Evidence of meeting #10 for Bill C-11 (41st Parliament, 1st Session) in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
You would like Mr. Lake to answer it, in other words. Maybe Mr. Lake could explain it.
You're saying that it's really what the government's intent is, as opposed to the development of the wording. I wonder if Mr. Lake can answer the question.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Give me the question. You were asking the witnesses questions, and I was looking up something else.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Fair enough.
When you're talking about providing a service primarily for the purpose of enabling and so forth, the problem, it seems to me, is that if the service is primarily used in a way that, in fact, is for infringement, then that escapes it.
What the officials are telling us is that there would be some groups you don't want to catch with this provision, and I understand that. What I don't understand is why, in the case of a site that's primarily used for infringement, you wouldn't want to catch it. He's saying that it's a question of policy. Your colleague seems to know the answer.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Thank you, through you, Mr. Chairman.
The amendment moved by my colleague, Mr. Lake, is such that they won't be able to create sites that say, “Hey, great deal on puppies, and by the way, here's a free copy of Toy Story 3. Download it here.” What it will do is pick up sites that are masquerading as sites whose purpose is not infringement. Because when sites enable infringement, we want that picked up. In fact, we want to make sure that those copyrights are, in fact, protected.
Some of these sites are quite creatively constructed in a fashion that disguises their intent. This amendment will, in fact, eliminate the ability to disguise sites that intend to infringe.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
I guess, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that if you said “to provide a service that is designed or used primarily for the purpose”, you would capture that. You would also send it to those sites that you can't prove are provided for that reason.
Use the word “provide”, and to me, it is the same as using the word “design”, in this case. It's about the intent of the person putting it up. If you can't prove that, you have a problem, it seems to me.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Glenn Thibeault
For clarification, I'll allow you to speak, Mr. Del Mastro, but we're in your time, sir. You know that you have five minutes.
If you are going to move a subamendment, you have about a minute to do so, just so you're aware. You asked a question back to the government side. I can let them answer, if you choose.
It's your time, Mr. Regan.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
I don't want to eat up all his time, Mr. Chairman. I'd simply say that the amendment, the way we have structured it, is the way the government intends the act to function, so I'd encourage the member to support it. We believe that the amendment, in fact, accomplishes the result we're seeking to accomplish.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
I'm not going to push it, Mr. Chairman, with the amendment. Obviously, it's not going to be accepted, in any event. I think there's a mistake here, but let's carry on.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Glenn Thibeault
You have eight seconds. I'm very impressed, Mr. Regan. Thank you.
Mr. Angus, you would like to speak, so your party now has five minutes on the amendment.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I don't think we're looking at five minutes, probably.
I just want to clarify, because it seems that in the original wording, it was rather vague as to who would be captured or how they'd be captured under this provision. By introducing the words “should have known”, there seems to be a threshold you're establishing for the provider of the service. Is the intent to clarify the threshold, or am I misreading this?
3:55 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Glenn Thibeault
I'm sorry. I have to interrupt before you answer, unless we want to do this very quickly—hear the answer as a committee—and then go.
3:55 p.m.
Senior Policy Analyst, Copyright and International Intellectual Property Policy Directorate, Department of Industry
It shouldn't be too long.
3:55 p.m.
Senior Policy Analyst, Copyright and International Intellectual Property Policy Directorate, Department of Industry
The removal of the “knows or should have known” does clarify in terms of the knowledge element. The knowledge element, in a sense, is incorporated into the notion of the person providing the service primarily for that purpose, rather than having “knows or should have known” expressly provided.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Glenn Thibeault
We can stop. If you'd like, we can call the question on the amendment and then the clause can go from there, and we can make a decision.
I call the question on the amendment. Shall the amendment carry?
(Amendment agreed to on division)
Now moving to—
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Can I just move that we pass clauses 18 to 20 together?
3:55 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Glenn Thibeault
No, because there's an amendment to clause 18.
Is there any discussion on clause 18 as amended?
Shall clause 18 as amended carry?
(Clause 18 as amended agreed to on division)
3:55 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Glenn Thibeault
We will now break for the vote, and when we come back, we will start on clause 19.
We'll suspend and be back as soon as we can.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Glenn Thibeault
Welcome back, everyone.
In an effort to save time we'll jump right back to where we left off.
I believe we had you, Mr. Lake, and we were going to clause 19.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative