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.

Copyright Modernization Act

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

moved that Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, if it were possible I would like to split my time with my hon. colleague, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages.

I am pleased to speak today to begin second reading—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order, could I interrupt the minister? Is there agreement that the minister be allowed to split his time? I understand this requires consent.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Then it will be duly split. The hon. Minister of Industry.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying before you rightly interrupted me, I am pleased to speak today to begin second reading of Bill C-32, the Copyright Modernization Act.

This bill is a key pillar in the commitment this government made in the Speech from the Throne to position Canada as a leader in the global digital economy. We promised a bill that would modernize Canada's copyright law for the digital age, protect and create jobs, promote innovation and attract new investment to Canada.

With this bill, we are ensuring that Canada's Copyright Act is focused on the future and is responsive to an environment in which things happen quickly and change is constant.

A primary aim of any copyright reform must be balance. The copyright system must find a balance between interests that can seem to be competing, for example, between consumers who want access to material and artists and innovators who want to be and should be rewarded for their creativity.

However as hon. members are well aware, finding that balance can be and has been very difficult. It has eluded the House for over a decade, and balance for one group may be seen as unfair to another.

From July to September of last year, the hon. heritage minister and I held a national consultation on copyright issues. The bill before us was guided by the input of thousands of Canadians, creators, consumers, businesses, educators and intermediaries.

Let me begin with creators. During the consultations, creators told us they needed new rights and protections to succeed in a digital environment, and so the bill before us implements those kinds of rights and protections of the WIPO Internet Treaties and paves the way for a future decision on ratification.

The bill also empowers copyright owners to pursue those who enable copyright infringement, such as illegal peer-to-peer file sharing websites. At the same time, Canadians participating in the consultations told us they did not think it was fair for consumers to face exorbitant penalties for minor copyright infringement, and so the bill before us significantly reduces existing penalties for non-commercial infringement. It introduces the test of proportionality as a factor for the courts to consider when awarding statutory damages.

This brings me to the perspective of consumers and users. During the consultations, Canadians told us they wanted to use the content they had legally acquired. They wanted to time-shift television programs. They wanted to shift format from CDs to iPods. They wanted to post mashups on the web. They wanted to make backup copies.

Canadians will be able to record television, radio and Internet programming to enjoy it at a later time, if the bill is passed, with no restrictions as to the device or medium they wish to use. Just as important, this bill would remove any barriers in the Copyright Act to the introduction of new technologies like the network personal video recorder and cloud computing. The latter is critical to Canada's ability to participate in the digital world as a full partner. As well, for their private use, Canadians will be able to copy any legitimately acquired music, film or any other works on to any device or medium and make a backup copy.

There are some who would argue that consumers should have to pay a levy on iPods, smart phones and Internet services, the iPod tax as it were, to compensate artists. We disagree. We oppose the iPod tax as regressive, unfair and economically destructive. Why should consumers pay more for an iPhone or a BlackBerry even if the device is not used for music? It is unfair. It would make devices costlier, would not prevent piracy and would encourage more black markets.

Let us help artists by cracking down on those who would destroy value, not innocent purchasers of hardware.

Let us return to the provisions of the bill. The bill permits the inclusion of copyrighted material in user-generated content created for non-commercial purposes. The provisions will not interfere with markets for the original work, nor will they disrupt the growth of business models that have developed around the dissemination of user-generated content online.

The bill also includes important new measures for the print-disabled. Recognizing the opportunities that today's technology allows, it permits a person to adapt a copyright work into an accessible format on his or her own behalf.

For computer program innovators, the bill includes measures to enable activities related to reverse engineering for software interoperability, security testing and encryption research. It clarifies that the making of temporary technical and incidental reproductions of copyrighted material as a part of a technological process is acceptable.

What did we hear in our consultations from educators, museums and researchers? They told us that they needed more flexibility to use copyright material in the service of education and learning. The bill proposes new exceptions that would recognize the enormous potential that technology offers students.

The bill before us expands the existing uses allowed as fair dealing. It adds education, parody and satire, reconfirming this government's commitment to structured education and creativity.

We are building on a well-established feature of Canadian copyright law to respond to and meet the needs of educators, be they in the classroom, in a home-school setting or for training in the workplace.

Finally, let me outline how this bill responds to the needs of Internet service providers. The bill clarifies that ISPs and search engines are exempt from liability when they act strictly as intermediaries in communication, caching and hosting activities, but at the same time, ISPs will play a role in helping combat copyright infringement.

Fair, balanced and technologically neutral, this bill accomplishes all of these things, but it also helps our economy by encouraging two of the most powerful forces we have, consumers and creators. They are sometimes the same people. Regardless, they are the force that guarantees that Canadians are innovators and are capable of growing the knowledge economy. But consumers and creators cannot do it alone. They need modern copyright laws, and that is what Bill C-32 is all about.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the minister for finally getting to this issue. I do not lay blame on any particular party. This is an issue that we have been dealing with, but under the radar. We have seldom dealt with it in the House, which is what we should be doing, and I congratulate all members for getting involved in this particular debate.

Specifically regarding the WIPO ratification, could the minister please point out in this bill where we are WIPO compliant particularly? What has compelled him to be WIPO compliant?

As well, this particular government has already put in one copyright bill. That was from some time ago. What has changed in Bill C-32 from the prior bill that he has put in the House? What does he consider the fundamental change?

Finally, he talked about the iPod levy. Could he please point out in the bill where he addresses the iPod levy exactly?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, what I can say about the iPod levy is that it is not in the bill because we do not believe in it. If we believed in it, we would put it in the bill of course.

In terms of the main change in this bill compared to previous bills, including a Liberal bill back in the days of the previous Liberal government, I would say that the purpose of this bill is to be as technologically neutral as possible, to not specifically put in clauses dealing with iPods, PVRs or other technology that could change in five years, in two years. Who knows what will happen? Therefore what we tried to do with this bill was to make it principle-based and technologically neutral, so that the principles can be applied not only to the present technology but also the future technology. That is an important principle of the bill, so it can stand the test of time.

Finally, the bill is WIPO compliant. When we look at certain provisions such as the notice provisions, we believe those to be WIPO compliant. Cracking down on those who are destroying wealth by use of the Internet, by flouting copyright laws, that is consistent with WIPO. Basically we have WIPO-tested every provision of the bill and we find it to be WIPO compliant.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister of Industry for his speech. I will share the Bloc's position later on, but for now, one thing is really bothering me and has been nagging at me deep down.

How can a minister, a sensible and intelligent man, be unable to distinguish between taxes and royalties?

A tax is money that is collected from consumers and given to the government that is running the country. A royalty is money that is collected when a consumer purchases something and forwarded to a collective society, which redistributes this money to the copyright holders.

How can a minister not distinguish between those terms?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question. In my opinion, it is not a good policy for our country to adopt another tax on devices such as iPods or BlackBerrys because it is a direct tax for consumers.

The consumer decided that this device was not for music and other media such as film, for example, but at the same time there is a tax. That is not fair. It is not our policy to create another tax.

I would say that we are trying to be fair to people, and that means being fair to consumers. We have to be fair to artists too, but there are other ways that we can help artists maintain the value of their creation without taxing everyone who decides to buy a smart phone, an iPod or another device of that sort.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister of Industry for starting off this debate and I am very pleased to be a part of this as well as we take a historic step in this country.

We made a commitment as a government in the last election campaign, and also as part of our throne speech, that we would table new copyright legislation, and so we have. Bill C-32, the copyright modernization act, is our effort to get it right. The last time copyright legislation was dealt with in the House of Commons, there were some concerns raised by Canadians across the country and we have listened to those concerns. We have come forward with legislation that we think should have the support of enough members of Parliament in order to move Canada forward.

Canadians, more than ever before, are active consumers in digital media. We are increasingly purchasing our music online, as well as films and televisions shows. We are connecting with friends and colleagues via Facebook, Twitter and web interfaces in ways that were not imagined just a little over a year ago. As a country we have, by and large, fully embraced the Internet and how it has changed the way we innovate, create and live our lives.

Unfortunately, Canada's copyright regime has not kept up with the pace of change. The last time our copyright laws were updated, people were buying CDs and using pagers, not iPads and Netflix. The reality is that our copyright laws are older than most of the technologies that we enjoy today. That is why on June 2 of this year our government introduced Bill C-32 here in the House of the Commons.

We consulted Canadians before doing this. This bill reflects the diversity of opinions expressed during consultations held last summer. These consultations took the form of an interactive website, public meetings, round tables and written submissions from average Canadians. And because each region was included in these consultations, we received opinions from across Canada. Numerous Canadians spoke to the government, and it listened to them.

Copyright holders told us that their 21st-century business model depends on strong technological protection measures. And we listened: Bill C-32 contains protection measures such as digital locks to protect against piracy and to allow creators to choose how they wish to protect their works.

Artists and creators also told us that they deserve to be fairly compensated for their works, and we listened.

Likewise, consumers asked specifically for legislation that would reflect how content is delivered and stored in a myriad of devices. We listened, which is why this legislation, as the minister said, is technology neutral and clarifies for consumers the fact that they can now legally format shift and time shift the products they have purchased. Bill C-32 is forward-looking and flexible. It implements the WIPO treaties and brings Canada in line with international standards.

During our consultations last summer, Canadians were also clear with us on the issue of fair dealing. They wanted to see it expanded and improved. This bill accommodates that desire by adding education, parody and satire to the existing uses of what is called “fair dealing”. It recognizes legitimate rights of Canadian families, schools and libraries to make use of copyrighted materials for their purposes.

Canadians were also very clear that they do not want to pay unnecessary taxes or new levies on iPods, iPhones, laptops or computers, or even on automobile hard drives that CDs can be ripped directly into. We do not believe this is necessary. We do not think it is right. We think that is an old solution for an old problem and it does not embrace the fact of new media. Our government has been clear that we oppose any new tax or levy, which is why the levy issue has been left out of this legislation.

The government made a commitment to protect businesses, which are absolutely essential to Canada's economic success, and this commitment is at the centre of our copyright modernization bill.

I just want to let the House know about some of the support that this legislation has received. It has been broad based and quite substantial in terms of the number of people who have come on board to support this legislation.

The Entertainment Software Association of Canada, which represents Canada's video gaming industry, supports this legislation. It accounts for over 14,000 jobs across this country. In Montreal, Burnaby, Toronto and Charlottetown, P.E.I., in places all across this country, I met with video game and software developers who support this legislation. Here is what ESAC had to say. It believes this bill is “critical to the success of Canada’s digital economy”; it is good public policy and is essential to our economy. It said:

We applaud the government for showing leadership on this complex issue

The film and television industry also supports this legislation. Over 150,000 jobs are involved in this sector from coast to coast, representing $5.2 billion in the Canadian economy. The Canadian Film and Television Production Association said it applauds the government's copyright reform. The government is playing an important role “in ensuring that those jobs are maintained and that new jobs are added over time”.

Canada's recording industry is a multi-million dollar industry and producer of world-class musical acts in this country. It told us that it wants strong protection for artists to compete with the world's best. We agree and we listened. Let us hear what it has to say about our legislation. The CRIA applauds the government's copyright bill and says, “We thank the government for taking this step to protect the right of artists and other rights holders to earn a living from their work”. These changes are long overdue and welcomed by artists.

The artists themselves are supporting this legislation. Randy Bachman of BTO said the entertainment industry's ability to remain healthy is dependent upon a strong copyright framework. Bill C-32 is moving Canada into the digital and Internet age.

Juno Award winning artist Loreena McKennitt, who has sold over 13 million albums worldwide, said the changes proposed in the bill are “fair and reasonable”.

Independent recording artist Michelle McKibbon thanked the government for introducing Bill C-32, legislation “supporting...artists like myself”.

The Canadian Chambers of Commerce, representing approximately 300 of Canada's business associations and boards of trade, support the bill. They said they believe Bill C-32 “lays the foundation for future economic growth and job creation”.

The president of la Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec, Françoise Bertrand, believes that Bill C-32 is critical to ensuring a competitive and stable business environment in Canada.

The Canadian Council of Chief Executives, which represents over 150 executives across the country and companies representing $4.5 trillion in assets, supports this legislation. This is what the former Liberal deputy prime minister had to say about this bill. He said Bill C-32 “will provide badly needed protection to Canadians who create music, films, games and other digital works.” Business leaders say it will protect creators and consumers. The government has struck an appropriate balance with its legislation.

The Council of Ministers of Education, CMEC, which represents all of Canada's 13 provinces and territories and their ministers of education, supports this legislation. The chair of CMEC, the minister of education in Nova Scotia, a New Democrat, Marilyn More says:

This legislation provides the clarity we have been looking for.... It is excellent that the bill allows students and educators to use Internet materials in their learning and teaching activities without fear of copyright infringement.

Ministers of education across Canada have responded positively to this new copyright legislation.

We consulted Canadians and we listened to them. We took this course of action because our government and the members on this side of the House know that the contribution made to Canada's economy by Canadian digital industries cannot be downplayed.

Other people have come forward as well to support this legislation. We get the sense that support for this legislation is broad based and substantive, if we look at the folks who are supporting this bill: the television and film industry, the music industry, digital new media folks, the business community and individual artists.

The Canadian Association of Research Libraries said it applauds the government, which has responded to the copyright reform concerns expressed by the library and education community. It stated:

The government has clearly listened to what the library and education communities said

The Globe and Mail said the government's new copyright legislation should be passed.

The newspaper is right. We think this legislation should be passed.

I do not want to go much further into the substance of the legislation beyond what the Minister of Industry had to say, because I have limited time. However, there is one thing that he did not mention that is a critical element of this bill. I hope all members in the House who are interested in this legislation recognize this important element.

The bill mandates that Parliament, every five years, will be forced to revisit and continually modernize Canada's copyright regime. So whether people have concerns about specific elements of this bill and think we should do a little bit more here and a little less there, the reality is that this legislation is an tectonic shift in Canada's regime with regard to copyright reform. We are forcing Parliament, from now forward, to forever make sure that Canada's copyright regime stays up to date.

Canada has not elected a majority Parliament since November 2000. It has been 10 years. As a result of the realities of minority Parliaments, often it is politically challenging for governments to be willing to step forward and to engage in the copyright issue. This legislation forces Parliament, regardless of political pressures, to make sure that Canada's copyright regime stays on the cutting edge so that Canada can continue to create jobs, so that we maintain the reputation that we have around the world as being not only an innovator and a leader in new technology, but also one of those countries that protects the rights of creators to have their works protected by law.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have been contacted in the last couple of weeks by Alberta small book publishers, including those who publish educational materials. They are very concerned about the implications of Bill C-32, which they consider provides broad access and use free of charge by educators that impacts the revenues of these small Canadian publishers and their continued existence.

I wonder how extensively the government consulted with small Canadian publishers. Did it meet with the Alberta small publishers association to review their concerns about the impacts on collective licensing?

