, it systematically moves a motion to limit debate—a gag order. The government did it again with this bill. On this side of the House, we want to debate. We rise to defend our points of view, but right now we are faced with a government that does not even rise to defend its own bill.

It would be interesting to hear the Conservatives' arguments about why we should vote in favour of this bill. At the same time, we could propose amendments and they could listen in order to improve the bill. Because we agree with the idea behind it. We want to modernize the Copyright Act. However, there are some parts that need to be improved. It would be nice if the government changed its attitude a bit and was more open. It could include us in the debate, because we can do a lot to improve the bills it introduces, and it could see the other side of the story.

I want to briefly come back to the fast-changing digital technology that uses a host of products for all sorts of possible purposes. We cannot adopt just one measure for all these different products on the market. For example, if I get a product from a provider, I want to be able to keep the product I purchased, even if I have to change providers. New products come on the market and some might be compatible. If I need a new tool that has just come on the market, but my provider does not use that service, I have no choice but to change how I use my tools and change providers. Nonetheless, I want to keep my tools.

These examples show that we cannot have just one measure for all the tools we might use. There remains some work to do, because there are some matters that are not addressed in this bill.

In closing, I would like to come back to the government's current attitude. We, on this side of the House, have a lot to bring to this bill, and many others, because we are talking about the future of our country in terms of technology. That is the case, for example, with the bill on our institutions. The future of our country is at stake. It would be worthwhile to talk about this at greater length and to listen to what people have to say.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, I bring to the attention of the member opposite that currently those who violate copyright can be found liable for statutory damages from $500 to $20,000 per work. If people illegally demand five songs, for example, they could theoretically be liable for up to $100,000. Under this bill, those who infringe for non-commercial purposes would be subject to a total award of statutory damages of $100 to $5,000.

Does the hon. member agree with this approach of ensuring that Canadians are not subject to unreasonable penalities for infringement for non-commercial purposes?

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, I was just saying that there are good measures and bad measures and grey areas in this bill. We do not disagree with everything. We have to stand up together and debate the bill in order to improve it and add things that are missing. Unfortunately, judging by the question from the hon. member from the government side, it seems she was not listening to what I was saying. She seems to be asking only about measures that the Conservatives happen to think are good. They are not listening to what we are proposing in order to improve their bill.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier the Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women quoted from the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, AUCC, with respect to how much it is in support of the bill.

Interestingly enough, last week a number of us had visits from students. The students raised a very serious issue around digital locks. They said that after five days the digital lock will have them destroy their notes, and after 30 days professors who use material will have to destroy their course notes.

I do not know many students who do not refer to their material when it comes time to study for exams. I do not know many professors who, when they give their course in the following year, do not refer back to material they have previously used.

Could the member comment on the fact that this particular piece of legislation, as it is currently written, will have a serious effect on the ability of students to study and and on the ability of professors to do their jobs?

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it will have short-, medium- and long-term effects.

As I said in my speech, I have kept my course notes and textbooks. I remember what is in them. I do not necessarily remember the details, but I remember that a certain textbook can answer my question and I will look it up. It might be a historical fact or something else. During the education process, if we succeed one year, we continue to delve deeper in our studies the following year, but we will still need past information. So, yes, this has immediate as well as medium- and long-term effects.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and several of his colleagues have mentioned levies and taxes on iPods. I think it was around 2008 that the collective suggested to the Copyright Board that the levy should be $75 for any device over 30 gigabytes. That was a few years ago.

As the NDP has put forward the idea of a levy, does it think that number still applies? Given that it was three years ago, maybe it should be a little higher.

I am curious to hear the hon. member's take on that idea.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

No, I do not believe that $75 is a reasonable amount. However, I do feel that there should be a levy on those types of products. The NDP also believes that. I particularly like—“like” being one way of saying it—the way the hon. member delivered his question. He spoke about an tax on iPods. That demonstrates the government's attitude and desire to create an image surrounding the proposals that would create a balance between the rich and the less fortunate people in the industry. Some people like to use the word “tax” to scare people, but in reality, it is not a tax. The same decision to deal with this issue was made some time ago for blank videotapes and CDs. We did not have to pay $50 for a videotape to record our shows.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to oppose the bill on copyright modernization.

It is clear that the Copyright Act needs to be amended in order to reflect our changing technology and ways of communicating in Canada. We are witnessing the transformation from print media to digital media, which has caused a profound change in the way Canadians interact with their political environment, their society and their cultural context.

In Canada, creativity, innovation, and vision are born where people live and where they identify as Canadians. All artistic works, whether they be musical, literary or in the visual arts, are based on the experiences that people have in their native regions and these experiences are important.

In my riding, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, artists like Kevin Parent, Jean Lemieux, Stéphanie Boulay, and Madelinots like Georges Langford, Sylvain Rivière and many others help to share our culture with those outside our region.

Indeed, cultural events such as the festivals that take place in the Gaspé and on the Magdalen Islands are important economic and social forces in the region. Moreover, these events encourage artists to continue to be creative.

For example, the Festival Musique du Bout du Monde is one of the most popular events in my region. Held in the Gaspé, this festival showcases world beat music and also provides a forum for cultural exchanges between the Gaspé and the various cultures of the world. It is a very popular festival.

Amending the Copyright Act may have an impact on our festivals. La Virée in Carleton-sur-Mer is a festival that showcases the cultural customs of the Quebec tradition of storytelling, music and traditional dance, and circulates them more widely.

The Festival International Maximum Blues, which also takes place in Carleton-sur-Mer, is one of the best-known festivals in the region. Each year the festival presents over 50 shows.

The Festival international Contes en Îles is a major cultural event for the people of the Magdalen Islands. This storytelling festival takes place in the fall. In just six years, it has become one of the major storytelling festivals in Quebec.

These festivals are crucial to the economy of the Gaspé region and to the cultural and social development of the Gaspé and Magdalen Islands.

Unfortunately, Bill C-11 will deprive artists, such as those behind the festivals in my riding, of millions of dollars in revenue and will erode the market. This bill includes a long list of exceptions that do not adequately recognize the rights of creators. In fact, these exceptions create new ways for consumers to access protected content without simultaneously creating new avenues through which to compensate creators for the use of their work.

It seems that all the efforts put into reforming the Copyright Act in recent years have not been intended to create a balanced system that takes into account the rights of creators and those of the public. Instead, these efforts have constituted attempts to meet the demands of the major U.S. content owners. I am referring, for example, to film studios and record companies.

We all know that the vast majority of businesses in Canada are small, local or family businesses. The vast majority of artists are independent and local. These are the artists who transform culture and society and who sow the seeds, yet it is the multinational entertainment industry that reaps the financial rewards.

Canadian copyright legislation can succeed in striking a balance between the right of creators to fair compensation for their work and the right of consumers to reasonable access to content. This bill grants a number of new privileges in connection with access to content, but does not provide any alternative method of remuneration for artists.

That will have a significant effect on artists’ ability to survive. The copyright modernization bill gives with one hand and takes back with the other.

Although the bill contains some concessions for consumers, they are undermined by the government’s refusal to adopt a compromise position on the most controversial copyright issue in Canada: the provisions relating to digital locks.

