Copyright Modernization Act

An Act to amend the Copyright Act

This bill was last introduced in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session, which ended in March 2011.

Sponsor

Tony Clement  Conservative

Status

In committee (House), as of Nov. 5, 2010
(This bill did not become law.)

Summary

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

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

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

November 29th, 2010 / 4:10 p.m.
See context

Liberal

Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON

At the risk of repeating myself, but also perhaps to provide some guidance to you, Chair, and your researchers, it might be helpful if at the next meeting this wonderful compilation done by our clerk is put in the form of theme. This would accord with what Mr. Angus has said, but also I think would be worth bearing out if we can actually break these down into categories.

I recognize that there are some people from particular areas who are going to want to talk about all aspects of Bill C-32, so it would be very difficult to pigeonhole these organizations into groups and those who wish to be witnesses, but it might be helpful in terms of us crafting the way ahead and the next steps.

Once again, in my experience one of the best ways to proceed is to know where you're going.

November 29th, 2010 / 3:30 p.m.
See context

Bloc

Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC

Before we begin our business, I would simply like to provide some information that I think is very important for committee members. Some 100 of Quebec's most prestigious artists, most highly renowned at the local, Quebec and international levels, will be coming here to Parliament Hill to tell us what they think about Bill C-32. They'll be here tomorrow between noon and 1:00 p.m. in Room 200 of the West Block.

Our visitors will include Luc Plamondon, who, as you know, is one of the most famous lyricists in Quebec and in the entire international francophone community. There will also be Robert Charlebois, Michel Rivard, Ariane Moffatt, younger artists such as Marie Mai, and the groups Mes Aïeux, Kaïn and Karkwa. There will be about 100 very well-known artists coming to talk to us about Bill C-32.

Obviously, if they are coming to speak with us, we should at least be polite enough to go and meet and listen to them. I expect Mr. Del Mastro, for example, parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, to be there and to go and meet the artists, who are coming here specifically to talk to us.

Thank you.

November 29th, 2010 / 3:30 p.m.
See context

Conservative

The Chair (Mr. Gordon Brown (Leeds—Grenville, CPC)) Conservative Gord Brown

Good afternoon, everyone. This is the fourth meeting of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-32.

Welcome. It's going swimmingly, I hear.

We're here today, after having heard from the ministers and departmental officials in the last meeting, to discuss the planning of our future work of the committee and the path forward. Our discussions are open to the public.

You have three documents in front of you. The first one you have is the legislative summary that was prepared by the Library of Parliament. You also have a blank calendar that shows the days of the weeks that we have before the Christmas recess, which would include, as we are currently planning, meetings on Mondays and Wednesdays, from 3:30 to 5:30, which would mean this meeting plus five more before the break. You also have before you a list of potential witnesses. It's a rather thick document that contains roughly 200 potential witnesses, those who have either had their names put forward by the parties or who have requested to see the committee on their own.

I'd like to see us get a work plan coming out of today's meeting. I think we should probably at least try to plan to have some witnesses for Wednesday's meeting.

Madame Lavallée, you have the floor.

CopyrightOral Questions

November 26th, 2010 / 11:35 a.m.
See context

Peterborough Ontario

Conservative

Dean Del Mastro ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage

Mr. Speaker, as we have noted before, the opposition coalition has never seen a tax it did not like. In fact it has never seen one it would not hike. We know that for a fact.

Loreena McKennitt, Juno Award winning singer-songwriter said, “I would oppose the iTax. I would rather have a strict and predictable business model in which to conduct my business.

We can have that today. By unanimous consent, we could pass the copyright reforms today. Let us pass Bill C-32.

November 25th, 2010 / 10:30 a.m.
See context

Colette Downie Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Department of Industry

Thank you for the question.

A number of provisions in Bill C-32 deal with the things you're mentioning. Some of the key provisions include provisions that promote computer program innovation, allowing third-party software companies to do things like engage in the development of new programs for software interoperability, error correction, reverse engineering, and security testing.

There are provisions that allow for technical reproductions of copyrighted material, things that are done every day now, like buffering or temporary copies of e-mails as they're downloaded. Even photocopiers sometimes make and temporarily retain copies of documents that would be technically infringing.