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

Madam Speaker, we really wanted to leave no stone unturned when it comes to the consultation. We not only stayed in Ottawa and put up a website but went around the country and spoke to communities all across Canada.

If memory serves, there was in fact a round table that took place in Edmonton and we invited stakeholders to come in. If people could not participate in the round table there, they were invited to participate in our online forums. They were invited to participate in writing as well. One of the reasons that with this legislation we are going forward with a stand-alone legislative committee is because that committee can decide its own workload, its own hours, and can bring in whatever witnesses it chooses. People will be allowed, I am sure, to submit their views in writing, or if they have the capacity to come, to visit in person.

This legislation is, as I said, striving to get the right balance. There are those in the education sector who think we should have further restricted our fair dealing component. There are those who think we should have expanded it. We think this is the right balance and those who have concerns will be more than free and willing to share their views.

If people have constructive criticism about how we can make this bill right, obviously we are prepared to listen to those views, but we will not listen to those who want to--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Yukon.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I have two questions following up on the last question. It is not only the small publishers who have sent in letters, and I am sure the minister has oodles of letters from everyone on both sides of this, but the artists, whom you are the champion of, are saying that teachers do not work for free and everyone else who supplies books or fuel oil to schools does not work for free, so why should the artists? Why should there be this exemption?

Could you tell me what the difference is in the exemptions in the present regime, before the bill comes in, and the ones in the bill, and your answer to those artists--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I would ask the hon. member to direct his comments through the Chair. Thank you.

There are many people standing, so I would ask for a brief end to that question.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So I would be interested in your answer to those suppliers of that and those artists and the complaints about digital locks for libraries, not allowing them access to information, which I am sure you have heard as well.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Again, comments through the Chair.

The hon. minister.

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

Madam Speaker, there is a lot packed into that question. I will just sum it up this way, because you are obviously signaling that you will not allow answers of more than 30 or 60 seconds.

We tried to get the appropriate balance, and the truth is, if we move one element of this bill over, if we expand fair dealing a little bit, if we open up the digital lock protection provisions of the legislation a little bit, we will have a whole new constituency of people who are upset with it. We tried to take the full scope and scale of those who are requesting change in our copyright regime: educators, movie industry, film industry, everybody concerned, especially consumers. We tried take in the full scope of what was in their best interest, and we think we have struck the right balance.

We think the issue with digital locks is a central element. If a person is a creator and has created a product, a piece of software, and has decided to protect it in the way that person chooses to protect it to engage in the marketplace, we think that person has the right to protect what he or she has created, in the way he or she has chosen to protect it. If people want to hack around that or break a digital lock without that person's consent, that person has the right to protect his or her own intellectual property. That is pretty basic. In terms of those who argue that digital locks should not be a part of this legislation, I just frankly disagree. I think they are wrong.

There are elements of the bill on which we can agree or disagree, certain defining elements of education and how that should be dealt with in fair dealing. There are certain things on which we can agree or disagree. But if a person creates some software and decides to put a digital protection measure on that software and to engage in the marketplace with 90-day trials in which things are locked down afterwards, and so on, if the person chooses to engage in that and chooses to protect his or her intellectual property, that person should have the right to protect his or her property in the way he or she chooses.

Obviously as part of this legislation, it should be illegal for one to hack somebody else's property and to steal it and put it onto BitTorrent and spam it around the Internet and degrade people's capacity to actually make a living on what they are doing.

The start of the hon. member's question was very profound. I do not want arts and culture creativity, the software industry, the video game industry, the creative community in this country, to become a hobby. I want business models to be able to work in this country, and that requires a strong and robust copyright regime.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

For the information of hon. members, when I see a lot of members rising, I try to keep the questions short and I try to balance the question and the answer in terms of time.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie.

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

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to begin the long awaited debate on Canada's proposed new copyright law, Bill C-32. If I may be permitted a personal comment, I would like to say that no other proposed legislation has occupied my time as the industry critic for my party as much as this bill has, nor have I received more visitors knocking on my door to discuss proposed legislation than for the case of Bill C-32. Suffice it to say there is a very large number of stakeholders watching very closely as Bill C-32 moves forward in the House.

I would like to go over the context in which we are undertaking this important task. Canada is right in the thick of its transition to the digital economy, which is having a major impact on our artists, writers, musicians, software developers, film-makers, photographers and others who create material protected by copyright.

We all recognize that the creators who inform and entertain us are major economic drivers. In Canada, according to a 2007 Conference Board of Canada study, culture generates over $80 billion in direct and indirect economic spinoffs every year. That accounts for more than 7% of our gross domestic product and creates about 1.1 million jobs in this country.

The digital economy is changing culture in this country. It is also changing our society and our economy. The information and communications technology sector employs some 600,000 Canadians and spends $6 billion a year on research and development. The digital economy is flourishing around the world. Last year, OECD countries invested nearly $3 trillion in hardware, software, communications and IT.

I know that Canada can play a leading role if it positions itself to exploit its full potential in this key sector. That would really boost the country's economic growth.

Among other innovations, the last decade brought us Facebook, the iPad, and YouTube, which have given Canadians unprecedented access to myriad choices. They have also presented a challenge to creators in terms of protecting the integrity of their work.

Unfortunately, when it comes to copyright, Canada has, for too long now, been way behind in terms of global best practices. Our outdated copyright legislation has been the subject of international criticism.

A 2005 OECD study found that Canada had the greatest per capita number of offenders engaging in illegal file-sharing. In May 2009, the United States put Canada on its blacklist of countries designated as being especially lax in protecting intellectual property, a list that includes Algeria, China, Russia, Pakistan, Indonesia and Venezuela.

Copyright and intellectual property protection have become a crucial component of trade talks with the European Union.

The time has come to ensure that our artists and creators receive fair compensation for their work and that, in this digital era, our entrepreneurs are compensated for their innovations. Canada must modernize its copyright legislation.

In short, the time has come for Canada to adopt a fair and balanced copyright law, one that takes the needs of both creators and consumers into account.

The Liberal Party of Canada is taking the following position with respect to the proposed copyright legislation. Bill C-32 takes a number of important steps to modernize copyright law, and at this time the Liberal Party will support sending the bill to committee. However, we believe serious challenges remain that must be addressed at committee.

Specifically, the Liberal Party has problems with digital locks and technological protection measures, or TPMs. The Liberal Party has concerns with the application of new TPM circumvention amendments in Bill C-32.

Specifically as it applies to music, video and other digital media, the Liberal Party believes the Copyright Act must allow Canadians who have legitimately purchased a CD, DVD or other product the ability to transfer their purchase onto other personal devices, such as an iPod, or make a personal backup copy on their computers so long as they are not doing so for the purposes of sale or transfer to others.

We do not believe that Bill C-32 achieves that principle at this time. There are various ways in which a solution could be found and we look forward to examining the different options in committee.

Let us talk about the exemption for the education sector. The Liberal Party agrees that educators need flexibility in order to ensure that education is as enriching as possible. However, we must see to it that authors and creators are paid fairly for their work. The education sector is in the best position to convey the message that copyright is important, and we must ensure that Canadians understand that it is important for our creators to be compensated fairly for their work.

With regard to the exemption for the education sector, the Liberal Party will attempt to amend the bill by proposing to clarify what exactly constitutes “fair dealing”. Naturally, the secret of a good policy always resides in the right balance. By defining what is fair, we will ensure that the law gives educators the necessary flexibility while offering artists, authors, and creators a better guarantee that their works will be protected.

Another issue is mash-ups. Bill C-32 creates a new exemption for user-generated content. However, it is broadly written and can create a potential opening for abuse. We will seek amendments to tighten the language to ensure that the mashup exemption can only be used for its intended purposes and not unexpectedly create a loophole for further copyright infringement.

On the subject of statutory damages, Bill C-32 defines new statutory damages for infringement of copyright. Many stakeholders have expressed deep concerns about this section. The Liberal Party believes applied statutory damages must be commensurate with the severity of the infringement.

With regard to the exhibition in public of works of art, the present Copyright Act defines the right to be compensated when a work created after June 7, 1988, is exhibited in public. The Liberal Party believes that this provision discriminates against artists who created works before 1988.

As for the resale of works of art, throughout Europe artists are compensated when their works are sold and then resold. The value of an original work may increase over the years and artists believe that a portion of the difference between the original price and the resale price should be paid to them. The Liberal Party proposes studying European practices in order to find a better way to compensate Canadian artists for their works.

Furthermore, the Liberal Party would also like to look at other technical issues surrounding, among other things, the collective responsibilities for neighbouring rights and the definition of exemptions with regard to hosting, information location tools and network services.

Modernizing Canadian copyright legislation is vital for our economy, job creation and appropriate compensation for our artists and creators. We believe that this modernization can best be achieved through dialogue and collaboration and we hope that all parties will work together to achieve this objective and to ensure that Canada continues to make a cultural contribution to the world.

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

Madam Speaker, what my hon. colleague has put forward as the Liberals' position is interesting. It seems to me that he has a concern in one area that frankly ought not to be a concern, and then he has opened the door on another area of policy. I am wondering how he reconciles having a concern in one area and not the other.

He says that he is concerned that the legislation allows for mashups. For those watching, what that means is people might mix two songs together, for example, use the instrumental or drum portion of one song and the lyrical portion of a different song, put them together and experiment with songs. We do not see a problem with that, but he seems to think there is a problem with that.

We think the idea of having a certain song underneath a wedding video is okay. We want to allow people to experiment a bit if they so choose with the media that they have purchased, obviously so long as there is not a digital lock that prevents that from happening.

On the other hand, he says that he is concerned with the technological protection measures, the digital lock provisions of the bill. Every single arts and culture and creative community organization across this country, all of them support this portion of the bill. Is the Liberals' position really that they are not in favour of the digital lock provisions of this legislation?

Removing that portion of this bill would be devastating to Canada's cultural and investment communities. It would be devastating to the software and video game industry, which represents 14,000 jobs, many of them in his own riding. I think there are 10 software and video game companies in the member's own riding. All of them support this protection in the bill.

Is he really saying that he wants to strip away technological protection measures in the bill? Every single cultural organization in this country supports those measures. That would be a huge mistake, if that is what he is proposing.

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

Madam Speaker, I really wish the minister had clearly listened to what I said. This is politicking as opposed to actually listening. This is a complex subject and I wish he had clearly listened to what I said.

I, at no time, said anything against digital locks and TPMs. What I said, and I hope he will understand it this time, is that if people legitimately purchase a copyrighted product, and remember, they paid for it at the front end, if they want to transfer it to another device for their purposes, for copying or for their personal convenience, and it has nothing to do with reselling or commercial exploitation of that product, then they should be allowed to do so. We will work with the committee to try to find a way to make that possible. That is all I said and I hope that is clear to the minister at this point.

With respect to mashups, mashups need to be defined in the sense that people can copy somebody's work, let us say a piece of music, and at the very end, after it is over, add one little thing and call it a mashup. We just want greater clarity as to what actually a mashup means. Obviously if it is bits and pieces from different places, that is fine with us, but we need more clarity on the definition of a mashup.

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

Madam Speaker, I was listening to the back and forth between the minister and the Liberal critic on what was exactly under the digital lock, and I noticed my colleague, the minister, did one of those wonderful sleight of hands that the Conservatives do on this. He is telling us all about how great the mash-up thing is as long as there is no digital lock, and if there is a digital lock, then we cannot touch any of the rights that we would otherwise have.

In this bill, the government offers a whole series of rights that nobody can exercise if it is in the digital realm. The fair dealing rights can only be accessed if there is not a digital lock on it. The mash-up rights can only be accessed if there is not a digital lock. The government says that this is to bring them into compliance with WIPO, but in fact under article 10 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty, it says that the protection measures cannot override the rights that would otherwise exist, so that the rights that exist within this bill cannot be overridden by an adjunct measure, which is the technological protection measures.

I would like to ask the Liberal Party if it would be willing to work to amend this legislation so that the rights that are guaranteed to citizens can be legally accessed, and separate that, as my colleague the minister had said earlier, from people who would break a digital lock in order to steal works and put it on BitTorrent. It is a distinction that is recognized by numerous other countries that are WIPO compliant.

Does he think it is possible for Canada to understand and make this distinction?

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

Madam Speaker, the Liberal Party intends to take a very constructive approach to this because this is extremely complex legislation.

The issue of digital locks and TPMs are certainly very central to this whole thing. Let me repeat that the concept of digital locks or TPMs is not a subject with which we disagree. We want to make clear that individuals who purchase a product should be allowed to move that from one device to another for their personal use.

As it stands at the moment, Bill C-32, as proposed by the government, says that if there is a digital lock or a TPM on a product, then it would be illegal for a person to transfer it to another device for his or her personal use.

We have difficulty with that and it is something we definitely intend to explore. We will work with the NDP, the government and the Bloc on this issue.

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

Madam Speaker, my question is for the Liberal Party critic. He said that he would like the bill to be referred to committee and that he plans to propose amendments. Are the amendments he is talking about today all sine qua non? In other words, if the amendments are not made, will he vote against the bill at third reading?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question.

In my speech, I talked about the issues addressed by this bill. We would like to work in co-operation with the other parties to make changes that will better serve the needs of the people concerned, specifically consumers, creators and businesses. Our approach is constructive. We are all going to have to make concessions when it comes to this bill, which is extremely complex and polarizing. We plan to take a constructive approach and work with the other parties to come up with a solution that the majority can agree on.

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

Madam Speaker, when it comes to TPMs and digital locks, one of the concerns is if a consumer buys, and I will use one company for an example and my apologies to it, an Apple device and then buys a song through that Apple device, he or she can only use that song, movie or whatever it may be for a suite of devices only sanctioned by Apple. It cannot be used on another type of device. It pushes people into a corner where they are forced to only use a particular company's brand or suite of products. I think this concerns a lot of people.

It has become an issue with the education community as well. On the one hand, we have the exemption, but on the other hand, they cannot circumvent or look into digital locks.

Could the hon. member address that?

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

Madam Speaker, this is a big issue. The government said this morning that it now allowed for format-shifting and time-shifting. Then, as an aside at the end, it said that if it was protected by a digital lock, it could not be circumvented, except if there were specific defined exceptions in the bill.

Again, the issue is, in this case, addresses the consumer who may want to take a product that he or she has downloaded or purchased in a store and move it to another device for his or her own personal enjoyment and purpose.

We would like to talk about ways we can accommodate that, because the person has paid for the product upfront and is simply moving it from one device to another. This is problematic at the moment, and we would like to see if there is a way to solve it.

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

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois believes that Bill C-32, whose goal is apparently—I repeat, “apparently”—to update the Copyright Act, does not achieve that objective. The Bloc also believes that it needs to be amended in committee in order to do justice to artists, copyright holders and copyright in the truest sense of the word. Without amendments, this bill will be unbalanced and will favour large corporations at artists' expense. I will explain this.