In the case of distance education, for example, the provisions of the new bill mean that people living in a remote community would have to burn their course notes 30 days after downloading them. That is not an improvement over the present situation and not an appropriate use of copyright rules. A lot of people in my riding count on distance learning to finish their education. The idea that students would lose access to their course notes after 30 days is completely ridiculous. Does that mean that 30 days after a student finishes a course, the knowledge and skills they learned are no longer needed?

As a university graduate, I still have a lot of books that I bought for my studies. I have had some of those books for more than 20 years. Should I burn them? Are my university studies no longer valid because the 30 days have expired?

Will students who do not burn their notes be convicted of violating the Copyright Act? Are they going to be sent to the new prisons we have just built?

The NDP is proposing that the clauses that criminalize removing digital locks for personal, non-commercial purposes be withdrawn from the bill. We support reducing the penalties for people convicted of violating the Copyright Act, since that would prevent excessive prosecution of the public, a problem that exists in the United States.

The Conservatives have ignored the opinions of the experts who testified in committee and the conclusions of their own copyright consultations in 2009. As a result, they have presented a bill that could cause more harm than good.

The NDP believes it is high time to modernize the Copyright Act, because this bill presents too many blatant problems.

I am waiting impatiently for the return of the festivals in my region so I can once again participate in the emancipation of the culture of the Gaspé and the Islands, and also of Quebec and Canada. Our culture is always threatened by our powerful American neighbour, which will always have more resources than we have and has always had a louder voice. American multinationals are given preference in this bill. Artists’ small businesses in Canada are largely small and medium enterprises. They are family businesses and regional businesses. The bill before us is going to affect the regions significantly.

We often seem to be under attack from the Conservatives. They constantly try to make us pay for the economic crisis. The people in the regions are starting to get a little impatient with waiting for the Conservative government to give them a hand. The artists in my region cannot improve their situation with the bill before us today. They are going to lose an enormous amount.

We should really be working together to protect our local culture. That is the real Canadian culture, a culture that exists in spite of all these economic and political forces. It is just about time for us to work together to restore balance here in Canada.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of working with my colleague on the procedure and House affairs committee, as well as the private members' subcommittee. I find him to be a very reasonable person, so I was somewhat surprised to hear him raise the issue of university notes. That throws a bit of a red herring into our argument today.

What we are trying to accomplish with this bill is to bring a balance between the rights of creators of material and the consumer. That is clear as one reads through the bill.

Just this morning I had the privilege of speaking to a university librarian who acknowledged that the changes in this iteration of the bill are strong evidence that our government listened to the concerns of people in our communities and have brought a clear balance back into the issue of balancing the rights of creators and the rights of consumers.

I am wondering if my colleague would agree that what is in the bill would help our university librarians and many others who are trying to balance that fine line. We need to be honest. We are not talking about confiscating someone's university notes. We want to bring a clearer balance to the imbalance that has existed for too long.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that we on this side are open to recalibrating the way that this law is being presented. There are certain things with which we agree and certain things that we do not.

When it comes to university students, we need to be careful because these people are already disadvantaged in our society. They have a lot of challenges. They are deferring remuneration today so that they can participate more fully in our economy tomorrow. We should encourage them to the best of our ability.

I beg to differ with my colleague that, when it comes to discussing these matters with university communities across this country, I do not think we have done a fair enough job. If the government were serious about recaibrating the bill, then maybe some of its members would speak in favour of it.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for so ably outlining the importance of the arts community to our communities. In Nanaimo--Cowichan, we have any number of festivals, theatre, potters and painters. In February, on Gabriola, an island in my community, we will be having an international festival of poets.

My colleague talked about the economic returns to our communities as a result of these vibrant arts and culture communities. Could he comment on the spinoffs? It is not just about payment to the artisans for the work that they do, but the spinoffs to our local communities from this activity.

Where I come from, we have many famous carvers and painters. I wonder if he could comment on the indigenous arts and the importance of balancing the need to protect their work while still looking at reasonable copyright legislation.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to artists in our regions and their impact on the culture and the day-to-day activities of the people who live in those regions are probably even more pronounced than they are in urban areas. We can never underestimate just how much of an impact they truly have.

In the areas in which I have lived, and right now in Gaspésie--Îles-de-la-Madeleine, artists are one of the main reasons that we have such a vibrant tourist industry. People come from far and wide to see the incredible art that is being produced locally. These artists have very small margins. If we do not properly address their needs, we could imperil the economies of our regions to an extent that has not been quite properly expressed in the House at this point on the bill.

When it comes to our native communities, they are already seriously disadvantaged. We can never underestimate just how much assistance we can give them so that their communities can start to flourish after so many years of oppression.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to address Bill C-11, the Copyright Modernization Act.

I join all my colleagues in the House in stressing the fact that this bill, as worded, poses a number of problems for our artists and for society as a whole.

We all agree that copyright modernization is long overdue, considering that the technology has been modernized. In fact, because these technologies and the Internet are evolving very rapidly, it is difficult to craft a bill that can adjust to all these changes. However, we need to take our time for that very same reason, to ensure that we do things right, that we consult with experts and that we use a logical approach considering all the available options. This is why it is necessary to make a number of changes and to strike a better balance between the rights of creators, who deserve to be compensated fairly for their work, and the rights of consumers, who want to have access to this content at a reasonable cost. The bill must also promote market innovations, instead of just creating obstacles.

The problematic clauses of the bill include, of course, those that deal with digital locks; they have been mentioned repeatedly since the legislation was first introduced. These digital locks pose problems in the educational sector but, more importantly, they deprive creators of a major source of income. Under the bill in its current form, they would take precedence over all other rights, including those of journalists and students who, for obvious reasons, should have reasonable and affordable access to this material.

My colleagues have all raised specific cases where well intentioned Canadians or students—ordinary Canadians as members opposite would say—find themselves in violation of the law because they made a personal copy of the content that they bought, or because they did not destroy class material that they have had in their possession for more than 30 days.

I have difficulty thinking of my students as criminals, when they are respectful adolescents who keep their course material in order to refer to it later and to learn more. I graduated from university more than seven years ago and still keep documents because I need to refer to them to plan courses for my students. I would be liable to imprisonment because I did not destroy these documents. I would be punished more severely than someone who assaults a child. Is this not a double standard? Is it not somewhat illogical? I think it is.

Having said that, based on what the government has been saying for a few weeks, I am convinced that it would not bring forward a bill that would make criminals of ordinary Canadians. I hope that the government will take a logical, consistent, thoughtful and critical approach to this bill. The NDP is prepared to work with our Conservative colleagues in making amendments to improve this bill.

Many of my colleagues have discussed the problems related to education and course material and therefore I will address the consequences of this bill and the digital locks, which affects the income of creators.

Canada's cultural heritage is very rich. As my colleague mentioned earlier, artists and creators teach us, inspire us and pass on values, especially among our youth, important values such as tolerance, open-mindedness, social engagement, a sense of community and many other values. In addition, Canadian culture helps us to develop our cultural identity and pride.

In addition to this social contribution, creators make an important economic contribution. Despite modest investments of $7.9 billion in culture by all levels of government, the cultural sector generated more than $25 billion in tax revenue in 2007-08. The Canadian Arts Coalition, which met with several MPs, says that every dollar invested in culture generates more than three dollars in the arts. It is really a profitable investment for our economy.

