Bill C-32 (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.

Safeguarding Canadians' Personal Information Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the member from the New Democrat Party. I know that the member for Eglinton—Lawrence was on a roll about chihuahua governments, but I will bring him back to the issue at hand.

The member from the NDP asked what the government was doing about e-commerce. What 1995 language. It demonstrates a gap between what is actually happening in the digital field versus what was happening in the 1990s. I will speak on my own portfolio, as Minister of Canadian Heritage. We are proud of digitizing government content and ensuring that Canadian content is being supported as never before in the new media.

First, we put forward Bill C-32, a good-faith, comprehensive effort to modernize copyright legislation. We are prepared to work with all opposition parties to ensure that this legislation is effective. We have a stand-alone legislative committee, and this bill is going to go forward and help to advance in the digital economy. The first thing that the government has to do is protect people from those who want to harm Canada's creators by stealing from them, ripping them off and legitimizing piracy. We are going to do that.

There are other things that we have done in my department. We have created the Canada media fund. Previously, we had the Canada television fund and the Canada new media fund. To support digital products by Canada's creators, we merged the two to create the Canada media fund. We wanted to ensure that these products are available on the platforms that our media creators choose, not only to support television content but also to support new media, video games, stuff that is streaming online, and stuff that is available for download. We wanted to ensure that Canada's creators have access to more money than ever before to support the creation of content in the digital platform that they choose.

Although we were in a recession, we made a commitment in the last election campaign to maintain or increase funding for the CBC. We have kept our word. The reason is that the CBC has modernized itself. It has become a true pan-Canadian multimedia platform for Canadian content. We have worked with the CBC to ensure that this is the role that it performs. The National Film Board has iPad and iPhone apps that for the first time make it possible to stream Canadian digital content online. Tens of thousands of Canadian films and shorts, children's shows, and documentaries are available online, free, through the web, through iPad apps. We have gone across the board. There is a publications fund to support the digitization of magazines.

No other government in Canadian history has made a more comprehensive and aggressive effort to ensure the digitization of Canadian content and government information.

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

Thank you.

We've had the example of this great digital realm being like the Canadian Pacific Railway, yet it seems to me we continue to move on the idea that digital culture is something to be contained, as if we didn't want the railway to compete with the teamster horses so we have to limit how many tracks we're going to have.

Ms. Moore, I'd like to go to you on this. It seems to me that the notion of lifelong learning through digital education is crucial, yet we see with the imposition of digital locks. Rights that educators or students would normally have can be erased, and within Bill C-32 we actually see the provision of having to destroy class notes after 30 days because keeping your class notes would be some kind of threat.

I'd like to ask what you think of that. We look at our WIPO-compliant competitors, and within WIPO the digital lock provisions are really clear. Article 10 of the WIPO copyright treaty says that you can't use these measures like digital locks to override rights to normal use of a work. How do you think that allowing a software code designed by a corporation to limit, to deny, to exclude any kind of access arbitrarily will interfere with our ability to set up a truly forward-looking knowledge regime?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Moore, as far as Bill C-32 goes, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, it will be discussed by another committee. It will not be the industry committee doing the study, but a legislative committee. So even though it is very much related to today's topic, another committee will be carrying out the study. I just wanted to let you know that.

Good afternoon, and thank you all for being here. Mr. Hennessy, we have discussed this issue before. You are here today to talk about emerging and digital media, and the opportunities, challenges and terms of reference that entails. That covers a number of elements. You had the choice of addressing any one or more of those aspects, and you chose to focus on foreign ownership.

According to your logic, if we open up telecommunications to foreign ownership—and we must first decide whether we are going to and, if so, to what extent—then we must also do so in broadcasting.

That concerns me on many levels because I get the sense that there would no longer be any limits at that point. I get the sense that you are willing to open up our companies that operate under the Telecommunications Act to foreign interests. You are also willing to open up companies that operate under the Broadcasting Act to foreign ownership.