The approach in this bill is disheartening. The government says it is helping artists, but it is not putting its words into action. Yesterday, in the House, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages said that on May 10, 2006, the Bloc had voted against the Conservatives' budget, which included a 20% increase in the Canada Council's budget, but that is an error. I do not know whether it is unparliamentary to use the word “error”, but the fact remains that the Bloc voted in favour of the Conservatives May 10 budget that included a 20% increase. It was not an increase so much as a cut to the increase previously announced by the Liberals. The Liberals had announced a $150 million increase, which was then reduced to $30 million. We see that the minister is twisting words and passing himself off as someone who is helping artists. He says he is helping them, but he is not. The Bloc Québécois obviously voted against the bill the government introduced in 2009 to take money away from artists.

My point is that the principle has not changed. What the government and its ministers are saying and what they are doing are two different things. It is all well for them to keep saying that they are helping artists, the fact remains that the approach in this bill is totally unbalanced. In fact, what this bill does is help major U.S. companies.

It is too bad that people are not listening because some interesting things are being said. Madam Speaker, can you please ask the hon. members to be quiet? Thank you, I think that calm has been restored.

This bill is totally unbalanced because it benefits major U.S. companies and major computer gaming software companies to the detriment of artists. There are two totally disheartening approaches in this bill and seven deadly sins, if I can put it that way.

The first approach is one using digital locks. Sure, we can say that digital locks are necessary, and that they must be respected, but to base an entire bill on them is a bit much. With this bill, the government is telling artists that if they want to make money, all they have to do is put digital locks on their musical works to prevent anyone from copying them. If people want to make a copy for themselves, or to transfer the music to another format, it would be absurd to make them buy the original work again. That makes no sense, and it will not work. We are talking about the survival of artists and their art here, and this is important for many reasons. An approach based on digital locks is completely ludicrous.

This bill was developed for the big American film and video game companies, and digital locks meet most of their needs. For these big American and European film and video game companies, the government did a good job.

But the bill does not address the needs of artists. Artists do not want to put locks on their musical works. They do not want to restrict the distribution of their works; they want people to be able to enjoy them. But for that to happen, we need to modernize the Copyright Act and maintain the royalties and levies in the existing act. But that is what the government does not understand.

I spoke about seven deadly sins. The first should come as no surprise, since I was the one who moved a motion in the House to modernize the current Copyright Act in order to maintain the levy on digital music recorders, a motion that was adopted by a majority in this House.

Not having these royalties is like depriving artistic creativity of oxygen. Not having these royalties means that artists will no longer earn enough to continue doing what they do. I am not making this up. Earlier, the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Canadian Heritage spoke about taxes. It is incredible that ministers who should be sensible and should understand the meaning of words are using the wrong words and giving disinformation in order to reach their goal, which is to help American companies.

The system of copying for personal use needs to be updated. This system exists already; it is already in the law. We just need to add “digital audio recording equipment” to “cassette” and “CD”.

The exception known as the “YouTube exception” allows a mother to post her son's first steps on YouTube along with music, used in good faith. That seems nice enough but it opens the door to a whole slew of music piracy. The scope of this clause needs to be reduced, and these so-called works created from other works should be banned. That is exactly what it means to respect artists' rights.

In addition, Bill C-32 should require broadcasters to pay for ephemeral copies. Again, this clause is poorly written, unbalanced. It benefits broadcasters and, again, takes money from artists. It takes away royalties that would come to them.

And the damages that a copyright owner could be paid should definitely not be capped at $20,000. That is like saying that any pirate can put $20,000 on the table and can make millions of dollars with a copy they have made. It makes absolutely no sense to cap damages for a work that has been copied.

We must also make Internet service providers more accountable. There are two ways of doing so. On the one hand, they could contribute to content costs, as called for by AGAMM, an association that maintains that free music is a myth. This Quebec artists' association wants Internet service providers to pay them royalties. On the other hand, we must also make Internet service providers more accountable by forcing them to be proactive to stop piracy. I am not convinced that the notice and notice system—as it is commonly known—is working. That is, when people realize their work has been copied, they inform the Internet service provider, which simply sends a letter. I am not convinced that this works. It would be very interesting to examine this aspect in committee and look at the consequences of an escalating response. We definitely need to examine this aspect very seriously. However, it is clear that the status quo is not enough.

As I said earlier, the seventh deadly sin of this bill is the digital lock, which cannot be the cornerstone of a bill to protect copyright. This would mean that consumers could no longer make copies for their own use on their MP3 players. The minister said earlier that everyone supports digital locks. That is false. Consumers' associations do not support digital locks. The following quotation is from a news release dated June 4, 2010:

The Canadian Consumer Initiative or CCI [an umbrella group of consumer protection agencies] deplores the fact that, with this bill to reform the Copyright Act introduced earlier this week [on June 2], the federal government is once again abandoning consumers and giving in to the demands of corporations.

The members can read it. It was dated June 4 and can be found on the Canadian Consumer Initiative website and the Union des consommateurs du Québec website. It is quite interesting and explains why this will not help consumers. When the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Industry say that no one opposes protection measures, they have it all wrong, because in fact, many people object to these digital locks. Once again, the Conservatives are denying reality.

The Bloc Québécois wants to amend this bill in committee. We think it needs to be amended according to four basic principles. First, we have to find a way to compensate artists and copyright owners. Musical works are not free. Music is not free.

Music belongs to artists, and artists have the right to be compensated when people listen to their music in different formats. We have to encourage creation and dissemination. That is the Bloc Québécois's second principle: supporting dissemination.

New technologies improve access to the things people create, and consumers should be able to benefit from that. I doubt that digital locks will support that. We have to 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.

As I said earlier, music is not free. That is why the government must launch an information and awareness campaign for large, medium-sized and small consumers, who need to understand that music belongs to artists. People can buy CDs, they can buy music online and they can listen to it on rhapsody.com, but they must respect artists when listening to music. If they do not, creation, production and design will suffer, and we will be overtaken by culture from other countries, especially by American music.

We also have to crack down on what I call professional piracy. We know there are websites where piracy professionals make multiple copies or allow point-to-point or peer-to-peer transfers. This allows people to download and listen to music online for free. We have to crack down on this. We cannot just tell these pirates that it will cost them only $20,000 in damages every time they use a work of music. The bill, as written, may not be harsh enough. As far as damages are concerned, it is quite clear that we cannot limit the price of a work of music to $20,000.

In the upcoming debates on the so-called Copyright Modernization Act, it is clear that the Bloc Québécois will defend its principles any way that it can. We saw yesterday in the House with regard to the TradeRoutes and PromArt programs that this government does not defend artists and does not help them. In fact, the government does more harm than good. Bill C-32 will do more harm to artists than good. A number of groups are going to lose a lot, particularly in the publishing community. With the addition of a fair dealing exemption, some francophone publishers will end up closing their doors. What textbooks will we find in schools? They will be textbooks from other countries that have protected their culture and the copyright of their creators.

This government does not protect artists. It does not protect copyright and it does not protect copyright owners, which is consistent with its long “anti-artist” history. The Bloc Québécois truly hopes that, throughout Quebec, the jurisdiction of arts and culture will be transferred to the Government of Quebec. There is an overwhelming consensus on this. Quebec takes care of its artists, and one way it does that is by helping them tour internationally.

The Government of Quebec helps artists and copyright owners. The education sector is treated very well by the Government of Quebec, which pays royalties to publishing companies and artists when schools use their artistic works.

For the Bloc Québécois, the transfer of responsibility for arts and culture to the Government of Quebec would be a step towards what we really desire—our own country. Not only do we want to manage all our areas of activity, but we also want to support and help our artists.

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

Madam Speaker, in the tone of this debate, there seems to be two sides arguing vehemently against each other about the right for picking up for artisans and groups. I thought the minister of heritage made some good points earlier about how the government intends on doing that through Bill C-32, the copyright legislation.

On the other hand, however, the Bloc seems to think that it has the best points by which it will protect artists when it comes to this legislation. I do not doubt the Bloc on that, but I wonder where she thinks the government has gone off the rails when it comes to supporting artists regarding this legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, what I said and what I have noticed since becoming the heritage critic is that this government says it helps artists. However, when we take a closer look, we realize that this is not true, especially since it did not want to modernize royalties on musical works in Bill C-32. This means that artists will lose millions of dollars every year.

In the current legislation, there is a system of royalties for private copying. People can copy a musical work onto a blank CD, which is legal and helps artists. In fact, when purchasing a blank CD, a consumer pays a royalty of a few cents that goes to a collective society, the Canadian Private Copying Collective. This is a complex but rather fair system. The collective pays out to the artists the royalties it collects year after year. In good years, these royalties can amount to tens of millions of dollars.

However, under the current legislation, royalties are paid only on four-track audio cassettes, which few people use anymore, or blank CDs. It would be easy to include digital recording devices. It would truly modernize this bill and allow the Canadian Private Copying Collective to collect these amounts on every purchase and to distribute them. The consumer could make a copy at home on an iPod or MP3 player, no matter the brand, responsibly and lawfully.

That is the spirit of the existing law. If we want to make that spirit relevant to our times, we must add recording devices. It must be done. If we want to continue helping artists, that is how we can do it. A little help often lets artists do a great deal. This bill drains the lifeblood from artists, who will have a great deal less income and who will suffer.

Furthermore—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

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

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague seems to be focusing on the fact that the government is not looking for the remuneration of artists in this bill. In fact, key areas where remuneration has existed in the past seems to be undermined. The Conservative government's argument is that by simply having sacrosanct protection for digital locks, the market will rebound, artists will be fed and everything will continue on.

I am at a loss to understand how simply codifying absolute legal protection for digital locks, even when it overrides rights that exist within the bill, would actually make the market rebound and how artists would be able to make a living, because, as we know, anybody can pick any digital lock that exists now if they so choose.

Does my hon. colleague think that the balance is missing here? On the one hand, we need to protect works from being stolen and pirated, which is why legal protection for digital locks was sanctioned. It is very clear and it is very important to have to that. However, simply putting digital locks across the board is not a substitute for having a clear monetizing stream for artists so that artists can continue to do what they do and can continue to benefit from the copyright and the rights of their works.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a two-part answer.

First, some artists' rights agencies got together recently and asked their boards of directors what advantages Bill C-32 had for them. It became clear that there were no advantages. Not only were there no new royalties or levies, but the old ones were being taken away. Obviously this bill cannot be balanced.

When we asked a group of people involved in the cultural sector whether they prefer Bill C-32 exactly as it stands—we still need to modernize the Copyright Act because it has not been updated since 1995-96—or whether they prefer no bill at all, the answer was unanimous and came from the bottom of their hearts. They do not want Bill C-32 as it stands, because it will take away the royalties and rights they already have. I would say that the publishing community has no idea that the new exemption will cause it to die slowly.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay, and perhaps the hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert could add her thoughts on this matter.

We are not suggesting that artists and creators should not be supported by a government regime to protect what it is they have created and to find ways to monetize that. That is not at all what we are saying. We are saying that in the consultations that we had with regard to this legislation, no effective proposal came forward with regard to the private copying regime in this country. It, frankly, does not make sense.

My colleague from the Bloc Québécois keeps talking about downloading and MP3s. She does not mention applications like Stitcher and streaming online services. People do not download music now and then pay for the download. People are now streaming media online. There are whole new services now for streaming music.

Therefore, the proposals that she has talked about but has not written down so we cannot see the details of it, does not actually fit the current regime of how people are consuming music. It does not work. It is a solution for 1995. It is not a solution for 2010 and 2015. What she is proposing is window dressing. It is not actually substantive in dealing with the issue of the private copying regime. It does not actually substantively do it.

We are not pretending that this legislation fixes all things at all times. However, first, it does mandate a five-year ongoing permanent renewal of Canada's copyright regime, but, second, we tried to stop the bleeding.

We can disagree about how the music industry may or may not be monetized because none of us have owned software companies or video game production studios. We cannot pretend that we know how other companies will decide to monetized but we can agree and I hope we can all agree that we need to stop the bleeding. We need to make pirating and theft illegal in this country. We need to ensure that those who are creating in an effort to make a living out of what it is they love doing, which is music, software and video game publishing, are not being ripped off. That is article one.

We can agree to disagree on the issue of the private copying levy and the iPod tax, or however we want to talk about it, but let us agree with one thing, which is that Bill C-32 gets it right. We are going to make piracy illegal, protect those who are creating and ensure that they have an opportunity to move forward in this new economy. That is the first thing that we need to do and I hope the member will agree with that.

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

Madam Speaker, digital locks are not a response to requests from artists. I would like to challenge the minister to show me what aspect of Bill C-32 benefits artists. It cuts their royalties and it creates exemptions for education. And numerous new exemptions make it so that artists, copyright owners, people and authors who would be entitled to revenue are now losing it.

Some have even said that this goes against the WIPO treaty because there is a section in that treaty saying that a country does not have the right to take away benefits that artists already have.

Second, I would like to know how artists will make more money with digital locks. Once, I bought a CD. I downloaded it because, no matter what the minister says, 90% of people still download their music. I tried to download it, but there was a digital lock on it. What happened? I listened to it once and that was it. That is what will happen.

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

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise today to speak to Bill C-32, which is legislation to update Canada's Copyright Act. I speak as someone who has actually tried to feed my family off copyright as an artist, a writer, a broadcaster, and a publisher.

The New Democratic Party has been clear about its desire to ensure that Canada's copyright regime is updated, and New Democrats place copyright reform at the centre of what must be a much broader innovation agenda for Canada. This includes codifying protection for net neutrality, committing to national benchmarks for broadband access right across rural and northern Canada and into the urban areas, and enhancing our digital cultural programs to ensure that Canadians are able to participate as international citizens within the democratic, culturally vibrant, public commons that is the Internet.

In respect of copyright reform, New Democrats have been consistent. We told the government to bring WIPO into the House and have it ratified. If we had done that, it would have taken some of the international pressure off Canada. We have been telling the government that we fundamentally support the principle of remunerating creators for their content and oppose criminalizing consumers.

The Conservative government had five years to ratify WIPO and bring it before the House, but it stalled. The previous bill was so poorly constructed that it pretty much died the day it was brought in. The first lesson to know about copyright is that it has to be balanced, and getting it balanced requires broad-based consultations with every stakeholder.

Bill C-61 was pretty much ditched as soon as it was brought in and that sent the Conservatives back to the drawing board. Here we are two years later and five years into the government's term.

Unfortunately, I do not think the government has yet gotten the message. We will be more than willing to work with it on addressing problems, but we want a clear understanding from the government that it is willing to work with the other parties to fix this bill.