In addition, this sector is directly responsible for the creation of many quality jobs. There are the people in box offices, radio and television hosts, journalists, computer specialists, people who work on sets and backstage and the artists themselves, just to name a few. There are also all those who publish, who build musical instruments and so on. One does not need to be a genius to understand that investments in the cultural sector help our economy. Artists also contribute in the health sector through art therapy.

Any legislation that modernizes the Copyright Act absolutely must emphasize and even encourage these contributions. Unfortunately, for most people, a career as an artist is not a high-quality job since the average salary of artists in Canada is approximately $12,900 a year. I have several friends who are artists and even a brother who is a musician and who is currently travelling around the world. He is an ambassador for Canada on the international stage. Committed and passionate Canadians who work hard to promote their creations and who want to inspire and teach people are important in our society. They are role models for young people and ambassadors for Canada. However, they live from paycheque to paycheque and can barely make ends meet. Often, they cannot even cultivate their art because they have to work full time so that they can explore their passion and improve. Rather than remedying this situation and celebrating the considerable contribution of the cultural sector, this bill will once again take millions of dollars away from artists and creators and benefit large corporations.

Instead, we should be seeking to create new ways for artists to receive fair compensation. Adding digital locks will actually have the opposite effect. It limits the market. That is not necessary since the provisions on digital locks proposed in this bill will be among the strictest in the world. As we have said many times, this is creating all kinds of problems in the United States. Why not learn from our neighbours' experience and try to do something different and better?

With a little bit of thought, we could make this clause less strict and more reasonable so that the approach is more balanced and our creators would receive more support. It is important to protect the income sources of the creators who work hard and do not receive the recognition and encouragement they deserve, because of this type of bill and all the cuts they have experienced.

Clearly, this is a complex bill. We must find a way to manage the interests of consumers on the one hand, while protecting and supporting Canada's cultural sector on the other hand. This bill also needs to be able to respond to the rapidly evolving nature of technology and the Internet. It is very difficult to anticipate all of that. In its current version, the bill does not even meet today's needs. As my colleagues have pointed out, representatives of the cultural sector and experts are criticizing the bill. Experts appeared before the committee, but the Conservatives chose to ignore their recommendations and suggestions. Why bother calling in experts if what they have to say is completely ignored?

In light of the recent limits on debate in this House and this government's systematic refusal to listen to experts, I am very worried. I think the complexity of this bill warrants a careful review and reasoned amendments. I therefore call on the Conservatives to listen to the experts and work with the NDP so that we can make constructive amendments to this bill, which will have an impact on an entire generation and many more to come.

What message does this bill send to society, to the next generation of artists in the making, to those in our ridings, in our regions, to the people who are trying to support the local and national economy, to those whose work is showcased internationally? Many groups from Montreal, for instance, travel internationally and have boosted Canada's reputation. What will happen to those entrepreneurs?

We need to educate people, but this government has a double standard. It is not setting a very good example. This bill needs to be amended in order to move forward. We need to take the time to sit down, discuss this again and think about it very carefully.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke at one point about the importance of copyright to the economy and getting it right. Many members have spoken about the amount of consultation needed. The hon. member is new in the House so she has not been around for the last decade, when we have been discussing copyright for the four different iterations of copyright legislation that have come before the House. She was not here for the thousands of hours of consultation that went into this particular bill, or the hours and hours of debate in the House and 39 hours of testimony before committee that we have already heard. Those are numbers unheard of in my time in the House. This is about the most consulted bill that I have seen.

Most of the witnesses at committee talked about the balance in the bill and the importance of passing it quickly. I am wondering if we can count on the NDP members to actually pass the bill through the House so that we can send the bill to committee, listen to some more witnesses and hear the amendments that I imagine the NDP will put forward.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member opposite. Yes, we are new, but we have experience and we interact with artists. I am a teacher and I have used material created by artists. I know how important it is, in terms of economic balance, for creation to continue and for the work of the artists to be recognized for what it is worth. They have to be given more funding, not less funding, with a larger share going to corporations, as the bill currently provides.

It is complex and a number of people are feeling trampled on because of this bill. There is something not quite right. Consultations were indeed held on the matter of the digital locks, but the technology has advanced quite a bit since then. Like the Internet, technology has become more digitized in the past few years. There are more and more new technologies. The proposals also have to be new and take into account these new developments.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of items that this Parliament and previous Parliaments have dealt with. One that comes to my mind is an end to child poverty. We debated that in this country for a long time, but I do not see a bill before us to say we are going to take action on it right now.

Even though some of the concepts in this bill might have been discussed earlier, this is a new bill before a new Parliament. Therefore, how does my colleague see the impact of the bill not only on artists, but also on students?

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for raising this very important point for students. They are getting an education and do not yet have steady, well-paid employment. It is outrageous to have digital locks on the work they access digitally and for them to have to pay to continue benefiting from that material after 30 days. They do not have the means to keep paying for 30 more days. They need affordable, permanent access to the material because their schooling lasts more than 30 days. We have to balance all these complex aspects with respect for the work of the artist, who should be paid fairly.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Resuming debate. We have about three minutes left in government orders.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise in the House as the digital affairs critic for the New Democratic Party on the issue of copyright.

I have been involved in the issue of copyright in this House for seven years and I have seen somewhat of a transformation in terms of the understanding of Parliament when it comes to copyright. Unfortunately, with the bill, we still see that on key elements the government does not get it.

If we go back to 2004, the idea of a digital culture that was being told to us by the lobbyists was that of a great cultural tsunami that would wipe out everything that was special about Canadian culture. They tried to constrain the digital environment as it somehow was a threat. However, we saw it in the New Democratic Party as probably the greatest platform for the distribution of ideas and culture since Gutenberg got his Bible.

I want to be fair to all parties. We have moved down the road in terms of understanding that the digital culture is not, as the recording industry used to say, the toothpaste they were going to put back in the tube or the genie to be put back in the bottle. We were going to have to find a way to adapt, as we have done time and time again with copyright. However, what is missing in the bill are two key elements that make copyright work.

One element is the understanding of remuneration of artists. We have to be able to monetize how artists' materials are being transmitted. That is the fundamental principle of copyright, yet we see within the bill time and again the traditional royalty payments to artists being erased. That is not a balance. That is creating an incredible disequilibrium in the artistic and creative community.

The other element is access, the ability of people to access works. The Conservatives' position is to put a digital lock on products and let the market decide. That would create a two-tier set of rights where Parliament would establish which rights citizens can have. For example, a blind student could access work in an analog format, but if there were a digital lock on it, that right would disappear. In a parliamentary system, we cannot create a two-tier set of rights. The digital locks cannot override the rights of Canadians.

The obsession of the Conservatives that digital locks would somehow create a better market does not stand up to the test. Our WIPO competitors around the world have adopted standards on digital locks. Under the WIPO treaty, specifically in articles 10 and 11, countries are given the right to establish digital locks to protect property from being stolen, but the exceptions that are created in a parliamentary system are a citizen's right.

Most of our competitors have adopted that model. The Conservative government is actually going backwards and would put artists and consumers in a worse position.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay. He will have seven minutes remaining when this matter returns before the House.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Resuming debate. Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to request that the vote be deferred to Monday night at the end of government orders.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The vote is deferred until Monday at the end of government orders.

The House resumed from November 24 consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment at second reading of Bill C-11.

Before the Clerk announced the results of the vote:

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is the hon. member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour rising on a point of order or to indicate how he is voting?