The provisions also encourage the development of new technologies by updating existing exceptions in the Copyright Act to encourage the development of new technologies like the Network PVR or the introduction of those technologies.

In addition, the bill targets those who promote and profit from copyright infringement, prohibiting the sale of tools or services to enable hacking of digital locks, with penalties for those who profit from that activity.

In addition, it gives strong new legal tools for companies like video game developers, to protect the investments they've made in their product so they can further innovate and provide jobs for Canadians.

November 25th, 2010 / 10:30 a.m.
See context

Conservative

Peter Braid Conservative Kitchener—Waterloo, ON

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the officials from both departments for being here this morning.

I have questions for both departments. I'll start with the officials from Industry Canada, if I could.

When your boss, the minister, was here for the first hour, he spoke to us in very clear terms about how important the burgeoning digital economy is. He described Bill C-32 as complementing the digital media strategy that's also in the process of being developed. Both of these initiatives go hand in hand.

Could you please describe why Bill C-32 is so important for companies like RIM and OpenText, who lead the pack in terms of digital media, digital economy companies, and why Bill C-32 is important for the next RIM and the next OpenText?

November 25th, 2010 / 10 a.m.
See context

Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Sector, Department of Industry

John Connell

Turning to page 7, one theme that frequently emerged during the copyright consultations was technological neutrality. The bill includes provisions that are technologically neutral and reflect the reality of an ever-evolving media and technological landscape.

For consumers, the bill includes private-use exceptions that are not tied to a specific technology. It will ensure that businesses have the freedom to introduce innovative products and services, like the network PVR.

The bill includes clear exceptions that permit educational institutions and libraries to make better use of new digital technologies. For teachers and students, this includes an exception that will allow for the copying and communication, for educational purposes, of material publicly available on the Internet and not protected by a technological protection measure. It also includes an exception that will allow for the use of innovative technologies such as Smart Boards in classrooms, by extending the scope of current reproduction for instruction beyond specific media such as dry erase boards and flip charts.

Thirdly, at the same time, to ensure creators' ability to advance new digital business models, the bill provides copyright owners with remedies against those who circumvent technological protection measures or digital locks applied online or on CDs or DVDs to prevent unauthorized access to copying of their digital material.

Finally, the bill, as the ministers mentioned this morning, includes a requirement for a review of the Copyright Act by Parliament every five years to ensure it remains responsive to a changing environment.

This concludes our overview of Bill C-32.

Jean-Pierre, Colette, Barbara, and I would now like to answer your questions.

November 25th, 2010 / 9:50 a.m.
See context

John Connell Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Sector, Department of Industry

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Pierre and I would like to present a short overview deck on Bill C-32, and I'd like to begin with three messages.

The first is one of thanks to you, the members of the special committee that's been established to review the bill. We know you've made a significant commitment, given the strong interest in the bill among Canadians. Your scrutiny, your time, and your effort are invaluable to us in the public service.

The second is, as officials, we'd be pleased to meet the committee at any time for technical briefings or bilaterally with any member of the committee to answer questions you might have. I find the field of copyright is both wide and complex, and as public servants our interest and duty are to help you understand the need for legislative amendments and all the issues that arise.

The third is that it's time for Canada to modernize its copyright law. There is a variety of reasons to do so, ranging from lining up with best practices and obligations that Canada has internationally, to reflecting advances in new digital technologies. We think this Parliament has a historic opportunity to update the Copyright Act and the Departments of Canadian Heritage, Industry, and other interested departments will spare no effort in assisting you in this task.

Turning to page 2 of the deck, in the last Speech from the Throne, the government committed to strengthening the laws that govern intellectual property and copyright “to encourage new ideas and protect the rights of Canadians whose research, development and artistic creativity contribute to Canada's prosperity”.

This bill will modernize the Copyright Act. It will provide clear copyright rules to support creativity and innovation, as well as contribute to economic growth and job creation. The bill offers a balanced approach between the rights and interests of users and the creative community to grow and prosper in the growing digital economy in response to a wide array of views and issues that were raised by Canadians in 2009.

I'd like to emphasize that Bill C-32 strives toward a common sense middle ground. It will be impossible to accommodate all known interests and proposals, and victory on this bill will be very much defined by where Parliament finds the centres on the issues before you.