Many international observers are looking to Canada. They think this is a country that can actually get it right when it comes to copyright. Like every other nation in the world, we are in the midst of unprecedented technological change. What we have seen over the last dozen years is a cultural copyright war that has been played out internationally, and some jurisdictions have gotten the mix wrong.

If we look at the history of copyright, we can see that the push for copyright has always come from technological threat. There are certainly those who are threatened. Some older business models would use copyright to make sure that new, potentially difficult platforms for distribution are stopped from going forward.

What we have learned in Canada from watching other countries trying to bring forward copyright is that no amount of legislation or legal action will force consumers to return to dead business models. Nowhere is this folly more clear than in the United States' Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the DMCA.

The U.S. entertainment industry has used both the courts and legislation to try to criminalize consumers, and the result has been a scorched-earth policy that was waged by the Recording Industry Association of America against its own consumer base. After 35,000-plus lawsuits against kids, single moms, and even dead people, the so-called digital genie has not gone back in the bottle, and it is not going to go back in the bottle.

The one thing I would say to the Conservative government is that, for all of its dumbed-down approach to social policy, it seems to understand that suing kids is not going to be a constructive, long-term solution. That might be one of the only positive results coming from what we have witnessed south of the border.

Does this mean that digital technology has simply trumped the principle of copyright, and endless downloading can simply erase the rights of creators? Certainly not. We need to look at the Internet and digital innovation for what it is. This is an exciting new distribution platform and new models are emerging.

We have the opportunity in Canada to come forward with something that is forward-looking rather than backward-looking. I found it unfortunate this summer when the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages denounced citizens who questioned the bill as digital extremists. If copyright reform is to succeed, we have to move beyond this self-defeating culture war, because the choice in the end is whether we support regressive or progressive copyright.

Regressive copyright is based on attempting to limit, control, or punish users of creative works. Regressive copyright is ultimately self-defeating, because the public will find ways to access those works.

Progressive copyright, on the other hand, is based on two time-honoured principles: remuneration and access.

The digital age has shown us that consumers of artistic works want to be able to access them how and when they please, and they will do so. To them the Internet is not a threat; it is an amazing vehicle for participation in exciting cultural exchange. The question is, how do we monetize it?

The balanced approach represents the mainstream of Canadian copyright opinion. I refer to the judgment in the case of Théberge v. Galerie d'Art du Petit Champlain inc. The Supreme Court said that the purpose of copyright was to strike “a balance between promoting the public interest in the encouragement and dissemination of works of the arts and intellect and obtaining a just reward for the creator”.

So the role of copyright is not simply the enforcement of property rights. It is, however, a public construct. That is what copyright is. It ensures that there is public access to artistic works and a public interest in remunerating the creator.

Unfortunately, I do not think Bill C-32 manages to strike this balance. It offers the public a series of rights in the same way a roadside carny offers good odds in a shell game. Attempting to access those rights under the digital lock provisions will prove that none of these rights actually exists. That is fundamentally problematic, because all the rights that are guaranteed in this bill can be erased by a corporate piece of software saying that consumers cannot access the works they have legally purchased.

Support for digital locks exists internationally. I think everyone in this house would agree that digital locks exist to protect a piece of copyrighted material from being stolen, or, as the Minister of Heritage said, from someone ripping it off and putting it on BitTorrent. However, it is another matter to use those digital locks to prevent access for educators or consumers who actually bought a product that they would normally be able to time-shift or format-shift.

As for the remuneration of artists, the other fundamental principle in copyright, this bill consistently undermines the revenue streams that artists have relied on. We can see this in the government's full-on political assault on the private copying levy. The government's attack on the levy is emblematic of its attempt to turn copyright into a political battle in which it gets to rant about taxes and go after them. The government, however, is really going after one of the time-honoured principles that Canadian copyright is based on, which is the remuneration of artists.

Before we get into the fundamental problems of this bill, let us put it in context. Technological change has always driven copyright reform. Music is a very good example. In 1906, John Philip Sousa denounced the threat of mechanical music, which was actually the roller piano. He felt that if people started buying roller pianos they would not need live musicians anymore. I do not know how many people bought a roller piano, but it was not quite the threat they made it out to be.

The Association of American Publishers picked up the threat of technology when the record player appeared. They thought that if there were record players nobody would buy sheet music. Sheet music was actually one of the great copyright-drivers for artists. If people listened to records, they would not have to play the piano in their parlours. This was clearly a case of a new business model threatening an older one.

In 1923, record companies, which had been considered a threat a few years before, suddenly found that they were being threatened themselves, because the radio appeared. The record industry thought that if people listened to music on the radio for free, they would not buy records.

By 1928 it appears their fears may have been realized. Record sales dropped off by about 80%. By 1931, they had dropped off over 90%. I would argue that perhaps some of that had to do with the Depression, but the argument could have been made by record company lobbyists that the appearance of radio had also had an effect.

Were the radio listeners criminalized? Did they put locks on access to radio? No, they learned to monetize radio revenue, and the record industry never looked back until it came across a kid who invented Napster.

Napster was enormously successful, not because the music was free, but because it offered a young generation almost unlimited access and the ability to choose what they wanted when they wanted it.

That was a phenomenal change in how music was accessed. Steve Knopper wrote an excellent book Appetite for Self-Destruction: The Spectacular Crash of the Record Industry in the Digital Age.The recording industry made a fundamental and colossal error when it decided to try to shut down the technology through losses rather than monetizing. At that point, digital music went underground for a number of years, and the market has never quite recovered. I went through this history because I believe it is important to put the issues of digital monetizing and technological change in perspective.

These are some of the fundamental problems with the bill and how it works. We believe that the government has declared war on one of the principles of Canadian copyright, which is collective licensing. To demonstrate this, one does not have to look any further than the government's attack on the levy. The levy was a made in Canada solution that allowed for format-shifting while providing a badly needed stream of revenue to the artists. The levy worked on consensus. It worked on writable CDs. However, when we tried to update it to the MP3, we saw the Conservatives misrepresenting the levy, misrepresenting the costs. They have used it as a straw man in numerous political mailings.

Let us see what the national media had to say about this Tory attack on remuneration of artists. The Edmonton Journal said that the New Democratic Party's support for the levy seemed to be a “perfectly reasonable compromise” and that the industry minister misrepresented the contents of what was actually a “thoughtful compromise that upholds basic Canadian values of straight dealing”.

The National Post was even blunter. It said that the government's nonsensical boo, hiss, no new taxes response is just plain dumb.

Bill C-32, as long as there are no digital locks, will allow for all manner of copying and backing-up on the pretense that it is technologically neutral. But it is clearly not technologically neutral, because it is going after one of the few revenue streams that exists for artists.

The government is saying it has all these fair-dealing exemptions for education, but let us look at some of the glaring irregularities of the bill. Under Bill C-32, students who are taking long-distance courses will be forced to destroy their class notes after 30 days. Teachers will be forced to destroy their on-line classes. This is the digital equivalent of telling universities they have to burn their textbooks at the end of every session. What kind of government would force students to burn their class notes in the name of protecting copyright? No writer benefits from this, and no student benefits. This provision shows how badly out of whack the government is when it comes to understanding the potential for digital education.

We see these same punitive measures brought to bear against librarians. They will be forced to destroy inter-library loans after five days. We saw the government's full-on assault against the long form census and its opposition to knowledge and data. But to go after students and librarians with such dumbed-down, regressive approaches is something the New Democratic Party will not support in any way.

Let us look at the issue of the digital lock provision. The digital locks make a mockery of any claim of giving fair rights. The government says that we will get fair dealing rights for education and for reproduction for private purposes. People can make back-up copies; there will be copying rights for the print disabled; there is the so-called YouTube mash-up provision. But if there is a digital lock in place, all those rights are erased.

Clause 41.1 lays out very clear technological protection measures, which supersede the rights that citizens would otherwise enjoy. Thus Bill C-32 offers citizens' rights that they will not actually be able to access. What the government is doing is creating a two-tiered set of rights between digital and non-digital products. Instead of legal certainty, Canadian citizens will face arbitrary limitations on what should be their legal right of access.

It is simply not credible to say that this is WIPO-compliant. If we look at the WIPO treaties, digital locks are not guaranteed copyright rights. They are simply enforcement measures. At most, technological protection measures may be thought of as an adjunct to exclusive rights, but they cannot trump the rights that exist by law. In fact, if we look at how other countries have implemented WIPO, we see that there is no reason the government and this Parliament cannot set up a made-in-Canada provision that represents a balance on the digital locks provision.

In article 10 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty, it says that limitations such as the TPMs may be supported as long as they “do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work”. That is exactly what the bill would do. It would override the normal exploitations of this work.

The other problem with this jailhouse approach to digital locks and digital issues is the question of whether it will even be able to pass a constitutional challenge. Dr. Jeremy de Beer raised this issue when he looked at the previous bill, Bill C-61. He said that the digital rights provisions were 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.

He said that further iterations of Bill C-61 that did not take the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright Act into account could fail constitutional scrutiny. In fact, there are questions whether the bill with the digital locks provision will actually be able to succeed in a charter challenge.

Fundamentally, we can make the digital locks provisions work in order to protect copyright data, but if the government thinks those locks can simply override the existing rights that are guaranteed in the rest of the bill, it will have problems. The New Democratic Party certainly has problems with that.

At this point in going forward, the New Democratic Party is willing to work with all members of the House, all four parties, because we believe we must update Canada's copyright laws. We need to find a way to do it and we think it can be done.

We are looking for a sense from the government that it is willing to work with us. If it is willing to address some of the fundamental problems, we can deal with this in committee. However, if it takes the approach that any suggestions or implementations slightly different than the government's are somehow a threat and that it will not work with us, then we will not support Bill C-32 at third reading.

The New Democratic Party is willing to take this to committee. We are willing to work on these issues. We believe we can make very good made in Canada copyright legislation that will not only stand the test of this year and next year, but that will be looked at in other jurisdictions around the world as a way to find the balance that has so far been elusive in the digital copyright wars of the 15 years.

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

Madam Speaker, first, I agree with the point on which my hon. colleague began and ended his speech.

Yes, we are open to suggestions on how to improve this and ensure this goes forward. I appreciate the NDP's support to send the bill to a legislative committee. The reason why we would want to send it to a legislative committee, as I said, is so we can be open to receiving ideas that make sense.

I did want to push back and perhaps disagree with my hon. colleague, and he will have the last word to disagree with my disagreement. I have a couple of points.

First, I agree with him. Obviously the DMCA experience in the United States is something that we chose not to do as a government. We chose not to go in that direction.

There is one key element of the DMCA in the United States that he and I agree on and that we do not think is a good Canadian policy, and that is the idea of notice and take-down, which is in the American dynamic. We have proposed in the legislation notice and notice. We think that is pro-consumer and errs on the right of individual citizens rather than the presumption of guilt. We think that is the right thing to do.

His private member's bill with regard to the private copying levy is badly written. It is one thing to criticize the government for what is in the bill and another to criticize it for not putting things in the bill. There is a reason it does not address the private copying levy in the legislation. The proposals that came forward in our consultations were just unworkable. They did not make sense in the modern era.

The member's private member's bill is, with respect, badly written and it would not pass through the House of Commons even though the member may have some allies on the other side of the House of Commons who agree with him in principle. The member's own proposal is, frankly, unworkable.

With regard to education and libraries, the member criticized some elements of the bill. By the way, this is a perfect example in this very debate about the balance that our government has tried to strike. The Liberal critic for industry has said that our government has gone too far in support of students and suggested that we had not done enough to allow people who wrote textbooks to be compensated. My hon. colleague is saying that the things we put in place in the legislation with regard to education materials after a course is done go too far in the other direction.

Therefore, we have tried to strike the right balance. Did we get it right in the end? Well, time will tell. We think we have given a real genuine effort here to try to get it right.

With regard to libraries, the member said that librarians were upset about the legislation. That is factually not true. The Canadian Association of Research Libraries said, “we applaud the government”. It said that it had responded to the copyright reform concerns expressed by the library and education community. It said that the government had clearly listened to what the library and education community had said.

This is what we have tried to do with the bill. We have tried to get it right. If the member has a reasonable proposal, he should bring it forward. We tabled the legislation five months ago. We are waiting for substantive, specific amendments to it, which will actually improve it and ensure that Canada stays on the cutting edge of intellectual property law.

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

Madam Speaker, I was interested in my hon. colleague's suggestion that the idea of updating the levy did not make sense. This levy has been in existence in Canada for years. What does not make sense is the Conservative government's full on attack on it. Even the backbenchers, the guys who sit over there in the cheap seats, still send out mailings ranting about the killer iPod tax. The Conservatives have decided to use this for personal ideological means and misrepresent what the levy does.

I was surprised to hear the member's suggestion about getting it right on digital education. The government is creating a two-tier system. Students who take long distance education will have to destroy their notes. That is not a balance. That is just plan whacky and bizarre.

The member says that librarians support this. Librarians do not support it. The Canadian Library Association said that it was disappointed that long-standing rights, the heart of the copyright balance, as well as new rights, were tempered by the overreach of digital locks. The same position was taken by the Canadian Booksellers Association and the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.

The member said that every artist in the country supports the legislation. They do not. I have spoken with SOCAN, ACTRA and AFofM. I have also spoken with Quebec artists. These groups have told me that the bill is wrong because it does not get the balance right.

The minister can wave around the names of his so-called friends who support the legislation, but until we address the digital lock provision, until we address the issue of remuneration, the bill will remain fundamentally flawed.

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

Madam Speaker, in the heritage committee, we heard input from individuals about new copyright and the new digital age. One artist, Loreena McKennitt, talked about her struggle in this business. She had to lay off people in her own production house and the like.

According to the member's speech on digital locks and the like, in order for artists like that to recover would they not have to be incredibly litigious? Would they have to constantly go to court to do this if the law is made more flexible? It is just a question. I am not speaking on behalf of any particular point of view because that concern comes up constantly.

I would like my colleague to comment on something that Sara Bannerman recently wrote in an article about copyright. She said:

—Bill C-32 includes some made-in-Canada solutions on narrow issues but, on broader issues, abandons made-in-Canada solutions in favour of a more American maximalist approach.

Does my colleague agree with that?

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

Madam Speaker, if we talk to any of the travelling musicians, at the end of the day they will not have the resources to go after people who break a digital lock on their CD. They are interested in the monetizing stream whereby a collective licence will be in place so they can get paid for their work.

In terms of the made in Canada solution, we have to look at this issue closely. The government has recognized that as a result of the real lawsuits, the heavy duty fines and so on, that going anywhere near that approach would be political kryptonite. Even the Conservatives will not go there. However, they are sticking closely to the U.S. DMCA model on absolute protection for digital locks. We do not see that as a balanced approach. Even the U.S. backtracked this summer on the DMCA provisions for exemptions.