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of the motion, but I believe my vote was not recorded.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #78

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the amendment lost.

The House resumed from November 28 consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to our copyright reform legislation. This is our third attempt at bringing this very important legislation forward and get it passed through this place. In those attempts, we had spoken with hundreds of thousands of Canadians. We have heard from people from across the country. The House has heard hundreds of hours of debate. At committee, we have spent an equally long time speaking about the issues with respect to Canada's copyright reform.

We know that the legislation is extraordinarily important to the Canadian economy. It is very important that we bring forward legislation that brings us in line with international standards. We have heard from people and creators in my riding, particularly in the video game industry, who have been calling on us to ensure that we can actually get this copyright legislation passed through the House, so that they can compete on a fair and level playing field with everybody else.

The legislation is important to hundreds of thousands of Canadians. It helps protect Canadian jobs. It balances the rights of consumers with our creators. This is the type of legislation that we need to ensure that Canada's economic recovery continues and that Canada continues to lead the G7 in terms of economic productivity.

I hope that now that we have had a significant amount of debate, not only on the actual bill but also with respect to an amendment that had been moved earlier by the Liberal Party, we can now move forward and bring send legislation to committee as expeditiously as possible.

We know that creators and consumers across the country are looking to the House to show some leadership. They know that on this side of the House we are prepared to bring this forward to save and protect Canadian jobs.

I move:

That this question be now put.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the minister would be somewhat sympathetic in terms of the whole principle of having the opportunity as members of Parliament to be able to discuss and debate bills. There is this responsibility of accountability. We have now seen the government, in many different forms, bring in legislation and then assign time allocation. Now we are starting to see the movement and adjournment of debate. All of these actions take the ability away from us as legislators to give due diligence and scrutinize what these important issues are for all Canadians.

For the people who are witnessing this debate, it is important that we recognize the difference in the style of government that we have seen since the Prime Minister has achieved his majority. We have seen a majority come down with a very heavy hand. It is critically important that each minister be accountable for the types of actions that they are taking, which take away from what this institution is all about.

We now have yet another minister who has made the decision to limit debate--

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. I will stop the hon. member there. He has had a minute and a half to put his question. I am sure other people would like to ask questions, so I will stop him there and allow the parliamentary secretary to answer.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, he is correct on one thing. There is definitely a big difference in styles between the government and that side of the House. On this side of the House we are actually focusing on jobs and the economy, keeping our economy moving and keeping Canadians working. That is what we are doing.

This copyright bill has been debated for many years. It was debated in the last Parliament. It has been debated extensively in this Parliament. We have met with hundreds of people. It has had many hours of debate in this House. It has had many hours of debate in committee in the last Parliament. It is the same bill that we brought forward. We want to get it to committee, so that we can continue to hear more of the voices from Canadians who want to talk about this bill.

Ultimately, he is quite right. We will be different than the opposition. We will continue to focus on jobs. We will continue to focus on the economy. We will continue to do everything that we can on this side of the House to ensure that Canadians have a government that they can rely on to create and protect jobs.

This particular legislation is required to bring us in line with international standards. We need the opposition to get on board with us.

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

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary was talking about wanting to move this to committee and that is why the government brought in the motion to limit debate. He said he wanted to move this to committee to hear from Canadians and people who had any issues, or concerns, or whatever. What does he think this process is? We were elected by Canadians to stand up and examine each and every piece of legislation.

There are rules set out in the books to give us time to do that, yet for every single piece of legislation that this majority government brings forward to the House, it has to bring in a motion to limit debate. Who in their right mind could ever suggest that that is any indication that this government has any respect for democracy?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have spent hundreds of hours debating this bill. In fact, we debated a Liberal opposition amendment to the bill in the House for many weeks. In the last Parliament we had this very same bill before the House. We spent many hours debating that bill. I know many of the members on this side of the House have been speaking with constituents. They have been speaking with stakeholders with respect to the bill.

We also know that we need to move forward on copyright legislation and bring this in line with international standards so we can protect Canadian jobs. That is what is important. The members opposite and Canadians will have a greater opportunity again, at committee, to put forward their feelings with respect to this legislation. It will then come back to this place again and we will have some more opportunity to debate it further.

We just need to get this to committee, so we can do the work that Canadians have sent us here to do and to stop filibustering, stop killing jobs, and focus on creating jobs and Canadian industry that is so reliant on--

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Random--Burin--St. George's.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-11.

As I listened to my hon. colleague across the way, I could not help but notice the irony in his remarks. Clearly we are dealing here with a piece of legislation that the government is not the least bit interested in hearing submissions on, or if it is hearing submissions, it is not hearing what is being said.

We are hearing from stakeholders who have made presentations that when they bring forward solid recommendations, changes they think need to be made and would like the government to consider, the government does not consider them. The government still says that it wants to invite more submissions. What is the point in inviting more input and more debate if the government will not take it seriously?

The government often and deliberately points out, in an effort to justify limiting debate, that this exact copyright legislation has been debated before at length, as the member just said, and was even at committee, and it was. In fact, 167 stakeholder organizations made submissions and recommendations.

The government looks back at this lengthy discussion with Canadians on copyright legislation and concludes that the necessary discussion has been had, with unmatched arrogance. Discussion has been had, but it has not been listened to.

The Conservative government declares that there will be no more debate, no more discussion and no more constructive criticism. In fact, it does not even see the input as constructive criticism; the government just sees it as criticism. Instead of accepting it for what it is intended to do, which is to perfect an imperfection in this particular legislation, government members want instead to just go full steam ahead with their way or no way. In contrast, I look at past discussion and debate with Canadians as a missed opportunity to tailor this legislation to serve Canadians best.

The government is right on one account: Canadians have voiced their opinions on copyright by making 167 separate submissions to committee, which is no small feat. Unfortunately for Canadians from coast to coast to coast, whether artists or creators, they have not been heard by the government, and that is how they feel. They sincerely believe that even though they have made submissions and presentations, and the government members have appeared to listen, they really have not been heard.

Last year Canadians appeared in droves to offer expert recommendations at committee. Clearly, during this important consultation the government just checked out. After hundreds of hours of debate and discussion in the last Parliament on Canadian copyright, the Conservative government proved that artists' and creators' legitimate concerns and recommendations fell on deaf ears by reintroducing this unchanged and unsatisfactory legislation.

The Conservatives constantly say that they have a majority mandate, when in reality only 39% of Canadians who voted actually voted Conservative. There were many Canadians who did not vote, and they were eligible to vote. In fact, only 59% of eligible voters actually voted in the last federal election, with 39% of that total voting Conservative. If we take into account all eligible voters, including those who did not vote, only 24% of possible voters voted Conservative. This is hardly a majority mandate.

It is about time that the government started to listen to Canadians when it is making legislation. It is about time it realized that while it may have gotten the majority number of votes, in fact only 39% of the Canadian population that voted cast their votes for Conservatives.

Let us be understanding and be receptive to hearing from Canadians, and from Canadians who did not vote Conservative, who, by the way, have something to offer as well. Just because there is no impending election does not mean that the Conservative Party has a mandate to stop listening to Canadians and blindly implement its rigid copyright legislation without meaningfully considering Canadians' advice.

To be clear, a meaningful consideration of the consultation process requires balanced, effective implementation of Canadians' recommendations, not just half-hearted listening and empty consultation.