Again, we look forward to assisting you with that task.

November 25th, 2010 / 9:50 a.m.
See context

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gord Brown

We're going to call back to order this third meeting of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-32.

We have before us now departmental officials from both Canadian Heritage and the Department of Industry. We have Jean-Pierre Blais, Barbara Motzney, John Connell, and Colette Downie.

To our officials, you have the floor.

November 25th, 2010 / 9:40 a.m.
See context

Conservative

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

Yes, but it's difficult to calculate that fully. We are talking about technologies that change on a daily basis. You would like to identify the financial consequences for each and every artist since the advent of MP3 players, but it is absolutely impossible.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to raise a point of order, if I may, because the fact is we are here to talk about Bill C-32. What you are talking about is not included in this bill. We are not blind, but when we held our consultations, we listened to what people had to say.

As I was pointing out to Ms. Lavallée, no group brought forward balanced proposals reflecting the interests of both consumers and creators. When the bill was tabled on June 2, we forwarded it to all Bloc Québécois MPs and every member of Parliament in the House of Commons. So, if you have comments on the bill, we are interested in hearing them.

We know that Mr. Angus has presented his own views and that he would like there to be royalties paid through the creation of a new tax on iPods and other technologies. We do not agree with him.

If you have any ideas, we would like to hear them. However, what you are referring to has nothing to do with the bill, because we have not included that in this policy. In fact, it's impossible to--

November 25th, 2010 / 9:40 a.m.
See context

Bloc

Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

Mr. Clement, Mr. Moore, I listened to your presentation and, from the very beginning, I've had the sense that we are talking, not so much about the Copyright Act, but about a bill on technological developments which is intended to help business.

We basically were asking whether you had done an extensive impact study in order to determine what creators would be losing, permanently, if Bill C-32 were to pass. There are income losses for artists here, but nothing is being offered in the way of assistance. There are net losses.

Also, Mr. Lake is comparing renumeration for artists and creators. They talk about a tax. Of course consumers will have to pay, but they are always the ones who pay. The users are always the ones who pay. They pay us and they pay you.

A survey was done in January, 2010, and not by just anyone; it was carried out by the Praxicus Public Strategies firm founded in 1999 by the Conservative pollster Dimitri Pantazopoulos. The results are pretty clear: 67% of Canadians support the idea of paying musical creators for private copies; 71% of Canadians feel that the current 29¢ levy on blank compact discs is fair to consumers; 71% of Canadians support royalties of between $10 and $20 for MP3s and iPods. You say that you're trying to defend consumers, but the fact is that they are willing to compensate artists and creators who create works for them.

Have you really assessed the economic repercussions of this bill for creators and the artistic community?

November 25th, 2010 / 9:35 a.m.
See context

Conservative

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

Mike, if I might, I would just add a little more momentum to that, especially on the education side. I say so because I think I didn't address Marc Garneau's comments. He raised the issue of education and that the Liberals are considering an amendment to this. Obviously, we'll wait to see the language of what's proposed, but we think this strikes an appropriate balance.

I had meetings this past week in my office with book publishers and those who are concerned about what the fair dealing provisions in the legislation might mean for them. Again, I know this is technical and complicated, and that's why copyright and intellectual property law is so difficult, in trying to imagine the unintended consequences going forward. That's why I'll bridge back to what I said in my opening comments about the five-year renewal of this legislation, that we'll learn some things as we go forward. This is not a case of our sitting here in the last week of November 2010 and saying we know for sure what the world will look like. We want to have an ongoing engagement on this.

But on the education provisions you mentioned, Mike, I just want to make sure that the committee knows that the Council of Ministers of Education, the ministers of education from across the country, came together and endorsed this legislation, Bill C-32, because they said this legislation “allows students and educators in elementary and secondary schools, colleges, and universities to have fair and reasonable access to...materials” that they need. And the Canadian Association of Research Libraries said they applaud the government because we have “respond[ed] to the copyright reform concerns expressed by the library and education community”. Students' organizations have also come out in support of this legislation because they think it helps students.