Obviously, as you, yourself, said, everything is integrated. There is tremendous vertical integration. Just about everyone today is involved in telephone communications, broadcasting, content and so forth. I am very uncomfortable with the idea of opening things up that way, because I worry about what we would be left with in Canada. What would we be left with in terms of broadcasting companies and ultimately creative companies, those involved in producing content? If I were to apply your logic on liberalization, there would no longer be any limits whatsoever, and just about everything would be open. The way I see it, that would likely harm Canada's cultural industries.

So I want to know whether you envision any limits in your approach. For instance, should we open up only some of the broadcasting sector to foreign ownership, or all of it? In that case, should foreign ownership be limited to 49%, or should full ownership be allowed? Should these companies have to pass certain tests before they could be accepted? I would like you to elaborate a bit more on that, please.

[Kelly Moore, Executive Director, Canadian Library Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for this opportunity to participate in this committee's study of emerging and digital media.

My name is Kelly Moore. I'm the executive director of the Canadian Library Association. CLA is Canada's largest national and broad-based library association, representing the interests of public, academic, school, and special libraries, professional librarians, library workers, and trustees, and all those concerned about enhancing the quality of life of Canadians through information and literacy.

Libraries of all kinds serve two primary functions: to provide access to information in whatever format it is produced or used, and to preserve information to ensure that it may be accessed in future. The digital revolution has caused an explosion in both the quantity of information and the variety of formats being produced, and the rate of change in technology is impacting information in ways we may not even understand. Certainly without strong digital and information policies, we risk losing material simply because we can no longer access it in the format in which it was produced.

Libraries are working to keep pace with the necessary changes to the ways we provide access, the materials we collect, the formats we preserve. Long gone are the days when a library's information was measured by stacks of books and drawers of card catalogues. Today, libraries are true centres of information within communities, schools, research institutions, and public and private sector work environments. In terms of digital information, libraries provide access not just to the Internet generally but also to electronic databases, e-journals, data sets, and other resources that are impractical or unaffordable for individuals themselves to maintain.

Libraries in Canada have some demonstrated successes with emerging and digital media. One key example is the metadata that allows digital images to be retrieved and which was developed by librarians. In Canada, initiatives such as Canadiana.org, already mentioned by Mr. Wilson, and the OurOntario project are using this metadata to help researchers access the digital files of items held in various different collections through a single search. It's no longer necessary to know that you must search for particular items in the holdings of a specific institution; you can find related items located in different physical spaces through a single virtual access point.

I would like to highlight some suggestions that CLA believes will help Canadians to meet the challenges and take advantage of the opportunities presented by emerging and digital media. For the most part, they will speak to questions 4, 5, and 6 in the terms of reference that this committee set out for the study. I will look at the need for a national digital strategy, the effect on copyright, access to broadband services, and the importance of open access to public information.

So what policies can the federal government develop to ensure that Canadians have both access to emerging and digital media and the skills needed to make the best use of the opportunities that these media provide? The first is the development of a national digital strategy. As has been mentioned in earlier submissions, various countries around the world have been investing in national strategies to take advantage of digital initiatives. Canada has no such plan to strategically digitize existing analog material to make it available online and to preserve and provide ongoing access to digitized or born-digital material. At present, there is no comprehensive overview of digitization projects already under way across the country. Efforts to develop and implement the national digital strategy are crucial to ensure that all information of enduring value to Canadians is and will continue to made accessible.

Such a digital strategy must also take into account the need for access to information at all stages of life. Canada's classrooms now have access to an unparalleled assortment of Internet and electronic copyrighted resources that allow for excellent access to information; however, too often access to such resources is limited to students, and there is often little opportunity for similar levels of access after students graduate. So these same resources must become seamlessly available to individuals as they progress through their careers. This will require support for the creation and purchase of digital content available to Canadians through public and academic libraries and in their work environments. In short, we must not let the fact that someone is no longer a student limit their ability to learn.