While we are dealing with the Conservatives' procedural attempts to ignore the will of Canadians and skirt an open and transparent democratic process, I must also address a serious flaw in this legislation.

The Conservatives' inclusion in its current form of the digital lock provisions undermines any attempt at fairness and equality between the users and creators of copyrighted works. Canadians who legally purchase CDs, DVDs or other forms of digital content should be entitled to transfer their legally bought content from one format to the other, provided they do so for personal use and not for profit or transfer to others. They have paid for this content, and it is theirs. The right and proper thing to do is to allow them to transfer it for their own personal use, clearly not for others and clearly not for profit. Bill C-11 would allow corporations to apply digital locks that would prohibit any type of format shifting. Under Bill C-11, the Conservatives seek to criminalize a Canadian consumer who legally purchases a CD and then transfers it to his or her iPod. Shockingly, the Conservatives' attempt to modernize copyright law criminalizes the modern mainstream application of legally purchased content.

Recently I received an email expressing concerns around Bill C-11 from a passionate and informed constituent of mine from Burin, in the riding of Random—Burin—St. George's. Shawn Rose hit the nail on the head when he wrote:

As a Canadian, I am both concerned and disheartened by how easily my rights are trumped by the overriding and all encompassing protection for digital locks contained in the legislation.

While the legislation provides many legitimate and justifiable rights for users, with one swipe the digital lock provision strips them all away.

Bill C-11 would enable Canadians to make copies of copyright works for personal use such as format shifting, in which consumers shift their legally bought CD on their iPod, or time shifting, in which content is recorded or backed up for later use--unless a corporation puts a digital lock on the content. Then the consumer is out of luck. If there is a digital lock on legally purchased content, consumers have no rights whatsoever. In a bizarre contradiction, the government gives rights to consumers while providing corporations with the tools to cancel all consumer rights.

Another constituent of mine from Kippens, Russell Porter, accurately describes the contradiction in this bill by writing:

The anti-circumvention provisions included in Bill C-11, unduly equip corporate copyright owners and distributors in the music, movie and video game industries with a powerful set of tools that can be utilized to exercise absolute control over Canadians' interaction with media and technology....

I continue to get mail from many of my constituents. Another consumer and constituent writing from Random—Burin—St. George's, Ross Conrad from Stephenville, writes with regard to his legitimate concerns over the digital lock provisions' banning of tools to transfer formats:

I strongly believe that in addition to linking the prohibition of circumvention to the act of infringement, it is also paramount for consumers to have commercial access to the tools required to facilitate such lawful acts. It is imperative that the ban on the distribution and marketing of devices or tools that can be used to lawfully circumvent be eliminated by removing paragraph 41.1(c) and any associated references to it or any paragraphs in the Bill that would be rendered irrelevant by this change.

This goes to show that Canadian consumers are watching. They know exactly what this piece of legislation contains, they know exactly what is wrong with it, and they are calling on the government to acknowledge that there are flaws with this piece of legislation. There is nothing wrong with listening to what Canadians have to say. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have refused to listen to thousands of Canadians like Shawn, Russell and Ross, who have eloquently explained their issues with respect to the imbalance between corporations and consumers in Bill C-11.

After all, it is clear that this bill was not written to protect the creator but the corporations.

Instead of Bill C-11, the Liberal Party supports true copyright modernization to protect the works and intellectual property of Canadians while achieving a delicate balance between consumers and creators.

While we will again be bringing forward a number of amendments at committee, this bill, unchanged after 167 submissions to committee and an outpouring of important and informed opinions from Canadians from coast to cost to coast, is an insult.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her very interesting remarks.

Unfortunately, in our House the time set aside for debate is extremely limited. Limits are constantly being imposed on us—and that is truly very disappointing—especially when it comes to the bill before us today, which may very well affect many artists in Quebec and across Canada. She mentioned that the bill seemed to favour big business and not creators. I would like her to talk a little more about how a bill like the one we have before us could help creators. How could this bill be improved?

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, clearly we always have to take into account the creations of our artists. It is really important that we do whatever we can to ensure that their creativity is protected.

There are ways of doing this. We need to modernize this legislation so that it takes into account the hard work of our artists, the hard work of our writers and the hard work of our musicians, while at the same time bearing the mind that consumers have rights as well.

What we are saying is that consumers should never be allowed to abuse the works of our artists by only buying one of anything and then making multiple copies to distribute elsewhere. What we are saying, and what we think the government should agree to, is that consumers should be allowed to make one copy for their own personal use, not for distribution elsewhere. We really do need to protect our artists and at the same time be fair to our consumers.

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

Mr. Speaker, the thing that concerns me about Bill C-11 is exactly the thing the member put her finger on in her statement.

Why are we still talking about digital locks when every single witness, every single expert and every single sector of the creative community that works in the field has said that this provision must be removed, that it works against the goals of modernization with respect to consumer and creator rights?

I am wondering if the member would want to expand on this concern. Why are we not seeing a willingness to amend Bill C-11 and get rid of the digital locks provision?

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is an excellent example of what is wrong with this legislation.

As I said in my earlier remarks, the government just will not listen, even though it has had so much in the way of representation about the problem with digital locks. It is not listening.

There were 167 submissions at committee. Clearly, while the government may have heard, it did not listen and it did not act. Other people have credible input. Other people can make good recommendations. The government does not have all the answers.

The only reason I can think of as to why it is not taking what it is hearing into account is that it does not want to have input from anyone else. It thinks it has all the answers, and that is the problem with the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, we know we have had hundreds of hours of debate in this place. We know we have had it in the previous Parliament. We know we have had it at committee. The member cited in her remarks how much input we have had on this bill.

I wonder if the member might cite for me a jurisdiction, any jurisdiction, where digital locks have been used and the actual availability of content has been reduced.

The member mentioned purchasing a CD with a digital lock; I am not aware of any that have been created with digital locks for many years. I wonder if the member could tell me what CD that was, and when she purchased it.

What would the member say to the over 14,000 people in the video gaming industry who depend on digital locks to be successful in the industry? This is about jobs and the economy. What would the member say to the thousands of people whose jobs are at risk if we do not pass updated legislation?

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent example of the government fear-mongering, where it is coming out with straw horses and trying to put out ideas that will not float. People know that what they are suggesting is not right.

We know that creators have a right and that consumers have a right. However, the Conservatives are failing to acknowledge that there needs to be equality between the two. Consumers need access. If they buy it, it belongs to them but it is not for anything other than personal use.

Digital locks actually give preference to the large corporations. The history of the current government is that it is always coming down on the side of large corporations versus the independent consumer and small business.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I also rise in the House today to oppose Bill C-11, a bill the Conservatives decided to call the Copyright Modernization Act. My colleague from the Liberal Party pointed out that the bill will benefit big business at the expense of authors. Today, we are trying to get some balance into this bill. Unfortunately, once again, debate has been limited and the Conservatives do not want any amendments, so the debate in the House today will most likely be of no benefit to the bill. It is truly undemocratic to try and ram this through faster than our constituents want.

Canadians want this bill gone over with a fine-tooth comb and properly debated so that it can be amended and its major shortcomings addressed. For example, Bill C-11 creates rights for big business, for the content owners. Creators will not benefit from the bill. The big winners will certainly be the content owners, in other words, big business. This bill compensates those who already make a decent living and are well off. And yet, it is the artists that are having trouble getting by and who need our support. They are the ones in our regions and in our big cities who make Canada culturally rich. They are the ones that need the government's support. Things are going very well for big business.