We had a made in Canada solution, which was a monetizing stream for artists through the levy. The Conservatives have waged total scorched earth war on that. Yet they are drawing a line in the sand on digital locks, which is very similar to the U.S. Ironically, this has put them further out in the field than the U.S. DMCA by the fact that no exemptions would be allowed for rights that would normally be accessed under the bill. That is fundamentally problematic and we will have to deal with that if this bill is to go forward.

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

Madam Speaker, my question is clear. The member for Timmins—James Bay has read the bill, just as I have. He has met with a number of cultural organizations, so he knows what he is talking about. Can he tell us what there is in Bill C-32 that is good for artists? What benefits will artists get from this bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, in fairness, one of the things the bill has moved further on is some of the provisions in the former bill. In the previous bill, people could format-shift to a VHS, but not to an iPod, which was just crazy and cracked. The government has cleaned up some of the problems, but I do not see anything for artists and how they will benefit from this.

There is a great concern within the artistic community that some of the few revenue streams artists have enjoyed will be erased by this bill, and that is not a balanced approach. At the end of the day, copyright is always based on a balance between the ease of access for the consumers, for the users, and the fact that artists are remunerated for their works.

The government has taken away the remuneration. It has offered a chimera of rights of access, but those rights can be erased by a corporate imposition of the digital locks. Will Sony love this? Perhaps. Will the Hollywood movie industry like the bill? Perhaps. However, artists who I talk to in the field, the actors, the musicians, the writers, are very concerned because they see their traditional revenue streams disappearing. They have no interest in limiting the access to their works. They want to support students and consumers in enjoying their access. They just want to get paid for it. Until we fix that, we will have problems with the bill.

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of Mississauga—Streetsville, I am happy to join the debate on Bill C-32, the copyright modernization act.

The last time we significantly amended the Copyright Act was in 1997. Like other countries, Canada continues to transition to a digital economy. This transition has had a profound effect on our artists, writers, musicians, software developers, filmmakers, photographers and other creators of copyright material.

For years, file sharing of music and video and large media storage in general has been possible, yet still a difficult task for most Canadians to accomplish. Today, transferring gigabytes is as easy as opening up the Internet browser. The world has changed and it is obvious Canada needs to keep pace to modernize its copyright legislation.

What has changed? Not long ago we were listening to eight-track tapes, cassettes and Sony Walkmans. We communicated through voice mail, not email, and fax, not instant messaging.

Today it is difficult to find children or adults alike who do not own an iPod or portable musical device. BlackBerrys, iPhones, laptops, iPads are seen everywhere and society has become dependent on them. Checking email and Facebook, sharing pictures and video, listening to music through one means or another have become integral parts of everyday life. Digital media is pervasive and omnipresent.

At one time Canada was a leader in the digital economy. In recent years though, our laws have fallen behind and we lag in global best practices. Our copyright laws are dated and we have received international criticism because of it. On this side of the House, we welcome modernization, but we want to do it right. We will agree to send the bill to committee at second reading. However, let me be clear. The bill needs work. It has numerous flaws and requires revisions and amendments at committee stage. The Liberal Party wants to make sure this work gets done.

Record labels, libraries, students, artists, authors, publishers, photographers, collective societies, video game creators, professors, consumers, film producers, educational resource centres to name a few have all come forward to show their discontent with the current status and structure of the bill. I have met with numerous stakeholders on this matter, and as my colleague from Westmount—Ville-Marie mentioned earlier, I have never had more requests for meetings and discussions than for Bill C-32.

In summarizing the complaints, I heard the following: “The bill tries to deal with piracy, but instead, it strips the industries of millions”. Also, “Intellectual property is not only a legal right, it is a human right”.

According to Jim Fleck, chairman of Business for the Arts:

Hill Strategies reports that Canadian consumers spent $25.1 billion on culture goods and services in 2005, more than consumer spending on household furniture, appliances and tools ($24 billion)....The output by the culture sector totalled: $46 billion in 2007, which was 3.8% of Canada's real GDP. If we were to include the induced and indirect impact, the value-added climbs to $84.6 billion.... The Conference Board estimates that 1,000,000 jobs are created by the cultural sector, representing 7.1 per cent of Canada's total employment in 2007.

Liberals understand that the rights of creators need to be protected and maintained, yet the fundamental rights of Canadians to access digital media must also be respected. Our goal is to find that middle ground.

Today I will be addressing some key flaws of the bill, primarily: one, a ratified collective licensing regime; two, technological protection measures, TPMs; three, file sharing; and four, statutory damages.

First is collective licensing and fair dealing. In 2004 a Liberal government legislated to allow for institutions such as libraries, museums, schools, their teachers and students to have access to materials under a collective licensing regime for fair dealing. These institutions have rights to materials for studying purposes. Unfortunately, these rights can be taken for granted and misused.

While students are expected to use materials for a finite period of time, sometimes the temptation to keep music or video is too great and many times simply overlooked.

The bill as it stands lacks a clear definition of “fair dealing”. This is a key component for our party and we will seek that definition in committee. Our goals are to offer materials for educational purposes, eliminate abuse and allow authors, artists and creators of the materials fair compensation, but at the same time give our students fair and affordable ways to obtain that information.

Two is technological protection measures, or TPMs. The exact amount of losses due to piracy is anyone's guess. Some report it is a $5 billion loss to the music and video industries. For years, the solution was thought to be digital rights management, DRM. Billions of dollars have been spent on the creation of software embedded into digital files which monitor the purchase method, the date and the amount of times a file has been used and/or transferred. Although this practice appears foolproof for combatting piracy, arguments can easily be made about the anti-constitutional measures.

Bill C-32 does not address the fact that when consumers purchase digital files for personal use, consumers assume, and expect to have, complete usage of those files without limitations and without restrictions.

Digital locking, or TPM, in Bill C-32 seeks to go even further than DRM by using file lock mechanisms. The circumvention of TPM in this bill requires extensive review.

We believe the Copyright Act must allow Canadians who have legitimately purchased media files the ability to transfer their purchase onto personal devices for their own personal use or to format or time shift or to make personal backup copies on their computer as long as they are not doing so for the purposes of sale or transfer to others.

There has been a common ground between balancing the rights of the creator and satisfying the consumer. We do not believe that Bill C-32 does either one. We look forward to examining these options further and finding that common ground.

Three is file sharing. A fundamental right in the digital age is the ability to share files. The whole concept of the Internet at its inception was to do just that. Peer-to-peer, or P2P, connection is a standard business practice. It allows for large file sharing among co-workers, clients, developers and anyone with an Internet connection. P2P has become the single most effective way of sharing large digital media. Unfortunately, it has also become a means for piracy. When two computers can communicate with each other and allow for file sharing, there are no restrictions on what can be shared.

Do members remember Napster? The case was supposed to set the precedent in the world to combat abusive and illegal digital file sharing. Napster was forced to pay $100 million for its P2P methods and infringing practices. What followed was the birth of penalties for those who share copyrighted files over the Internet without paying for them, but as we know, the piracy continued.

As a way to disguise P2P connections, Bit torrents have become a common piracy technique. Torrents were designed to track multiple share points of files and help for fast and steady download. Torrents are easily found through any Google search.

How do we stop P2P? How do we stop bit torrents? Quite frankly, we cannot, but appropriate penalties are a start. Copyright laws are only as good as the enforcement that accompanies them. Certainly in the age of the Internet, until some of this is sorted out, it remains, as we say, the wild west.

Four is statutory damages. Bill C-32 defines new statutory damages for infringement of copyright, but once again it is regressive.

We have many concerns with this section. How effective can it be to decrease the statutory damages? The government is proposing to reduce infringement damages from $500 up to a maximum of $20,000, to as low as $100 up to a maximum of $5,000. A main focus of the damage is to target individuals who download music from a peer-to-peer file sharing service.

I have already made the argument that P2P cannot be stopped. If peer-to-peer cannot be stopped and it is being used for piracy, then damages must be commensurate with the severity of the infringement.

In conclusion, there is no easy solution for modernizing Canada's copyright laws. I will not pretend to have all the answers. However, I can commit to working with all stakeholders on one hand and looking after the fundamental rights of Canadians on the other.

Listening to music while on the bus, walking or jogging, or watching videos on a two-inch screen or hearing last night's news from a podcast have become a way of life.

At the end of the day, my colleagues and I on this side of the House understand that the rights of the creators need to be maintained and protected, yet the fundamental rights of Canadians must also be respected. Our goal is to find that happy middle ground.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Questions and comments.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Trinity--Spadina.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the hon. member who just spoke is about the artists in Canada. If we look at the average earnings per year, a large number of them live--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Just to clarify, we are on debate.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

I thought we were still on questions and comments, Mr. Speaker.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I called for questions and comments.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

I tried to rise. I am sorry. I was not fast enough on my feet. Another member wanted to ask questions too.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

No one got up when I called for questions and comments. The member for Mississauga—Streetsville not getting any questions is no longer here for questions and comments, so we will move on and resume debate. Would the member for Trinity--Spadina commence her speech?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

No. I was trying to ask a question of the member from the Liberal Party.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

We are resuming debate, the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak to the bill before the House today. According to the government and as we can read for ourselves, this bill amends the Copyright Act in order to update people's ability and capacity to access great works.

Over the next 15 minutes, I will try to make the government understand that the real way to update the current legislation involves first acknowledging that certain rights exist for the creators, authors, writers and artists who agree to share their gifts with the rest of society for education and research purposes. However, the government needs to acknowledge that royalties must be associated with this and that it is not true that institutions, individuals and corporations can use these works—whether books, movies or plays—without recognizing that royalties must be associated with that use.

I listened to the government members who spoke earlier and who would have us believe that these royalties are essentially a consumption tax. Nothing could be further from the truth. Basically, there are two important things to understand and which, we believe, are not necessarily mutually exclusive. One possibility is recognizing rights while ensuring that new players in new technology can have access to the works available. A compromise can be reached as long as the government agrees not to play into the hands of the major players. For example, Internet service providers come to mind. These providers offer public access through an open market using new technology.

What the government is trying to achieve and the consequences Bill C-32 will have are two different things. First, with regard to permission fees and licence fees, the bill does not ensure that the author is necessarily consulted, and thus, Bill C-32 puts an end to the right to decide whether or not to authorize use of a work. It puts and end to remuneration for use. That is what is of concern in terms of the principle and the concept behind fairness, because clause 29 of the bill talks about a concept of use related to a notion of fairness and fair dealing. This was defined back in 2004 by the Supreme Court. What have the consequences of that Supreme Court ruling been? It has given a great advantage to the users at the expense of our creators, our authors, our writers and our artists.

We must not forget this 2004 ruling because it laid the groundwork for unfair dealing, in our opinion, when it comes to our artists and creators. What does clause 29 of the bill say? It says that a work used for the purpose of private study, education, parody or satire does not infringe copyright. Accordingly, a work may be used as long as it is for private educational purposes, education or parody.

This notion of fairness is not defined in the bill. The first step was taken in 2004 by a Supreme Court ruling that gave a great advantage to the users at the expense of the creators and our artists.

My colleague the Canadian heritage critic pinpointed the problem with the bill and that is that it contains exceptions, which she calls the deadly sins. There are 17 exceptions in total. We on this side of the House are not saying there should be no exceptions. International conventions state that there may be exceptions, but they apply in certain special cases. It is important to remember that. This bill has 17 exceptions that flout Canada's international obligations, specifically the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. This convention stipulates in article 9 that exceptions made for users must be reserved for certain special cases where reproduction does not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author.

With these 17 exceptions, the government is flouting its international obligations. This bill ignores Canada's commitments and is unfair to authors and creators.

There are a lot of exceptions in this bill. One particularly problematic exception stands in opposition to what should, in theory, be a positive principle. It concerns educational institutions. Teachers will be able to use protected materials in their courses without obtaining permission to reproduce them. This applies to movies and plays, among other things. The problem is not that people will be disseminating these cultural and artistic works, but that schools, for example, will not be required to pay royalties if they reproduce works. That is the problem.

We have to ensure that everyone in our society has access to culture. Our young people need rapid access to our literary works and their authors, but we must not forget that these are artists whose livelihoods depend on this.

I was reading the latest statistics. In the education sector alone, there are 175 million copies of parts of copyrighted works in schools, CEGEPs and universities. The education sector alone provides $9 million per year to 23 Quebec authors and 1,000 Quebec publishers. People's economic livelihood depends on publishing and culture. Of course we want our young people to have access to culture, but we must also recognize that our creators have the right to fair compensation.

This exception, therefore, is pernicious, the more so because the term “education” is not defined in this bill. It could therefore be defined quite broadly and have a broad scope. Given that the term “education” is not defined in this bill, this exception for the education sector, which allows teachers to use literary works, reproduce them and distribute them to their students, will leave it up to the courts to determine whether this use complies with the law.

Of course, this will force artists and creators, many of whom already have relatively low incomes, to take their cases to court.

We will further impoverish our artists, who are only asking for recognition of their work. Royalties are a measure of fairness. Unfortunately, the Canadian government, with this exemption for education, is not doing any favours for Quebec's artists and publishers that provide works, books and educational materials to our schools.

There is another exemption, the one I call the YouTube exemption. It refers to the creation of a new work by using, free of charge, part or all of a work on condition that it is to be used for non-commercial purposes. In addition, there is no requirement to name the source unless it is reasonable in the circumstances to do so. Thus, another exception is created, and one that is unique in the world, found only in Canadian legislation.

It means that someone could very well use a work, song or music—for which the rights are protected in principle—without asking the author's permission and without paying the associated royalties. This could be the end of private rights for these authors. I will say it again. We must provide greater access to Quebec and Canadian culture, but we must recognize the work of our artists. Even though new gateways and platforms make the use of their work possible, this broader distribution must not exempt us from honouring our commitments and ensuring fairness for our artists.

There is also an exemption for private purposes. An individual may reproduce a legally obtained work on a medium he or she owns and provide access for private purposes.

Once again, there is a refusal to create a new category, and that affects the levies. The government thinks that this levy is a tax on consumers, but on this side of the House, we see it more as fair recognition for our artists' work—nothing more, nothing less. For the Conservative government, “levy for artists” equals “consumer tax”. That is not how we read it.

Other exceptions are created, such as communicating a work by telecommunication. The bill introduces a vague, flexible and inadequate notion. It says that the institution must take measures that can be reasonably expected to limit dissemination of the work. What are these measures? Again “that can reasonably be expected” is not defined, just like those fairness principles, even though the Supreme Court provided some direction on this in 2004. It is up to the courts to later determine the scope of the concepts presented in the bill, and therefore the artists will have to appear in court. With this bill, the government is deliberately impoverishing our artists.

The concept of “that can reasonably be expected” is also used in the exceptions covering visual presentations, examinations and inter-library loans.

The other exceptions cover works on the Internet, extending photocopy licence and backup copies.

This is no longer in line with the Berne convention, which authorized states to create exceptions in special cases. The government is creating systematic exceptions, at the expense of our authors and artists.