We must pass and implement a balanced copyright legislation. It is important to underline how decisions we make about copyright today will affect access in the future. CLA has issued a position paper on Bill C-32, and I believe that this committee, in some capacity, will be dealing with it in the coming months, but it is important here to reinforce the need for balanced copyright to truly benefit from emerging and digital media.

While there are elements of the bill that are very good, we are concerned that Bill C-32, as written, is not balanced. It provides copyright holders of material in an electronic format with almost unlimited power to determine the conditions under which people may use the material.

Libraries are built on the concept that most creative and innovative individuals cannot afford to purchase all of the material they must consult during their lives. All copyrighted material should be reasonably available through libraries, and copyright holders should not be allowed to lock out public use. Digital locks will act as a brake on the development of new applications and services. Allowing copyright holders the ability to determine how their products will be used creates barriers to the development of content for the new digital media.

The third point is to ensure access to sufficient bandwidth. In consideration of the impact of digital media, it is important that we think about how this information actually gets to users. There's a need to ensure that all Canadians have the means to access services and cultural content. Certainly access to broadband Internet in rural areas is a challenge that can affect the ability to take advantage of digital media. It is equally important to recognize that while there is sufficient bandwidth in most Canadian cities, cities are also places where the economically disadvantaged, new Canadians, and people with special needs who require services tend to reside. These Canadians often cannot afford broadband access, even when it is physically available to them. In order to participate in the digital environment, many urban residents also need high-speed Internet access in public places.

Libraries are here to fill this role. As Canada develops more digital content, more Canadians, both rural and urban, will turn to libraries for assistance. The reasons are clear. Libraries offer direction, assistance, and access to the technologies people require. For example, it is almost impossible for unemployed Canadians to find appropriate jobs without regularly checking online sites and having the ability to submit resumés electronically. The community access program offers some rudimentary access in this regard but is currently without secure funding. As we move forward, it will be important that CAP is strengthened and guaranteed.

The final point is to implement open access policies for public information and data. Emerging digital media requires content, and quality content can be developed through open access to Canada's public sector information and data. We encourage the government to make its information freely available in machine-readable formats based on common standards that can be exploited without the use of specific software.

There should also be a mandate from all major federal granting agencies that requires open access to publicly funded research. All researchers supported by Canadian taxpayers would be required to make public the published results of their research and the research data, with an embargo period of no more than six months. This initiative has already been undertaken in other national jurisdictions.

I want to thank you again for the opportunity to appear here today, and I will welcome any questions you might have. Thank you.

[Anne-Marie Jean, Executive Director, Culture Montréal]

Mr. Vice-chair, ladies and gentlemen, members of the committee.

Ladies and gentlemen, good morning.

Culture Montréal would like to emphasize the importance of maintaining and strengthening support for culture and the arts as a way of stimulating the economy.

Culture Montréal is an independent organization and place for reflection and action that contributes to building Montreal's future as a cultural metropolis through research, analysis, and communication activities. Culture Montréal contributes to the branding of Montreal as a cultural metropolis at the national and international levels.

Over the years, many studies have shown that culture and the arts are powerful levers for social and economic development. The arts and culture sector is resilient, very flexible and creates jobs. Investing in it stimulates the economy, thereby helping the federal government in its bid to rebalance the budget.

A recent study done by the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal, Culture in Montreal: Economic Impacts and Private Funding, found that the cultural sector generates close to 100,000 direct jobs in the city, with an annual growth rate of 4.6% for the last 10 years, almost three times the total labour market average.

Another study carried out in 2009, L’économie des arts en temps de crise, showed the instability of artistic and cultural organizations in Quebec while also highlighting their exceptional resilience and flexibility during the economic downturn. Cultural organizations proposed various short-term solutions and came up with innovative long-term solutions that would encourage development and protect the sector from future economic disruptions.