Frankly, the revenue that the government derives from big business is entirely adequate. The proof is in the pudding: the government is trying to cut back on the revenue it gets from big business. That would suggest that the revenue is too high. Small businesses, creators and artists are the ones that need the help. This bill also greatly affects young people and students who would only have about 30 days to erase any copyrighted products in their possession.

There are some pretty tough clauses in this bill. For example, the fines in this bill include penalties of up to $1 million and 5 years behind bars. That is really over the top. These penalties are in keeping with the Conservatives' priority: to have a law and order society. They are bent on building prisons and sending good, upstanding Canadians there. The Conservatives think that we all want these people behind bars. Frankly, the Conservatives' position is quite over the top. Five years in prison to protect big business' copyright is over the top, just like most of the crime bills that have been introduced

It is clear that the Copyright Act should be amended and should better reflect the transformation of technology and of our methods of communication in Canada. While the title of the bill is the Copyright Modernization Act, the story we are being told is an old one. The act is not being modernized; what we are seeing is how things were done in the 1900s or even the 1800s, when big corporations made money at the expense of the workers, the creators and small businesses. They want to reward big corporations. Honestly, this is an old story. There is nothing modern about it. It is quite antiquated. The government should perhaps think about it a little more and help all our constituents and all Canadians, not just those who are well off, like big corporations.

What is being proposed today is a transformation of the print media into digital media. This has brought about profound changes in the way Canadians discuss politics, society and culture. In Canada, creativity, innovation and vision are emerging from the places where people live and identify themselves as Canadians. All works of art, whether in music, literature or the visual arts, are based on the experiences of people who live in their native regions.

They are not based on the bottom line of a big corporation making big profits; they are based on everyday life. People's everyday lives are where we should be lending a hand. We should create tax credits for artists. We should go looking for them and lend them the hand they need. Instead of that, they are being told that we will favour big corporations and maybe, eventually, if artists are lucky, they will be able to sell their products and make some money. As well, we are told that once that is done, they will have to forget about their rights to their creations, because they will belong to the big corporations, who will get 100% of the profits from them.

In my riding, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, there are large numbers of artists. Most of them are not particularly wealthy. There are a few exceptions. Kevin Parent, for example, has benefited from the cultural life in our region and relatively strong support for his work. People love his work. As a result, he has been able to move onto the international stage—not because some big corporation gave him its support, but because ordinary people gave him their support. Sylvain Rivière, a writer, also benefits from the support of the people in our region.

We want the artists in our region to be well equipped and well positioned to move onto the national and international scene. We want the festivals in our region to benefit from a rich cultural life and from our artists. To achieve that, we have to lend them a hand.

Again, this bill does not do that. It will do nothing but increase the profits of the big corporations. Frankly, I do not see why big corporations would need anyone to lend them a hand. The fact is that it is small artists and small businesses that all members of the House claim to support. Frankly, I think that it is only the people on this side of the House who support them.

Festivals and artists are essential to the cultural life of our regions, but unfortunately, Bill C-11 will take millions of dollars in revenue away from artists, and away from the people who make the festivals in my region possible. It is going to erode the market.

This bill includes a long list of exceptions that do not adequately recognize the rights of creators. That is what we should be debating today. Once again, the Conservatives do not want their bill to be amended. They want to limit debate. They do not want the House to improve the bill. Honestly, we must take the time needed to end up with a good bill.

We must try to respond to our constituents' requests. We have been asked by many people to amend this bill. Unfortunately, to date, the Conservatives have not been willing to amend the bill we are considering.

I would like to quote a well-known technology commentator, Mr. Geist from the University of Ottawa, who succinctly summarized the issue, “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 fair dealing and the new rights in the bill cannot be supported.

It is very unfortunate that our Conservative government really does not want to listen. We all know that the vast majority of businesses in Canada are small, local, family businesses. The vast majority of artists are independent. They are local people. The artists transform the culture and society and sow the seeds, but it is the multinational entertainment industry that will reap the rewards.

Canadian copyright legislation can strike a balance between copyright and providing fair compensation to artists for their work, while ensuring consumers have the right to reasonable access to content. We want to find the right balance. This bill provides a number of new privileges with regard to access to content, but it does not provide any alternative means of compensating our artists.

This will seriously impact our artists' ability to survive. The Copyright Modernization Act gives with one hand and takes with the other. I hope that this bill will not pass.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the House will remember Bill C-10, the bigger and more jails bill that the government brought in. When it did that, a number of amendments were moved that even the government members themselves wished they had recognized a bit earlier, so that they could have possibly passed them at committee stage. That was because they were in such a rush to get that bill through.

Now we have Bill C-11, and we are talking a lot about that big rush once again. The government appears, as it did with Bill C-10, to be completely close-minded to any sort of changes. The Conservatives talk about hundreds of hours of debate, which is not true, inside the chamber since the last election.

I know that within the New Democratic caucus, a number of people were just elected in May. Therefore, I ask the member to what degree he feels they have been afforded the opportunity to contribute any time at all to debate on this important piece of legislation for Canadians?

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was recently elected, as was my colleague, the member for Winnipeg North. A great number of MPs on both sides of the House in fact were recently elected. I would challenge a great number of them to say how much time they have actually had to speak to just about any bill that has been presented in the House since we started sitting in June.

Frankly, the government seems to be in a huge hurry to pass bills without the due reflection that is required. We need to seek the comments of our electors, the people who live in our ridings, to ensure that the bills before us are properly conceived and will be properly delivered. I do not think that we are given nearly enough time to do so.

Again, we have a situation where the government is trying to steamroll legislation through the House. I am frankly quite appalled that the lack of democracy in the House is tolerated by members on the opposite side.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to the member's speech. He talked about the well-heeled people who will benefit from this.

When he is talking about the well-heeled people, is he talking about the 500,000 people in the television and film industry across the country who need updated copyright legislation, the people who actually work behind the scenes, the hairdressers, the seamstresses, the electricians and the people who create the sets for these productions? I am wondering if they are the well-heeled people he is talking about. Perhaps it is the 14,000 people in the video game industry. Is that who he is talking about, the people who work hard every single day, and after having done something very special in their offices, go home at night to feed their families and pay their taxes? All they want is a little protection for the work that they have done. I am wondering if they are the well-heeled people that he is talking about.

As nobody yet has been able to do this on that side, can the member point out a jurisdiction which has used technical protection measures to protect creators' works, where those measures have resulted in less content for consumers?

Why does he not believe that creators have the right to protect the works they have created?

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member is referring in his first question to what is called the trickle-down theory, where people who are super rich will eventually perhaps spend money and allow the less privileged, the workers who work in those institutions, to benefit from the wealth that has been created.

I think it is about time that the people who actually create the wealth in this country actually benefit directly from that wealth. I do not think the Viacoms of the world should be the biggest beneficiaries of bills like the ones before us today. We need to ensure that everybody has a shake of the stick. Frankly, I think that this bill is entirely biased toward those who do not need our help.