It would have been better to stop creating exceptions and to recognize that artists are entitled to a fair shake and to fair royalties. The government should have recognized that the author's permission is required before his works can be reproduced and distributed on new platforms.

What is wrong here is that with the locking approach, artists and artisans are responsible for controlling access to their products on the Internet, while the major Internet service providers are responsible for ensuring that these artists and artisans are appropriately acknowledged. Permission must be given for works to be issued on new digital platforms. We must ensure that our artists, who spend their time creating and making us dream, do not end up caught up in expensive legal battles. The federal government must take responsibility and amend the bill to better protect our creators and our artists.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in Trinity—Spadina and all across this country, many of the most creative artists, be they actors, actresses, singers, songwriters and writers of amazing literature, award winners, and I have a large number of artists living in my riding, tell me that they have to work second or third jobs in the service sectors because they just cannot make ends meet.

If we look at the average annual income of artists, we see that many of them live below the poverty line, even though they collect a lot of awards on behalf of Canada. They make Canada proud on the international stage and we often see them acting on television and hear their songs, yet they are paid so poorly, which is why this bill is very flawed.

My question for the member is whether there are amendments that he would support that will come from the New Democrats to make sure artists, writers, singers, songwriters and actors would be able to make better livings, because after all, they help create the Canadian identity. They help define who we are. They are really the soul of our country.

Are there some amendments that we could put in so that artists would get some of the income they help generate through their creative work?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, of course. My colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert could even support these amendments. This recognition is important because we must protect our culture, and this culture must allow us to dream. That is why we must ensure that our artists receive fair compensation for the works they produce. That goes without saying.

The problem is that this bill would cost our artists money, since it allows users to look for works on illegal markets and it allows those who purchased them legally to reproduce them. That goes against the principle of protecting our artists' works. That is how things have always worked, and it is too bad that the government is opening a door today. It is sending the message that the government does not protect artists' rights, and it could end up making them poorer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague for his presentation and his detailed analysis of the situation, which he expressed very clearly. The member talked about a number of obligations that would apply should Bill C-32 be passed as it is currently written.

We know that this bill takes a lot of rights away from artists, particularly with respect to compensation. This bill fails to modernize legislation on royalties and creates exemptions that make it impossible for artists to get the same or, in some cases, better compensation.

This bill also places responsibility for proving copyright violation squarely on the shoulders of copyright owners and artists.

Can my colleague comment further on the fact that, if this bill were passed, artists would have to follow in Claude Robinson's footsteps? Perhaps members of the House do not know him, so maybe the member can explain the situation. Claude Robinson was a prolific and truly creative artist who spent 14 years of his life fighting for his copyright instead of creating and developing his ideas.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly it. What my colleague is saying is that our artists are being asked to be technical experts, which means that they will be spending more time ensuring that their works are protected than they will spend producing and creating them. That is the problem.

Internet service providers should be responsible for ensuring that artists benefit when works are transferred. For example, if someone decides to use an artist's work and put it on YouTube, then YouTube sells advertisements, it makes money off our artists' works, not directly, but indirectly. This is not happening directly, but it happens when people disseminate works on different platforms.

So we are turning our artists into technical experts. They will spend more time ensuring that their works are protected than they will spend creating them. Our artists are not robots. Above all, they are creators, and this bill essentially makes our artists poorer and diminishes their rights.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make two points. One is that YouTube actually does monetize traffic that is on there, which I think is a very positive element. That is why I do not mind any of my works being on YouTube, as long as there is a monetizing stream. It is important.

In terms of a monetizing stream, we see how the government attacked the levy, called it a tax, misrepresented the numbers and used it in its political mail-outs. Yet the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages went one step further.

In Europe there is the Pirate Party. Even the Pirate Party has never said anything as audacious as the Conservative Party that said, “We do not need to compensate artists through a levy because we have the Canada Council for the Arts”. Because there is a support program for the creation of arts in place in Canada, as exists in many countries, somehow the obligation to respect copyright is made null and void and we do not need to maintain a revenue stream for artists because they can apply for a grant to the Canada Council.

I know many, many artists personally who make their living by playing, by royalties and by copyright. Very few of them ever apply to the Canada Council.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague why he thinks it is that the Conservative government would believe that just because there are certain programs in existence to support artists that the larger obligation to respect copyright and to respect the right of artists to be remunerated is somehow made null and void in this digital age?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, culture is always compromised with this government. During the last federal election campaign, Quebec's artists and artisans took action to make the government understand that they would not accept cuts to existing culture programs that allow our creators to function.

After using federal funds and budgets and threatening artists with cuts, now the government is using legislation to make them understand that we are living in a completely open market, in the wild west, and that the big players—the broadcasters and Internet service providers—will get benefits. Those who form the very foundation of the services provided will be dropped. Big Internet service providers are nothing without these artists.

We need to ensure that cultural content, which is produced on platforms and sometimes used for other purposes, is first authorized and then receives fair royalties. This Conservative government always compromises culture. We saw it during the last election campaign, and we are now seeing it with Bill C-32.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be here as I have been delving into this issue since 2004 when I was first elected and became a member of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Back then, we had to deal with what was from 1997 the major last reforms to copyright and then we went into a new bill in 2005, which was Bill C-60. In 2008, we received Bill C-61 from the government but that was put aside because the Conservatives wanted to change the bill to become more technologically neutral. Those were the words by the industry minister earlier today.

This signifies the first time that we have had a fulsome debate in the House for quite some time because those prior bills never had a fair hearing within the House. We had a few debates here and there but not a fulsome debate like we are having today. I congratulate my colleagues, the Minister of Industry, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the critic from the Bloc Québécois and the critic from the NDP, for their speeches. They all, in their own way, put out well researched speeches with some incredibly valid points.

Once again I will reiterate that our party will vote at second reading to put this to a committee so we can give it a fair hearing. When I first looked at this bill, and despite the problems that I personally have with it, I wondered if it needed to be fundamentally changed before we reached second reading. I knew that if we voted yes at second reading, we would be accepting, by and large, the principles in the bill and, therefore, major amendments to change the direction of the bill in certain ways could not be done as they would be overruled by the Speaker.

At that point during the discussion, we decided to go ahead because we needed balanced copyright legislation. It is long overdue, no doubt about it, and everyone should perhaps grab just a little bit of blame in all of that as this discussion has gone on. We signed WIPO treaties in 1996, one dealing with the Internet and the other one dealing with phonograms. Since then, however, we have yet to ratify, pending, of course, the right amount of legislation or balanced copyright legislation. In this instance, Bill C-32, which is in front of us now, was really borne out of the ashes of other bills that have died on the order paper.

Going back to copyright and the issue therein, how do artists receive the right amount of remuneration for the work they have done? I will go back to the origins of copyright. The first time Canada had copyright legislation was in 1868. We felt the need, even back then, for artists to protect what they create but that it would be balanced with the right of users to have access to this material which was very important going back to the beginning and the genesis of the printing presses.

In 1868 and years thereafter, it started in Great Britain, moved its way to Canada and through the United States where it felt the same urge, need and desire to protect artists' rights and, at the same time, mass distribution for this material so it could be accessed by the public. However, by protecting some of this material we did not want to protect it to the point where we kept it under wraps from the general public and people could not get access to it.

The year 1875 was another time when Canada went full ahead and made changes to copyright legislation so that it would be more in line with other countries. Even at the very beginning of copyright legislation there was always the compulsion to bring it in line with what is international standards as artists' work really knows no boundaries. That was at a time when we were printing books for mass distribution. We did not have anything like the radio or record players but now, in the digital age with the Internet, the global village has become that much smaller.

In the very beginning, if memory serves me correctly, I believe the origins of copyright internationally was that British books were being distributed throughout the British Empire and there needed to be certain protections for that as it was distributed to countries like Australia, India or Canada, throughout the British Commonwealth.

The first time Canada saw a glimpse of modern copyright legislation, or at least something that was considered for quite some time to be the cornerstone of copyright legislation, came in 1924. Around that time it was comprehensive enough that it covered many aspects of what was out there in the public realm. Again I go back to books, certain recordings, photographs and that sort of thing, obviously at the very early stages.

As my colleague from the NDP pointed out earlier, the arguments that we are putting forth here today started in the latter part of the 19th century. He used the example of the rolling piano where music was played on an automatic piano, which we have seen in the movies, and whether that would destroy a piano player's career. Obviously, it did not. After that, would recorded music destroy the concert or would people stop going to concerts because they now had an album that featured the artist's recordings? That was not the case as, of course, concerts have increased dramatically from the time of their inception.

From 1924, we went on to make some substantial amendments to the legislation, obviously with the changing times, in 1985 as well as in 1997. Both governments, Progressive Conservative and Liberal, have made substantial changes throughout the years. There seems to be a camaraderie or general understanding to reach out to other parties within this House to ensure we have the right legislation.

However, so many stakeholders are involved in this that there needs to be a comprehensive look at how we deal with copyright and, in order to do that, it needs to receive a mature debate. Today we are debating the bill at second reading and it seems that we are now laying the building blocks for what is about to be a fulsome debate on where copyright is going in this digital age.

I also want to talk briefly about the other bills.

Bill C-60, which was introduced in 2005, received quite a bit of stakeholder response and a lot of it dealing with the fact that we are getting into the digital age. A lot of this was spurred on by the fact that all of a sudden we were sitting in front of a wide array of music selection that we did not need to pay for. It was free. This was the origin of Nabster and LimeWire. With those devices, all of a sudden the consumer had the ultimate choice. Not only was it available in many arrays and all types of genres, it was actually free. That was a fundamental misstep, a fundamental breaking of the contract that we as government have with artists, which is to say that we will help them protect their work.

Nabster has gone by the wayside, or at least the free version has, and other equivalent facsimiles of how that type of music is distributed, meaning peer-to-peer sharing. They have disappeared but there are business models out there. I personally purchase music at 99¢ a song, and I am fine with that. I do not have a very large collection but I do have a collection that is big enough that I gleefully pay for it.

One of the issues that came from peer-to-peer sharing and one of the issues that has not been discussed yet is the information out there about what is illegal. This is something that has been dear to my heart as an issue. As my colleague pointed out earlier, in the United States right now this is incredibly litigious. The lawyers are running overtime when it comes to areas of copyright. A lot of the rules that are put down in America right now are really laid down by court judgments throughout the court system. To a certain degree that has happened here as well, but not to that extent.

In America there were several illustrations where children downloading music in their basements were being sued by major companies in multi-million dollar lawsuits. Obviously they cannot be involved in multi-million dollar lawsuits because there is no way they can get the money. Instead, the companies felt compelled to make a statement and made their statement by taking the most vulnerable in society to court. I will not come down too hard on companies for doing that as they had a legitimate concern about people stealing their product. However, at the same time, they did it with a great deal of haste and aggression that I would not agree with. I think that we, as government, should address that issue.

However, the result of that was the introduction of Bill C-60 in 2005, which, as I stated previously, created a lot of input and for all good reasons. The government changed in 2006 and we found ourselves going back in 2008 with Bill C-61. Bill C-61 went off in different directions from Bill C-60 in many cases but some of the fundamental aspects remained intact.

However, the problem was that in many cases people felt that it had been rushed through too quickly or that it had never received the right debate within the House. Many of the stakeholders thought Bill C-61, because it was illustrative, was maybe too illustrative because it set out certain examples and put people in corners. Basically it was too smothering, as someone told me. Bill C-61 found itself it to be too much for everybody to handle. At this point it went back to the drawing board. As we have heard this morning, I think “technologically neutral” was the response that came back.

Bill C-32 is the latest version of this and hopefully with the agreement of members of this House it will actually make a fulsome attempt to put this into law, and that way the next time we deal with this will be as something that comes way down the pipeline.

One of the issues that keeps being raised is peer-to-peer sharing. I have always made the comment that the problem with having legislation that is too stringent and too detailed in nature is that it becomes oppressive to the point where it just does not adapt. I have said it before and I will say it again. It seems that whenever there is a technical measure by which people are not allowed to get to a certain piece of art, roadblocks are put up around it. Governments do it through regulation to keep people out for access reasons.

However, once that it is put in, I have a 16-year-old son who could get around it within 48 hours. I am not exaggerating because I have seen it happen. I would not want to say that it was my son because I would get him in trouble since this is a public forum, but I have seen it happen. Teenagers do not like to be told that they cannot access certain material for whatever reason.

In the old days, when we were told that we could not access certain material for whatever reason, we would get upset if we could not access certain art or music because it broke Canadian laws or regulations on content. Nowadays, when roadblocks are put up to deny teenagers access, they laugh. It is a big joke. In essence, they find that it is not a big deal because they will find it and get to it in 48 hours. They have done it before and they will do it again.

The concept is that they are breaking the law. Artists have protection around their material that they need to make a living. If a particular parent is sitting at home and is not familiar with the new ways for children to attain music, movies or any type of entertainment nowadays, a parent would be horrified. Parents would be horrified if someone were to call them at home and say that he or she had just caught their child shoplifting at HMV and that the child had tried to walk out of the building with a CD in his or her pocket.

Some kids can download about 20 to 25 CDs from their computer in the run of five minutes. That is okay. Some kids tell their dads that they just downloaded the new movie that is out in the theatres onto CD. A lot of parents just do not pay any attention and just say “Okay, that is great. Let us go watch it.” It is illegal.

I hope part of the debate elevates copyright infringement and how the protections in place for artists are there for a reason, which is to protect the artists' work. It is stealing. We can call it that. In the end, artists are unable to make a living if their material is not protected.

On the other hand, one of the provisions in the bill talks about digital locks. We have all talked about this. We have all heard about this. Is it too stringent in this particular bill? It needs to be discussed. Is it a situation where digital locks cannot be touched? I am not so sure.

I said earlier that I have a concern about the fact that one particular company may have a digital lock in place over certain material. If someone downloads a piece of music or a movie, that piece of music or that movie can only be listened to or viewed by that company's equipment. I have concerns about that because the individual probably purchased the movie legally but is locked in a corner as to how he or she can use it. That deserves to be revisited.

I refuse to believe that the digital lock issue is cut and dried. Educators have said that the digital lock provisions would be too harsh on them now that they have an educational exemption. We have one group weighed off against the other. That involves a full debate. That has to be talked about because many people have a point. I met yesterday with the Canadian Federation of Students who brought that issue up.

On the other hand, some artists are happily ensconced and making a good living by the fact that digital locks allow their material to be protected. Software companies are a case in point.

Canada has a fantastic software industry for games, the intellectual property of video games, Xbox, PlayStation. We have a great industry here and it certainly deserves protection. We need to look at this material with open minds and consider debating it.