Culture Montréal believes that to improve the competitiveness of the Canadian economy, Canada must pursue its strategic plans to encourage investment, creating sustainable jobs that will last beyond Canada's Economic Action Plan. This is why looking ahead to the 2011 budget, Culture Montréal recommends that the federal government increase its investment in the arts and culture sector to ensure that it grows and to maximize the economic and social spinoffs; that it encourage international recognition for Canadian artists and creators; that it contribute more to developing and maintaining cultural infrastructure, and more specifically increasing and improving areas to create, produce and broadcast and that it continue developing the Lachine canal, Old Montreal, the Old Port of Montreal and the Bassins du Nouveau Havre; that it establish new support measures for encouraging attendance at artistic and cultural events and for acquiring works of art; that it enact legislation to preserve and value our cultural heritage and pair it with an action plan with the provinces and territories, in keeping with the international conventions Canada has signed; that it establish a policy to integrate arts and architecture in federal buildings and that it increase access to employment insurance for all self-employed workers to create a better social safety net in Canada.

Without taking away from what we have already accomplished, the legislation should contain provisions allowing self-employed workers to join a public employment insurance system.

In conclusion, we wish to have the Government of Canada recognize the essential contribution of artists to the social and economic development of Canada and of Canadians, and that this recognition be made clear in all its policies, programs and bills. Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, for instance, must guarantee artists adequate compensation and value intellectual property. Creators, like all other Canadians, must be able to make a decent living from the fruits of their labour.

Thank you for your attention.

[Chris Tabor]

The tariff was first adopted in 1998-99 as part of, coincidently, Bill C-32. The policy impact statement was vague then. So the purpose of it, for us, has always been questionable. There's no explanation as to what the intended benefits would be, how they would--

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

We want to know why the agreement is not being negotiated by an existing forum. In particular, as far as Bill C-32 is concerned, how can Heritage Canada and the Government of Canada put copyright legislation on the table while they are negotiating at the same time copyright arrangements with other countries.

Fighting Internet and Wireless Spam Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I was going to start off with some of the technical matters at the very beginning, including the title of the bill and some of the functions in clause-by-clause material, but I do want to pick up on one thing that was brought up by my colleague from Sudbury.

He talked about seniors, and this is a perfect illustration of why we work in this House to legislate practices like this, because many seniors now are using devices such as Facebook and text messaging. Pictures can be transferred through our phones now and that sort of thing. A lot of seniors get these emails and a lot of them become victims as a result in many cases. One of the reasons is that it is hard for public relations campaigns, such as Crime Stoppers and others, to keep the pace going with the methods with which they are communicating and getting their bad products out there. It started out with just emails. Now we have things such as text messaging and Facebook.

My hon. colleague brings up a good point. We are looking at victims now, and because the seniors' ranks are becoming much larger because of what we call the baby-boom effect, we do have to keep pace with legislation much more quickly than we have been thus far. I would have to say that we have been a little too delayed in this particular bill, but nonetheless we have it here and it is nice to see that all parties are in support and that we are going to do this exercise once again. I say “once again”, because we started out with Bill C-27, which was left over from the last session. Now we find ourselves with Bill C-28, and some modifications have taken place since then, which I will touch upon in just a few moments, but this indeed does look to enact an electronic commerce protection act, prohibiting the sending of electronic commercial messages, or spam email, without the prior consent of recipients.

One of the key elements of this is going to be the idea of consent and just how we have to formalize this. Not only that, but we have had to expand the idea of what consent means, whether it is implied or not. As we know, if we are dealing with websites, many of them prompt us for contact information and there is always that disclaimer or a box that we have to click on, giving consent to receive unsolicited email. That has to be brought into context.

We have to talk about the international context, which my hon. colleague from Mississauga South mentioned earlier. That is to say that in the context of the G8 we are the last ones to get on board, so it is time we saddled up to this particular issue and did it the right way. I would implore all members to send this to committee as soon as possible, similar to the last go-round with Bill C-27. Some modifications were made in Bill C-27 that help with the language and allow it to be a little more flexible.