Now again, counterbalancing that with the needs of those who are providing and creating the educational materials is something that we've done our best to do in this legislation, but we think so far it strikes the right chord from what we've heard in our consultations.

November 25th, 2010 / 9:35 a.m.
See context

Conservative

Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm interested that all three opposition parties are continuing to talk about the iPod tax, and I'm going to start on that again. It's interesting to hear Mr. Rodriguez point to a levy as somehow not being the same as a tax. If we talk to our constituents and tell them that in addition to paying what they pay now for an iPod or a BlackBerry, they're going to pay some additional amount—$10, $20, $50, whatever it might be, even $75—my constituents are going to call it a tax and they're not going to be happy about it. I think we need to encourage Canadians to adopt new technology and to be able to purchase new technology, so they can consume the creative works they want to consume and can go out and purchase those creative works. That is what's going to further the interests of the industry, in my view anyway. It also seems to me to be something that's not covered in this bill. There are lots of great things that are covered in this legislation, and those are the things that we need to talk about.

At some point, Mr. Angus' private member's bill is going to come forward, and we can vote as we agree or don't agree with his legislation. Personally, I oppose that private member's bill, but certainly we can have a good debate on that when the time comes.

In terms of this bill and what it does, I just want to talk a little bit about the digital economy, particularly as it relates to students and the ability to flourish in an increasingly digital environment.

To Minister Clement, could you maybe highlight for us how Bill C-32 expands the ability of teachers and students to make use of digital technologies and copyrighted materials for the purpose of education?

November 25th, 2010 / 9:25 a.m.
See context

Conservative

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

You mentioned chambers of commerce.

Françoise Bertrand, President of the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec has stated that Bill C-32 is “critical to maintaining a competitive and stable business environment in Canada” and in Quebec for the benefit of artists and the cultural communities.

As Minister of Canadian Heritage, I don't want arts and culture in this country to become a hobby. I want people to derive an income from it, and I want them to be able to engage in the marketplace. Being able to engage in the marketplace means being able to protect what you're creating, with digital protection measures. It also means that the government has an obligation. The government has an obligation to take whatever legislative steps are reasonable and necessary to protect people who are being stolen from.

That's our obligation as members of Parliament and that's what this legislation seeks to do—to stop theft from people who are creating software, video games, televisions shows, and the new 3D technology. We're talking about patent protection for the creative community. That's what this is. We're allowing them to protect what they're creating and to engage in the marketplace. That's what this legislation does, and it takes us a great distance. People can be critical of what may not be in the legislation. But what is in this legislation—the ratification of WIPO, the fair-dealing policy, the digital protection measures—is a huge victory for all Canadians.

November 25th, 2010 / 9:20 a.m.
See context

Conservative

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

Ideas came forward in the consultations, but none of them are practical or workable in the transition that is happening right now in streaming digital media—video games, television shows, movies, and so on. We haven't seen a proposal that we think is workable or practical in the new era.

As Minister Clement said, this is an unnecessary attack on consumers. I don't think it serves our cultural communities to make it more expensive for consumers to consume Canadian culture. As Minister of Heritage, I can tell you that we spend in our department hundreds of millions of dollars every year to help Canadians to create Canadian music, to support theatre, to support television, movies, books, and so on. I don't think it makes it more expensive. I don't think it serves anybody to make it more expensive for Canadians to buy a Kindle or to read a Canadian author. I don't think that serves Canadian authors or consumers. It doesn't serve anybody. So I don't think it works. And I don't see any workable proposals. Even the proposal that Charlie has put forward has massive loopholes in it that would impose a massive tax on a number of items. Anything that has a hard drive would be subject to this proposal. That includes automobiles and devices that aren't used for listening to music.

Automobiles have hard drives, Charlie. I don't know what wagon you go to and from home in. Automobiles have hard drives to which you rip music. By the way, that happened many years ago, and this would be subject to the tax. Your proposal, your legislation, says that anything with a hard drive would be subject to this massive new tax. This would include pretty much every electronic device out there—memory sticks, automobiles, cellphones, laptops, computers, desktops, and everything in between. You're using a scattered approach to address a focused problem. We think the focused problem is that creative communities are being gutted because we don't have a strong intellectual property regime. With Bill C-32, we're trying to stop the stealing.