Unfortunately the debate earlier was going in different directions regarding the levy that was imposed upon CDs, DVDs or DVDRs and the way artists are able to achieve money to protect their livelihoods. They came up with a solution in the late nineties but it is not within this bill. The government does not agree with it but it deserves to be discussed. I hope the government will be open to revisiting that issue once again when we get this legislation in committee.

There are other issues as well in these changing times. I mentioned the downloading, or making a copy, of music or movies. This is copyright.

This debate started back in 2005. It is not that long ago, if we think about it. We started out with P2P, or peer-to-peer sharing. Nowadays we have live streaming, where no copy is involved. An individual just logs on and live streams what he or she wants. YouTube is a classic example. This technology is going at a blistering speed in the digital age and now we have to keep up.

I was happy to hear the minister talk about a five-year review, and I congratulate him on that. That goes a long way toward looking at legislation once again. Personally, I feel that is the way we should be going.

Bill C-32 contains a number of other measures such as those regarding mashups and the creation of a new exemption for user-generated content, which broadly written, could create an opening for abuse. That is true. We have to consider that.

Statutory damage is another issue we have to look at.

Fair dealing in general has to be looked at, fair dealing for access for consumers, fair dealing for parody, satire, but fair dealing for education. We have had a lot of input on that. Some people are very concerned about it, artists in particular.

Some artistry groups have said that an open-minded, fair dealing provision puts in the hands of the courts what should be determined by Parliament. That is something we have to consider. Again, it becomes incredibly litigious. Fair dealing has that possibility so we have to consider that. We have to draft legislation to make sure that does not happen, in my humble opinion. Artist groups are saying that the full impact of an open-ended fair dealing provision may be difficult to predict but the fact that there will be unintended consequences is wholly predictable.

The intent of the education provisions put forward by people from the University of Ottawa and by the Canadian Federation of Students is not to destroy the livelihoods of people who write textbooks. So again we have the interests of one weighed off against the interests of the other. We have to come down the middle in what I consider to be fair copyright legislation.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, at a recent United States conference that some of us in the House attended, we were approached by a United States congressperson about this whole area. What I would like to ask the member is whether he is aware of any lobbying that has been done by American interests, perhaps in the recording or movie industries, to try to influence the development of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good point. I will read a quote from a book titled From “Radical Extremism” to “Balanced Copyright”, which is a collection of articles on copyright. I will get to the quote in a moment, but it is a salient point and certainly is germane to this conversation because, when the member talks about the American interests, a lot of it has to do with digital locks because the major corporations headquartered in the United States have a vested interest in digital locks for that reason.

Again I push back to them just a little by saying that if I take an artist's material, and that artist could be Canadian, I can only play it on certain platforms that are deemed fit for that particular artist's work. I am not sure if I totally agree with that and I push back somewhat for the sake of public interest and for that particular artist. It is the song that I purchased; the method of distribution I care little for. It is just that I want that song or movie.

Sara Bannerman wrote an article in this book, one of the first articles in it. She brings up the international context of this debate, which I spoke about earlier in my speech, going way back to the late 1800s. She says:

Bill C-32 responds to the same pressures, domestic and international, that have historically characterized Canadian copyright reform. ... Bill C-32, to a greater extent than its predecessor in Bill C-60, bows to international demands and goes beyond the minimum requirements of the WIPO Internet treaties.

She has particular concerns about this bill and the international scope of it. That leads to the fact that, yes, there are a lot of international pressures, especially from the United States.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member about one of the key issues in all of this, which is ensuring that creators are properly remunerated for their work and how we monetize the changes in technology. We have struggled with this throughout the last century and into this one with each change in technology, and we have struggled with how to make sure artists and creators are properly paid for their work.

A couple of decades ago there was the whole issue of blank cassettes, disks, people making mixed tapes and, in that situation, creators not being properly paid, so we went to a system of putting a levy on blank CDs and disks. It went to a copyright collective to ensure that the artists were paid. It was a made in Canada solution that worked well and served our artists well.

This bill abandons that approach. We could do it now with music-playing devices. We could ensure that levies on each of the devices go directly to artists and creators for their work. I am wondering what the member thinks of that issue and if it is a direction we should be moving in.

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

Mr. Speaker, the question of the hon. member is germane to the debate in a big way. The business model that exists for artists right now is changing to the point where it is so incredibly fast that it is hard for the smaller artist to get involved in the business, or we create a barrier of entry for many young artists, because they do not know the processes well enough to adapt, because it is all about adaptation.

The hon. member brought up the levy situation. It is too bad that the levy got into the wrong type of debate. My colleague from the NDP who sits on the heritage committee brought forward a bill that basically extended the levy on blank CDs. There is a levy of so many cents on a blank CD, which is available for artists in general. The reason is that we were making so many mixed tapes or recording from different sources that the artists were not getting remuneration. So whenever we buy a blank cassette on which we put the songs, we have to pay a certain amount of money, a very small percentage of it, to go to an artist.

My colleague talks in his question about extending that into the next generation of recorded material, and that would be obviously things like iPods or MP3s. However, the Conservatives brought up a valid point in that it will push this toward all platforms, everything that is carrying music: cars, cellphones and the BlackBerry, which now has a way of playing music. Therein lies the nub of the issue. We have to get into the debate. I do believe that there is remuneration for artists through a levy type of compensation, but unfortunately the government turned around and called this a tax, by just saying that it is simply money out of pocket and therefore it is a tax, and it does not want to put a tax on iPods.

I say that it is money that goes directly to the artists, not to general revenues. If the Conservatives were so concerned about it, why did they put a fee on transportation at an airport? That is not a tax, though. That is what they say. They up the fees when we walk into an airport, but that is not a tax. That is a security fee.

It is disingenuous really to have an honest debate about what it is we are doing, which is to say that we need artists to be compensated for what they do, because if they are not, the next generation of artists will not be either. Yes, dare I say it, the next Justin Bieber is just around the corner. So many people flinch when I say that, but he is a good artist. The thing is that the next Justin Bieber, or the next struggling artist, will not get the compensation. I come from an area where there are a lot of artists, a lot of small independent artists who want to make a living. They are not asking for or commanding a major audience. They just want their own little audience. That way, when they distribute their material, they are compensated so that they can continue to do it in the beautiful province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

Mr. Speaker, on this cold day in the House I just wanted to come back to the hon. member and follow up on some of his comments.

The most particularly egregious aspect of this legislation is the 30-day retroactive book burn, where students and teachers have to basically destroy content that they have received as part of their educational material. This is incredibly irresponsible, for anyone who understands the education sector, whether we are talking about high school, college or university. What it means is that students have to try to retain in their minds material that they have accessed as part of their educational requirement.

I want to get a comment from the member on how he feels about this particular measure that forces teachers and students to destroy their educational material, in other words, part of their education.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about this, as is the member. These issues are most important to me as a member because I represent a rural riding. I think this could have an adverse effect on rural ridings, in general, especially for those people who rely on long-distance education as the means by which they obtain their high school diploma or, even more prevalent, their post-secondary diploma.

I represent 191 towns in my riding. It is quite astounding how many students, and I mean secondary students, from grade 9, or junior high or high school, who rely on long-distance education to receive their high school diploma. Of those 191 towns, over 50 do not have access to broadband Internet, which is incomprehensible nowadays. When I tell people in Ottawa that somewhere in the vicinity of 20% to 30% of my riding has no access to broadband Internet, that they have only dial-up Internet, they do not know what I am talking about.

This gives us the idea that it is a right as a Canadian to receive access to broadband Internet. As politicians, we trip over ourselves trying to put asphalt in every town in the country, but yet when it comes to broadband Internet, we almost treat it like a luxury.

In any event, back to the issue. I am deeply concerned about the fact that a 30-day period is in place where the material has to be destroy and—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. Unfortunately, I will have to stop the hon. member there and move on.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-32, the copyright modernization act.

It is interesting that we are debating copyright in the House of Commons again. This corner of the House has been clear and consistent over many years about the importance of updating Canada's copyright legislation and regime.

New Democrats have always said, and our spokesperson on this issue, the member for Timmins—James Bay, said it again this morning, that we believe copyright reform is in the centre of what we need to do around digital innovation. It is the centrepiece of a digital innovation strategy. It is not the only piece, but it is the key component of how we approach that. The debate today and the expansion of the Internet and the technological changes we have seen bring that home daily for Canadians.

Our digital innovation strategy would not just be about copyright reform. It would be about codifying the protection for net neutrality to ensure the democracy on the Internet is protected and preserved. The attempts to offer tiered services so some people get their Internet services faster than others and some content goes faster than others need to be addressed. New Democrats have put forward proposals to ensure net neutrality.

We also believe that there needs to be a commitment to national benchmarks for broadband access. Canada needs to put the whole question of broadband access on the front burner to ensure that all Canadians have the broadband access they need to survive and flourish in the current environment.

We are falling behind other countries that are doing more in this area. Australia is a great example of that. It was a key proposal in Australia over a number of years, and it factored again in its most recent election, about it establishment of a national broadband network, which it calls fibre to home, an open access network. With the latest fibre optic technology, it goes to 93% of homes and businesses in Australia. It is a very fast service, at 100 megabits per second.

This is a huge infrastructure project for Australia, but it has served Australia well. It is a huge investment. It is the largest infrastructure investment in the history of Australia, a megaproject that will put the Australians in good stead for the future. We should consider this kind of thing in Canada as well.

Another component of a digital innovation strategy, which the New Democrats believe is very important, is to enhance the role of digital cultural programs to ensure Canadians can fully participate as international citizens within a democratic culturally vibrant public commons. That public commons has changed with the introduction of the Internet. I think all of us realize our lives are very different because of that development.

There are very key things that we need to look at as part of not only this specific discussion about copyright reform, but the broader context of copyright reform in Canada and digital innovation as well.

Bill C-32 is the third attempt to update Canada's copyright laws in the last six years. We have not made any changes to our copyright law since 1997. The previous Liberal government, the Martin government, tried to bring in changes to the copyright regime at the end of its term with Bill C-60.

When the current government came to power, it introduced Bill C-61 nearly two years ago, but withdrew the bill because of very broad criticism. It was too cumbersome and too closely modelled on the restrictive digital millennium copyright act in the United States. There have been significant problems with the U.S. legislation, which I am sure we do not want to repeat in Canada.

Bill C-32 is intended to strike a balance between corporate and consumer interests when it comes to copyright interest.

Regarding some of the highlights of the bill, we are told that the intention of Bill C-32 is to be technologically neutral, that it should apply across a broad range of devices and technologies with a view to ensuring adaptability to a constantly evolving technology environment. We know this is crucial to any new legislation on copyright. It cannot be legislation that becomes outdated almost as quickly as it is passed. It has to be something that serves us into the future. We have to get the broad principles of the legislation right or it will be outdated by the time it even passes through Parliament.

The government has also stated that its aim in updating the Copyright Act is not to punish individual users, but rather to focus its deterrence and enforcement efforts on distributors and large websites that illegally host copyrighted content. We will have to see whether that goal is actually accomplished. There is some criticism that the bill does not have that kind of focus and does not accomplish that goal, but the government has said it hopes it does.

What is included in the bill?

The bill would extend the term of copyright for performers and producers to 50 years from the time of publication of a musical performance.

It would create a new "making available" right in accordance with the WIPO treaties. This measure would give copyright owners exclusive control over how their content would be made available on the Internet.

It would introduce a mandatory review of the Copyright Act to take place very five years. Given the pace of technological change and given that we want to ensure the legislation actually does what it is intended to do, this mandatory review is very crucial.

The bill would formally enshrine in legislation commonplace grey area practices that would enable users to record TV programs for later viewing, or time-shifting, as long as they did not compile a library of recorded content. It would allow for the transfer of songs from CDs onto MP3 players, for instance, or format-shifting, and it would allow folks to make backup copies.

The legislation would also create new limited exceptions to the fair dealing provision of the Copyright Act, including exceptions for educators and for parody and satire. Canadian artists have been demanding this.

It would also create an exception for content creators that would enable the circumvention of DRMs through the express purpose of reverse engineering, for encryption research, for security testing, for perceptual disability and for software interoperability.

The bill would also introduce a new so-called YouTube exemption to deal with mashups that would allow Canadian users to compile clips of copyrighted works into a remixed work, as long as it was not created for commercial purposes.

Bill C-32 would also create a new exception for broadcasters to allow them to copy music for their operations.

The bill would create a carve out for network locks on cellphones.

The bill would also reduce statutory damages from a maximum fine of $20,000 per copyrighted work to a one-time maximum penalty of $5,000 in situations in which copyrighted works had been illegally accessed for non-commercial purposes.

A number of changes are included in the legislation, but that does not mean there are not problems with what is there. New Democrats have identified two key problems with how the Conservative government has approached copyright.

The rights that are offered in the fair dealing, or mashup and parity exemptions, can be overridden by the heavy legal protections being put in place for digital locks. Under Bill C-32, it would be illegal to break a digital lock, even if that lock prevented one from accessing material that one would otherwise be legally entitled to access. In fact, it treats the breaking of digital locks for personal use the same as if the lock were being broken for commercial counterfeiting. The whole question of the use of digital locks and their application, the extent to which they can be applied and how that conflicts with the rights of consumers, which the bill apparently tries to protect, and how those two interact is a huge problem with this legislation.

Consumers are guaranteed certain rights in the bill, but the reality is the holder, the manufacturer or the digital lock producer has the final say so, and those digital locks do seem to override the rights of consumers when it comes to the legislation.

That is a huge problem with Bill C-32. The Conservatives might say that under the World Intellectual Property Organization agreement this is something that is necessary. While those things need to be considered given that commitment, other countries have taken different approaches. So there are alternative ways to deal with this, rather than this reliance on digital locks. That is something that must be discussed further at the committee and could be a deal breaker in terms of the legislation.

Another serious problem with the bill is that a number of previous revenue streams for artists' organizations appear to be undermined through exemptions and changes. The most noticeable one is the government's decision not to extend the private copying levy on CDs to music playing devices. This is a very serious problem. The whole question of how we respond, how we monetize, how we make sure that artists are remunerated for the work they do, given the changing technology, and how we make sure that there is money going into creators' pockets, given these new technologies, is something that we have struggled with for over a century.

Earlier today the NDP's Canadian heritage critic, our spokesperson on this issue, went through the whole history of how that worked from the last century, starting with John Philip Sousa denouncing the threat of mechanical music, the roller piano. He said the technology would destroy the livelihood of American musicians. Music publishers, people who publish sheet music, were similarly concerned about the introduction of the record player. They thought that would mean the end of artists being effectively or appropriately remunerated for their work.

The radio was new technology and it was thought that it too would end the ability of creators to be properly remunerated for their work. But we found ways through all of those issues, and that brings us up to today. So the scenario has not changed, and the need for creativity continues as well.