This is not on the floor yet, but when we talk about the copyright bill, Bill C-32, which is on the order paper and hopefully will come up for debate pretty soon, we are looking at ways in which the context of digital technology is changing the way we act as legislators. Flexibility is required. Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will agree with me that in the context of flexibility, the legislation has to be devised and written so that it can be enforced in a way that gives people protection and preserves their rights but at the same time goes after the people out to do nefarious things, in other words, circumvent laws, whether it be about copyright and digital locks in Bill C-32 or, in this particular case, getting around the consent for people to receive this information. Sometimes these people are very deceptive. They pretend to be what they are not. They shroud themselves in a realm of legitimacy.

Whether they call themselves a bank or a financial institution, they parade themselves as such and become a part of a person's life or know they can get involved in a person's life by pretending to be something that has a great reputation. With the imagination of using emails, Facebook and messaging, they have ways of doing this. It seems there are advances every day in the criminality of this type of activity. So we have to look at that.

The other issue we have to look at, of course, is digital technology itself and how it proliferates in a short period of time. When we first tackled the issue in the House, we looked at it through a panel. We set up a panel to decide how we were going to deal with all the spam email. Billions of dollars every year are spent on trying to cut down on spam email. It now constitutes the majority of traffic around the world when it comes to e-commerce and emailing in general, for that matter.

We can well imagine that back then, as it was becoming a problem, we set up a panel. That was in 2004 and 2005 when we were primarily looking at emails. There was just that one form of communication that we were focused on. Since then, we have text messages and Facebook, which was not looked at in 2004-05 as it is a relatively new concept, and other modes of communication such as texting.

Right now, Mr. Speaker, I can take a picture of you and send it around the world. How about that?

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

Madam Speaker, I was not really prepared to discuss this question from my Bloc Québécois colleague, but we are here to discuss the important matter of the firearms registry. I will take this opportunity to point out that our government is against a new tax, which goes against the interests of consumers, on iPods, BlackBerrys, computers, automobiles, laptops and anything else that is capable of playing music. But that is what the Bloc Québécois is proposing.

I understand the concerns she has raised about copyright, and that is why our government introduced Bill C-32, which would modernize our country's copyright laws. We conducted unprecedented consultations to ensure that everyone was involved in the copyright debate. As a result of our consultations, we introduced Bill C-32, a very responsible bill for both consumers and artists.

What we are talking about here is the fact that the NDP, the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois want to impose a huge new tax on consumers. The last time that the Bloc Québécois spoke here, the last time that this tax was proposed, it was a new $75 tax on every iPod, BlackBerry, computer and laptop, on anything that is capable of playing music.

This idea of imposing a new tax on iPods and MP3 players is not a new idea because there are very few new ideas, unfortunately, that come from the opposition on the issues of copyright and taxes. However, this idea is really toxic and, frankly, really dumb. This would punish consumers if we were to put in place a tax of up to $75 on iPods, Blackberries, cell phones, laptops, computers, memory sticks and automobiles, anything that is capable of playing digital music.

I understand the idea of modernizing the private copying levy and I understand the desire, but every time the opposition has come up with an idea with regard to this, I can say, as we have looked at this issue and we have struggled with this issue, that it gets very tricky.

This simplistic idea that has been put forward by the opposition, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Liberal Party, with regard to a new iPod tax is incredibly shortsighted and it is an incredibly bad idea for consumers. It is not the way to go. We have artist after artist who has come forward and said that this is not the way to go.

We will go forward as a government will Bill C-32, the modernizing copyright legislation. We are prepared to work with the opposition parties to ensure the legislation is in the interest of consumers and in the interest of creators. We will not support an amendment to our copyright bill that puts in place a massive new tax on consumers. We will not support that. It will not happen.

However, we are more than prepared to take forward reasonable ideas to ensure that artists' creations are protected and to ensure that just compensation and the framework for that, through effective copyright legislation, goes forward. We also want to ensure that the legislation takes care of what is in the best interests of consumers.