I will remind the members opposite that, yet again, they are talking about tax cuts for the wealthiest corporations. If that is the case, then clearly they do not need the money. It is the people at the bottom of the heap who probably need it a lot more.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the bill, although I am not so pleased to rise to speak to the motion for time allocation. I find it hard to believe that this is what we are doing here today. We are actually shutting down debate on copyright legislation.

As far as the bill goes, I want to communicate some things to the House while I have the floor. Copyright legislation and copyright reform is really important to people in the riding of Halifax. This is because it is home to many creators and many consumers.

In the three short years since I was elected, I have attended several different workshops and panel discussions in my community on copyright. I attended a discussion held by Dalhousie Law School, a round table to talk about the key issues that we need to look at here. There were law professors, law students and lawyers who deal with copyright.

I also attended a panel discussion put on by students at NSCAD, the Nova Scotia College of Art and Design. They are creators who want to understand the key issues and how copyright legislation should be reformed when it comes to our rights as creators.

I was delighted to moderate a panel discussion during the Halifax Pop Explosion. During this great music festival, there were opportunities to learn about different issues facing artists. Copyright was the big panel discussion that folks wanted to have and it was very well attended. I actually learned quite a bit during that panel discussion.

As I said, it is important to the folks in my riding. I look at the number of people who have contacted my office about copyright via email, Facebook and Twitter. Lots of people have contacted me, the majority of whom are creators and, of course, consumers. In this day and age, almost all of us are consumers. They are trying to present to me the perspective of a consumer, the perspective of a creator.

I have heard the Conservatives in this House stand up and talk about why we need copyright reform, and they are right, we absolutely do. This is a very much out-of-date piece of legislation. Yet, in changing it, when I listen to the arguments that have been brought forward, I see arguments that will really stand up for the owners of copyright, which is different from the creators and consumers of copyright. Being owners of copyright is not the same as being consumers or creators.

I am sad because we did see a version of the bill in the last Parliament. That bill was brought forward. It went to committee. We heard from people in the community. We heard from experts and academics. We heard from owners, creators and consumers, and it did not change.

The bill is being brought forward now and there is nothing different about it. That is really disappointing. If we are to be good legislators, if we are to bring forward sound public policy, which I hope is the point, we should be relying on the people with the expertise, people who are actually working day to day with these issues. Not all of us have that expertise.

We are members of the House of Commons. We represent the common people and we are here as their representatives. It does not mean we are experts on copyright.

I have colleagues in the House who handwrite their emails and give them to their staff to then type up and send. Obviously there are folks in this House who have no expertise when it comes to what should happen when we download a video, if they are handwriting their emails.

We need to rely on the people we have at committee, rely on their expertise and heed their advice. We also need to rely on our constituents. I am relying on Carrie Forbes, Jessica McCarvell and Mike Wade, George Edwards and Ricky Tang, and Ryan Clancey. These are folks who have written my office as consumers or creators to say, “Wait a minute, here is my stake in this. As someone in your community, here is what I want you to know”. Sarah Wilkin, Jake Parker, Will Hopkins are all people who have contacted my office. We should be taking their advice and hearing what they have to say.

One of those folks, Evan Walsh, a member of the Halifax community with Stitch Media, wrote to my office. I want to read his letter into the record because I think there is some good advice in it. He wrote:

I would like to take this opportunity to convey my concerns and suggestions for points of revision and amendment in regards to Bill C-11, The Copyright Modernization Act. Although Bill C-11 appears to be more flexible than the previous attempts at copyright reform, this Bill is flawed to its core by the inclusion of strict, anti-circumvention provisions. As a Canadian, I am both concerned and disheartened by how easily my rights are trumped by the overriding and all encompassing protection for digital locks contained in the legislation.

The anti-circumvention provisions included in Bill C-11, unduly equip corporate copyright owners and distributors in the music, movie and video game industries with a powerful set of tools that can be utilized to exercise absolute control over Canadians' interaction with media and technology, and may even undermine Canadians' constitutional rights.

A solution to Bill C-11's contentious core problem and the means to avoid the unintended consequences generated by the broad protection for digital locks is to amend the Bill to permit circumvention for lawful purposes. Not only is this approach compliant with the WIPO Internet Treaties, but it also provides legal protection for digital locks while maintaining the crucial copyright balance. I urge this Government to either add an infringing purpose requirement to the prohibition of circumvention or add an exception to the legislation to address circumvention for lawful purposes.

I strongly believe that in addition to linking the prohibition of circumvention to the act of infringement, it is also paramount for consumers to have commercial access to the tools required to facilitate such lawful acts. It is imperative that the ban on the distribution and marketing of devices or tools that can be used to lawfully circumvent be eliminated by removing--

--and here is a very good suggestion:

--paragraph 41.1(c) and any associated references to it or any paragraphs in the Bill that would be rendered irrelevant by this change.

Some have suggested that market forces will decide the fate of digital locks in Canada and that codifying strong protection for such measures in Canadian law is simply good interim policy. I disagree. Rather than handing control of Canadians' digital rights over to corporations, the Government must consider regulating how digital locks are implemented to ensure they are not simply used to deny user rights. I put forward to this Government that adding a labelling requirement to disclose the use of digital locks on consumer goods be considered. A requirement as such, would permit Canadian consumers to make informed decisions about the products they purchase and the access and usage rights, or lack thereof, they can expect with the ownership of a given product.

In review, I believe it is in the best interest of Canadian consumers and creators alike to amend Bill C-11 to clearly link the act of circumvention to infringement, removing the all-encompassing ban on circumvention tools, and to establish a new TPM labelling provision.

I think that is fairly reasonable.

As I said, we rely on experts. We rely on academics and folks who actually work on these issues day to day. We rely on our communities to give us good advice. Many of those people are experts.

Recently, I had the pleasure of meeting with the Girl Guides in Halifax. I asked them how many did classes online at school. They all put up their hands. I said “What if I told you that, after a certain number of days, you would not be able to access that information you were given by your teacher anymore?”

These girls, who were 12 to 18 years of age, said that that was not right, as it was class information that their teacher gave them. They accessed it and used it to keep learning. Maybe they would want to use it a year later, in their next class.

We have the experts, and we have out of the mouths of babes. It is clear that there is a lot of concern about this bill and we need to listen to the concerns and make amendments at committee. I am hopeful that will happen this time around.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today, a Conservative MP said the concerns about digital locks and jail time were theoretical and exaggerated. He asked for examples. There are many, but one off the top of my head is Norah Jones, the talented Canadian jazz singer, who has a CD called Come Away With Me. Under this proposed legislation, it sure looks like if we were to copy that onto our iPad, we could be risking five years in jail or a $1 million fine. Is the member aware of draconian possibilities on real CD digital locks that are already happening?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right to point that out. We have seen cases in the U.S. where this has happened. Music companies have cracked down on people, who unsuspectingly break the law by transferring from one format to another. When we see those kinds of examples, one would think that we would turn the other way, that we would try to avoid that happening. His example was Norah Jones. She may not even own that song. It may not even be the artist who is upset about this. Maybe the artist thinks someone is doing something really interesting with a work or the artist wants people to be able to listen to it, whether it is on an iPod or CD, and it is fine with the artist, but it is not the artists who are cracking down.

My colleague across the way talked about the well-healed folks who are the beneficiaries of this and that is who we are talking about. It is the music companies, not the artists, that are necessarily pursuing this kind of litigation.