This idea from the Bloc Québécois is a massive tax increase on consumers. It does not achieve the balance that we want to achieve, which is in the interest of consumers and creators, and we will block every effort by the NDP and the Bloc Québécois to put forward any tax on consumers that will punish consumers and do nothing that is in the long-term interest of creators.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to be back in the late show once again. As you know, I have often taken part because we never get good answers to the questions we ask in the House. Question period is aptly named; it certainly is not answer period.

On April 20, I asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage a question in the House because he had stated the day before that only ADISQ was in favour of a royalty on MP3s. Everyone knows that an MP3 royalty is not a tax. It is money paid to a collective society that distributes rights, and that money is redistributed to artists according to a complex but fair formula.

Members of all of our households have purchased CDs and made copies for our MP3 players. We used to burn copies on blank CDs to play in our cars, and long before that, we made copies on four-track cassettes. These days, we are making fewer and fewer copies on four-track cassettes and CDs.

The current law, a descendant of the long-ago Bill C-42, recognizes the principle of private copying. We know that people make copies for themselves, and that is why royalties exist. They compensate for the shortfall in copyright revenue that artists might receive. They do not exist to legalize copying for any purpose or in any way whatsoever. Their purpose is not to market copies—anything but. They exist so that consumers do not feel like thieves every time they make a personal copy to listen to on their computer or MP3 player.

Of course we cannot purchase as many original CDs by a single artist as we have devices in our homes. The principle of private copying allows a family that purchases a CD to copy it to various media. Naturally, when the current legislation was passed in 1995, MP3 players did not exist. They do now. We are asking, have asked and will continue to ask the government, in the next few weeks, months and over the course of the year, when discussing Bill C-32, to update the legislative provisions for private copying by ensuring that not only will there be a levy on CDs, not only will there be a levy on cassettes, but there will also be a levy on MP3 players such as iPods. Nothing more, nothing less.

I know that in a few minutes my Conservative colleague will reply that it will cost $75 per device. An amount has never been set but it is obvious that this is a reasonable amount. We pay 29¢ in royalties on all blank cassettes and CDs. That is not a tax. We said it before and we will say it again. It is not in any way a tax. A tax is paid to government but in this case the payment goes to the artists. It is quite simply a royalty paid to artists. We already do this when we purchase an original CD of a musical work because a portion of the money is paid to the artist for copyright.

That was the purpose of my question.

Copyright

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

Mr. Speaker, groups of Quebec's artists, creators, authors, publishers and even consumers are opposed to Bill C-32 on copyright because the bill ignores the consensus of the Quebec cultural community concerning the remuneration of artists through levies on digital audio recorders and through making Internet service providers more accountable.

Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages admit that everyone in Quebec is opposed to his copyright vision, which benefits neither creators nor consumers?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, that was remarkable. The member jumped back and forth between both groups on both sides and talked both in favour of stronger, more prohibitive copyright legislation and weaker copyright legislation in the exact same speech. It is remarkable.

When we write a copyright bill, such as Bill C-32, it is about the appropriate balance.

The member is going to get angry when I say this. She has advocated on behalf of a tax on iPods, MP3s, laptops, PDAs, and BlackBerrys. She wants to put a tax on them. She wants consumers to pay this tax into some conglomerate fund which would then trickle down to the artists. We do not want to tax consumers.

She talked about how consumer groups are upset about digital locks. It is interesting. I gather from the member's speech that she is in favour of circumvention of digital locks. These are the technological protection measures that would protect against people buying a DVD, putting it on their computer and then sending it out to the Internet.

Under her provision, she is saying that they should be able to do that. It would not pay actors and it certainly would not pay the movie companies, but she is saying that she would put a levy on iPods and so forth so that she could then give the money to music artists for people who break the digital locks on movies and then send them out to the Internet. This does not make any sense at all. The people at home have to be confused. As I talk this out, her positions are in complete contrast with one another.

Bill C-32 is about balance. It is about balancing the rights of consumers and the rights of rights holders. That is why groups across the spectrum, musicians, actors, film companies, students, schools, have come forward and said that it is a balanced bill. Is it perfect? It is pretty tough to write a perfect copyright bill by its very nature. People are going to say they would really like to have just a little bit more rights one way or the other. Consumers would like just a bit more liberty in some ways and rights holders would like to have a bit more protection in some ways. It is about balancing the two.

What people cannot do is argue both in favour of stronger copyright rules and weaker copyright rules and somehow come out with a bill at the other end.

What she has proposed in her speech just a few minutes ago would anger artists and consumers at the exact same time. The member comes from Quebec. I am sure she knows that Montreal is the number three destination for the creation of video games in the world. The position the member is arguing is contrary to those software creators. They are the ones who are asking for technological protection measures to protect the work they are doing in the video game software industry. I cannot believe she would argue that we should not have digital locks on these things.

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

Mr. Speaker, on April 19, I asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages a question in this House about royalties on MP3s and copyrights. The minister told me to wait to see his bill in order to discuss it with full knowledge of the facts. I can now discuss it with full knowledge of the facts, for we have seen the bill.

The minister was tweeting again today on Twitter. He said that Bill C-32 was fair and had broad and deep support from across Canada, including from consumers, provincial ministers, the software industry, the music, film and television industries, small businesses, chambers of commerce and photographers.

Nothing could be further from the truth. We have seen that creators, artists, cultural organizations and the publishing community do not support this bill. Only businesses support it. I do not know what planet he lives on if he really believes that the bill has broad support across Canada.

Every day we receive press releases, open letters and opinion pieces criticizing this bill. I receive them from people not only from Quebec, but from the rest of Canada.

Today, the Canadian Consumer Initiative wrote to the minister to tell him that he was completely out to lunch on Monday, when, in answer to a question, he told me that this bill had the support of consumers and that the Canadian Chamber of Commerce acts in the best interests of the Conservatives, I mean consumers. That was a Freudian slip. It acts in the best interests of the Conservatives, not consumers.

The Canadian Consumer Initiative set the record straight and again condemned the protection of digital locks and the anti-circumvention provisions in the current bill. The letter goes on to say that, in the opinion of the initiative's members, the bill's provisions undermine Canadian consumer interests. I am not the one saying this; it is the Canadian Consumer Initiative, which is made up of four of Canada's largest consumer associations: the Consumers Council of Canada, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, Option consommateurs and the Union des consommateurs.

When the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages confuses a chamber of commerce with a consumer advocacy group, we wonder where we are going with this sort of argument. We wonder whether it is really worthwhile talking to someone who does not know what he is talking about.

Today, the Association nationale des éditeurs de livres, ANEL, weighed in on this issue. It said that its board of directors had voted on a strong resolution against Bill C-32. According to ANEL, which is a Canada-wide association, new exceptions to fair use will deprive copyright holders of income they would normally receive. After examining all the provisions as a whole, in an attempt to anticipate the effects of the marketplace, the ANEL board of directors concluded that the bill would lead to the collapse of educational publishing, create serious difficulties for their collective and represent an obstacle to the development of its digital strategy. ANEL also concluded that it was a direct attack on traditional Quebec values of support for creators.

I would like to take a few moments to talk about AGAMM, which includes almost every big name in the Quebec music industry. This organization proposed that the minister have Internet service providers make a financial contribution consisting of a percentage of their sales revenues to music rights holders.

I do not have time to talk about ADISQ. I will let my colleague answer and come back to that.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-32, which we introduced in the House of Commons, is fair to both consumers and creators.

The Canadian Film and Television Production Association applauds the government’s proposed copyright reform. Film, television and online content creation is responsible for more than 160,000 jobs in Canada.

The government’s actions play an important part in ensuring that those jobs are maintained and that new jobs are added. We kept the promises that we made to creators and consumers.

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

Mr. Speaker, artists and creators are very critical of Bill C-32, the copyright bill. The bill's new digital lock will not help, because they will have to play the part of investigator, detective and lawyer—just like Claude Robinson—if they want their rights to be respected.

Does the minister understand that by forcing creators, artists and artisans to enforce their rights themselves, he is not giving copyright holders enough protection?