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

Mr. Speaker, Norah Jones, of course, sings like a Canadian, but we know that she is not a Canadian, as a matter of fact. I wanted to correct the hon. gentleman.

In the member's speech, she referenced an email she received, that talked about modifying the TPM measures and specifically mentioned the video gaming industry. As I have said over and over in the House, there are some 14,000 jobs in that industry alone that rely on strong, effective copyright legislation to continue the great work in that industry. Is the member suggesting that these jobs be put at risk with insufficient TPMs?

When she talks about the rich who are part of these industries, is she talking about the people who work throughout the industry? As I said in my previous question, she talked about hairdressers, seamstresses, set designers, electricians, all of the people who support the film, video and TV industries. Are those the well-healed people she is talking about hurting Canadians?

On this side of the House, those are the people we want to protect with updated copyright legislation, as well as the industry and thousands of jobs. I wonder if the member and her party opposite are talking about putting an end to the video gaming industry in this country with weak TPM measures.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest it is the hairdressers and set designers, et cetera, that my colleague is talking about who are the ones to end up with charges. Of course, we need to modernize copyright legislation for various industries, like the film and television industries that he talked about. Of course we do, but the way to do it is not at the expense of heavy fines and possible jail time for ordinary Canadians.

I know the author of the letter that I read and that he is part of a working group in Nova Scotia, where there is a very strong video gaming industry, which may be surprising. He is a member of a working group in the community that includes video gamers, who I know, as members of my community, want fair and balanced copyright legislation.

I would invite the parliamentary secretary to come to Halifax any time and I would be pleased to introduce him to these people, who are actually part of the backbone of the Nova Scotian economy. Maybe he could listen first-hand to their advice on how to make this bill better.

[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.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think members on both sides of the House would agree that copyright modernization is long overdue but this bill has some glaring problems. The most controversial and worrisome of all is the issue of digital locks. I have received hundreds of emails from across Canada, as well as hundreds of signatures on my online petition. If people google “digital lock freedom”, they will find it.

Does the hon. member agree that the biggest problem of all in this legislation is digital locks, which will lead to huge abuses and possible jail time and huge fines?

[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.

[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, 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.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for London—Fanshawe, Service Canada; the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, Poverty; the hon. member for Etobicoke North, The Environment.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saint-Jean.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin speaking on the substance of Bill C-11, I would like to denounce the methods being systematically used by this government to limit debate. Once again, we are up against a motion that limits the time for debate on this bill. There have been too many to count. I do not know how many the government has moved, but it is becoming a habit. It has become a habit; this government's modus operandi is always to try to limit debate, as though there were some emergency, as though there were a fire, any time a bill is introduced on any subject.

In response to this, the government always says that it has a majority. To my knowledge, 40% of voters does not a majority make.

The government says that it has been given a strong mandate but this is not a strong mandate at all.

The government is using this strong-arm method, but it does not have a strong mandate. Since less than 40% of voters placed their trust in the Conservatives, they cannot use the argument that they have a strong mandate.

Once again, I am disappointed because we are again being forced to cut debate short and we will not be able to explore this properly. As many of my colleagues have pointed out, many of us are new here and would really like the opportunity to express our thoughts on these important issues. Indeed, the bills we are voting on today will have consequences. Many of my colleagues would like to have the opportunity to express their thoughts, without being systematically bullied by this government.

A number of things in Bill C-11 can be criticized. I would first like to talk about the thing that is probably most shocking to Canadians: making it an offence to remove a digital lock. The impression we get is that this government wants to put the entire population in prison; I do not know where we are going to put all the people being locked up. In the NDP, we say this government is disconnected from reality, disconnected from what Canadians see and what Canadians think in everyday life. Canadians do not understand why they want to put someone in prison for five years, when other crimes are much worse but are punished much less harshly. Putting sentences for digital manipulation on the same footing as assaults and crimes against the person makes no sense to the Canadians who watch us do our work as legislators every day.

I am going to offer a more personal anecdote. Before I became a member of Parliament, I worked for Statistics Canada. Statistics Canada's legislation on the subject of the census said that a person could go to prison for not answering the census. This was quite an old provision. Canadians did not understand why failing to fill out a form could mean someone would go to prison just like a person who committed a crime against a person, who committed an assault on someone, or who caused damage to property. People could not understand it.

The fact that we are told someone can be imprisoned for a term of up to five years shows that the government is completely disconnected from reality. No one in Canada would understand how someone could be put in prison for five years for digital manipulation, when other people do not go to prison for crimes against a person. For myself, this is what I find most shocking when I read this bill. It tells me there is a complete failure to understand, a complete disconnect between the government, on its pedestal, which is all powerful and demonstrates every day that it uses and abuses those powers, and the people who are trying to live their lives, and sometimes just trying to survive, and cannot understand this double standard.

Another aspect is also a cause for concern, in my opinion. We have the impression that this government is targeting students. There is a provision in this bill that would require them to destroy course notes they have used after 30 days, when those notes should be part of the knowledge they have acquired. They should be able to retain them for later use in their profession or in higher education. This makes no sense.

We want a country that develops and flourishes due to the quality of its teaching—providing better education for its children—and yet, paradoxically, a clause has been included in this bill that will force students to destroy their class notes. As a result, they will not be able to take advantage of everything they have learned, which is valuable to them, and to all of us here. Indeed, we need the next generations to be better educated and more comfortable, in a professional sense, with new technologies. This is yet another example of the government not sharing the same approach. It is as if they were living in another world.

Something else shocked me. I have listened to a number of debates and discussions on this issue and get the sense that the government is being deliberately ambiguous, and engaging in verbal games with words like “creator” and “copyright owner”. Some of my colleagues made a very relevant observation earlier, and that is that creators are not necessarily—and not at all in many cases—the rights holders. In the debate on this bill, every member across aisle constantly talks about standing up for the rights of authors, but copyright is not always the property of the authors, rather it belongs to big companies or publishing houses which, in practice, are not the authors.

So there is this constant, insidious ambiguity, deliberate in my opinion, regarding creators—whom we wish to encourage, of course—and copyright owners. The latter are often, too often, big companies with sometimes outrageous profit margins, whose situation does not resemble that of a creator, that is, the person who had the brainpower to generate the cultural product in the first place.

The NDP has consistently favoured a balanced approach to find the right balance between, on one hand, the rights of creators—not the copyright owners—to receive fair compensation for their work and their contribution to society in general, and, on the other hand, the right of the consumer to have access to culture at a reasonable price.

When considering the flaws in certain provisions in this bill, what automatically springs to mind is the issue of digital locks, which has in no way been resolved. In fact, as things currently stand in the bill, there could be situations where legal and legitimate copies are banned, despite the fact that it is perfectly legitimate to make the transfer from one format to another once the rights to a product have been purchased. Clearly the bill has not resolved this problem.

I will stop there and answer my colleagues’ questions.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech got me thinking.

If we are prohibiting copying and forcing people to destroy data, would it not make sense to think about destroying old bills that have already been introduced? This would mean less paper hanging around and would save power.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. He is funny, as usual. We always appreciate his sense of humour.

This seems to be something that we are seeing from this government: the willingness to destroy course notes that have been collected, created and used in a completely legal way. He was perhaps also referring to the fact that the government wants to destroy the data from the long gun registry, but I am not sure if that was the case. I imagine that it was. However, in the case of Bill C-11, we do not want to force students to destroy their course notes.