Here in Canada, when we were faced with the situation of artists losing remuneration because of people copying their works onto blank cassettes and blank CDs to make mixed tapes, and so on, they were not being compensated. Artists were not being compensated, and that was a serious issue in terms of their incomes. We found a made-in-Canada solution, which was to introduce a levy on blank cassettes and CDs, a levy that is paid to a copyright collective and then paid to creators, to artists. It has been hugely successful in Canada and has been very important to creators in terms of maintaining their income and ensuring that they were properly compensated for their work.

That continues to be an important approach that has broad support. I know New Democrats have consistently said this is something that we should be considering today as well, extending that levy to music playing devices such as iPods and MP3 players so that artists could be compensated appropriately for the works that are transferred onto those devices.

There is support for this among creators as well. Alain Pineau, the national director of the Canadian Conference of the Arts, has said that the bill's failure to extend copyright collectives into the digital area is a huge problem and that it bypasses that solution in favour of lawsuits.

If we had the choice of engaging a system that we worked out and developed here in Canada, which has been hugely successful, which has met the goals of ensuring that artists and creators are properly remunerated for their work, if we had the choice between that and forcing creators and publishers into court against consumers, the choice for me is absolutely clear that the levy is the way to go.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives have politicized the conversation about the levy. They have talked about it as if it were a tax. It is not a tax. It is a levy that is directed for a specific purpose, and I think it is a purpose that Canadians can support.

I think Canadians want to make sure that artists are appropriately compensated for their work and that they make an appropriate living from the important work they do from which we all benefit. I think that is something that Canadians would get behind.

It is a system that is in place; it is not a novel idea. It is a system that was criticized when it was first brought in, but I think that criticism died down when the fairness of the system became widely apparent.

That is another very serious problem with this legislation. We want to make sure that there is a system of copyright based on the principles of fair compensation for creators and artists and access to consumers. Those are very appropriate and needed principles. Remuneration of artists and creators for their work is crucial to the ongoing cultural viability of Canada and to the Canadian cultural sector.

Access is crucial for people in Canada who enjoy the work of creators and artists. I do not think that criminalizing consumers, putting the emphasis on finding ways to go after people who violate copyright, is the way to go. It takes its inspiration from the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which we know has been a huge failure in a number of cases.

We have seen in the United States where children, parents and others have been sued, usually by large recording companies, for the violation of copyright, in a way that I think any reasonable person would see as unfair and inappropriate. This aspect of the American legislation is something that I hope we would not be copying in Canada. We should put a digital lock on that idea because it is just not appropriate for use here, especially when we have a solution that we created in this country and has served us well.

New Democrats also support the idea of collective licensing. We support fair access for educational materials, and in this bill there is a very troubling provision that digital lessons for long-distance learning would have to be destroyed within 30 days of the end of the course. This would treat students in digital learning environments as second-class citizens and undermine the potential of new learning opportunities.

My colleague has likened this provision to book burning. Requiring the destruction of those course materials within a time period at the end of the course really goes against the kind of freedom of intellectual inquiry that we want to stimulate in Canada. It amounts to a digital equivalent of book burning, hardly something that we want to be encouraging in an educational setting.

As well, the requirement that teachers would have to destroy lesson plans, as contained in clause 27 of this legislation, is extremely troubling. We want to encourage people to use distance education as a way of upgrading skills and getting the education and training they require, but we also want to make sure they have access to the materials they need to gain that education. Sometimes those materials are required for ongoing purposes. Clause 27 of this bill is a very serious issue in that it requires the destruction of course materials and lesson plans. Certainly it will be something that we will raise as best we can in the coming discussions.

There is much that we have to talk about on this issue of copyright legislation. We tried and we are here again debating it in the House of Commons after a number of ill-fated attempts. I am not sure that we have found the right legislation yet, but the New Democrats are here to participate in that debate and work to see if we can improve the legislation. Hopefully that is possible, but if not, we may have to make other decisions on it.

We want to work with everyone on whom this legislation would have an impact, to see if we can find an appropriate copyright regime for Canada for the 21st century and for a time of changing technology.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague, who I think raised a number of serious issues in terms of copyright reform and some of the fundamental problems that still remain with this bill.

I think it is important to put into the context that some of today's most respectable corporate interests in terms of defending copyright and defending the rights holders were, yesterday and the day before, some of our most famous pirates. Using Hollywood as an example, most people think Hollywood was set up because they had nice weather year round.

In fact, Hollywood was set up to escape the copyright patents of Thomas Edison. Thomas Edison set up the original motion picture film technology and he used his copyright patents to snuff out any competing business. He was quite ruthless in using the courts to go after anybody who was attempting to set up movie theatres back in the early days.

A number of independent producers, who were the BitTorrents of the day, went out west where they were just slightly beyond the long arm of Thomas Edison's corporate reach and they set up Hollywood. Then, of course, once Hollywood had gathered up enough power, it decided to challenge the Edison monopoly in court. Then Hollywood became the standard.

We can remember in the 1970s and 1980s when the VHS recorder came along. Jack Valenti, who was the long-time spokesman of the movie industry, the way Charlton Heston is for the NRA, said that the VHS technology was the “Boston Strangler” that would destroy artists, because if people were allowed to watch movies on VHS recorders, it would destroy the entire business model on which Hollywood was founded.

Of course, at the time, what was one of the private companies that was supporting the VHS? It was Sony. Sony had a big market to sell the VHS players. Sony was being denounced by the Jack Valentis of Hollywood. Hollywood was saying that it would be the end of its business model.

Of course, we know that Hollywood survived and grew because it created a whole new market in the sale of what was VHS, and then DVDs.

I would ask my hon. colleague why he thinks the government continues to be afraid of new technologies and uses digital locks to shut down developing business models.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I always have trouble determining the motivation of the Conservative government, so I am not sure I have a good answer to that.

It strikes me that the governments in this country have been struggling with how to proceed on this. I think part of it is their inability to think creatively and go out on their own. They have been unwilling to think about what is best for Canada and what is best for Canadians. They have been unwilling to look at the models that have been developed here in this country to find our own solutions within the kinds of international agreements and the kind of technological environment we have.

We have done that in the past. We did that with the levy on blank CDs and disks. So why we cannot apply that same kind of spirit to the overall copyright regime is beyond me.

It seems to me that we have relied too heavily on the American example. We wanted to go their route and when we could not get away with that in this country, we fell into this confusion about where to go.

We have seen the doom and gloom predictions for many years with each technology. It seemed too complicated to know what to do, yet somehow people have figured out that there is a way to both ensure the rights of consumers and ensure that artists are properly remunerated.

I do not think we are beyond finding that solution in this day and age. There are lots of folks who believe that the digital lock changes are not the appropriate way to go. The Business Coalition for Balanced Copyright has weighed in on that issue. The Retail Council of Canada, universities, booksellers and the Canadian Library Association have all raised concerns about the dependence on digital locks.

I think there is a way through this. I hope we can find it in this Parliament.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on something my hon. colleague mentioned earlier; it is one of the most troubling aspects of the bill. There is a whole sleight of hand here, a set of provisions that we will never be able to exercise, promises of consumer rights that will be taken away by the digital locks.

There is one provision that stands out in clause 27, under which it would be legal to make a lesson for digital learning. People in isolated first nations communities in the north, and small communities across rural Canada who want to improve their education, would have legal access to digital learning. However, after 30 days their class notes would have to be destroyed. It is the equivalent of book-burning in the modern age.

It staggers the imagination that the government's approach to digital learning in a region as vast as Canada, where many people are spread out and in need of opportunities for education and cultural development, would shackle students and teachers engaged in long-distance learning with a provision that would require class notes to be burned or destroyed through digital locks after 30 days.

In effect, it creates two tiers of students in this country: those who sit in classrooms and receive photocopies that they get to keep; and those who live in remote areas of Canada. These last, when they attempt to improve their educational opportunities, are told by the Conservative government that their ability to get an education is a threat to a corporate business model that has never even been explained. Does my hon. colleague think that the only reasonable thing to do is take a big red pen, strike that section out, and “mark it zero, Donny” because the government has gone over the line?

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague will be participating in the ongoing discussions on this legislation, and I am sure he has his big red pen handy for clause 27. It is one of the worst aspects of this legislation. It would require students to get rid of any class notes or lesson plans after 30 days. It is difficult to understand why such a thing would be part of the copyright regime.

It is a smack in the face to long-distance education, which has made huge advances. The possibilities have increased dramatically with the Internet. It makes more things possible for students who do not have access to urban educational institutions. Limiting the ability of our citizens to take advantage of the technology does not make sense. It is beyond me why this would be in the legislation. To require students and teachers to get rid of their class materials after a short deadline is not sensible at all.

We are also concerned that similar punitive measures could be brought to bear against librarians handling digital inter-library loans, which, under this legislation, would have to be destroyed after five days. This is something that needs to be examined; it probably should not be in the legislation. It discourages folks from accessing the kind of information, education, and training that would allow them to reach their goals, contribute to their communities, earn their livings, and contribute to their families' income. None of these things will assist people to do that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Copyright Act.

I would like to start by praising the member for Timmins—James Bay. He is the first digital affairs critic in the history of Parliament, named by our leader to push the government on digital affairs. He has a background as an artist who has depended on copyright. This bill is a result of his endless efforts to try to get the government to understand, after four years of sitting on its derriere, that they had to take action on copyright. It is because of the member for Timmins—James Bay that the government has moved at all.

There are positive provisions in the bill. But as with virtually everything else the government has done, there is an element of ineptness, whether it appears in bad financial management, the treatment of veterans, or corruption inside the government. In fact, everything that the government promised four years ago it has managed to botch or deliberately mishandle.

In this case, we see provisions that we can only liken to digital torches and pitchforks. Having been thrown into the bill, these provisions diminish some of the good elements that the member for Timmins—James Bay was able to promote and put into effect.

We have been calling for a mandatory review of the Copyright Act. When we look at the history of copyright and the new technology, we see that this type of mandated review is absolutely essential.

We have new exceptions to the fair-dealing provisions of the Copyright Act. They create an exception for content creators that would enable the circumvention of DRM for the express purpose of reverse engineering. At the same time, they introduce a number of exceptions that artists have called for. But the problem is that the negative elements of the bill overshadow these positive elements.

Here we have the introduction of long-overdue copyright legislation, something the government has been sitting on for four years. But now we see that, as a result of mishandling, this copyright legislation is bringing as much bad as good.

This is a challenge for Parliament. In this corner of the House, the member for Timmins—James Bay has expressed our opinion that this legislation is long overdue. There are important elements that have to be brought forward, but at the same time, the digital torches and pitchfork of the bill have to be dealt with in committee. Though we would favour pushing this forward to committee, we recognize that the committee will have much work to do to fix this the bill.

The member for Timmins—James Bay talked about the history of copyright, about how new technologies have often been feared by those with vested interests in existing technologies. Player pianos, recordings, radios, computer access to music: all these new technologies experienced obstruction from established interests attempting to protect themselves.

Owing to the hard work of the first digital affairs critic in Canadian parliamentary history, the NDP is pushing forward with what we feel is essential, and that is a balanced approach.

This bill does not have that balance. That is the fundamental problem. The bill ignores the three key components that would give us a balanced approach: copyright maintenance, public access to artistic productions, and rewards for artists. This balance has not yet been achieved in the bill, despite the efforts of the member for Timmins—James Bay to inform the government and lead it in the right direction.

What are the key problems?

First, there are the digital locks.

Second, to provide artists with reliable revenue streams, we proposed extending the levy on materials for music-playing devices. That was an adult approach. We are saying that we need to extend the levy for new devices to ensure that artists receive the remuneration that they need to feed their families. The current government, however, has childishly challenged the adult proposals of the NDP. It has given this legislation a remedy that only large corporations could use: the so-called court remedy. If we go to court, we have to pay a lawyer. Struggling artists cannot do that. That is why there has been so much criticism of this bill.

Third, there is the whole issue of collective licensing, of fair access to educational materials. This is not in the bill. Yet it is something that New Democrats, notably the member for Timmins—James Bay, have put forward as a principle essential to all copyright legislation.

This omission is perhaps the most egregious aspect of this bill. It is one of these digital torches and pitchforks. I am going to read an excerpt from Bill C-32. This is what it says about students and educational institutes. This is the famous clause 27 that my colleague, the member for Burnaby—Douglas, cited earlier. It contains new provisions that would add a new section to 30.01 of the Copyright Act. It says it is not an infringement of copyright for a student to receive a lesson. “However, the student shall destroy the reproduction within 30 days after the day on which the students who are enrolled in the course...have received their final course evaluations”.

That is the famous 30-day, retroactive book-burning clause of this copyright. It is absolutely absurd that those in the gallery, students across the country, would have to destroy these educational materials 30 days after they received their final course evaluation. It seems absurd. When I first heard about this, I said that the member for Timmins—James Bay could not be right. But he was right again: these provisions are clearly in the bill.

It goes on, and it gets worse. Here is the legal mandate:

The educational institution and any person acting under its authority...shall (a) destroy any fixation of the lesson within 30 days after the day on which the students who are enrolled in the course...have received their final course evaluations;

The university, the college, the educational institution has to destroy the material. The student has to destroy the material. Penalties kick in if they do not destroy the material. This is retroactive book burning. This takes us back to the Middle Ages. It is digital torches and pitchforks. It is absolutely absurd. It is laughable that the government would even bring forward such provisions, but there they are in the bill. That is why we are saying that we will not stand for it. We are going to ensure that those provisions are taken out at committee, because they would create two classes of students in this country.

It creates a class of students, largely urban, who can access educational institutions very easily. In the world's largest democracy, which at length and breadth is eight million square kilometres, we cannot have students in northern communities, rural communities and aboriginal communities destroying the material they use online to try to get to the next level of their education.

This is yet another attack by the government on rural and northern Canadians. There seems to be a lot of it. The government simply does not seem to like rural Canada. It likes to use rural Canadians, but does not seem to like rural Canada very much if it put these provisions in the bill.

It goes on to say that a library, archive or museum or a person acting under the authority of one must take measures to prevent the person who has requested it from using the digital copy for more than five business days from the day on which the person first uses it.

Libraries, archives and museums, particularly those in rural areas but also those right across the country, have to prevent people from using a digital copy for more than five business days otherwise they will be in contravention of the act. That is absolutely absurd. What was the government thinking when it put provisions such as the 30 day retroactive book burning and the 5 day retroactive library burning in the act? These are absurd provisions. It is unfortunate that these provisions overshadow some of the good provisions the NDP was able to push the government to observe.

As I mentioned earlier, there are some positive provisions in the bill. However, here is the rub and the symbol of the government's ineptness on digital issues, and that is the digital lock.

Despite all of the principles that are put into play, the positive aspects of the bill and the exemptions, we hit the digital pitchfork at clause 41.1(a). This is not a long a clause at all. It says very simply “No person shall circumvent a technological protection measure”; that is TPMs, or digital locks. This means that despite all the protections, expansions and exceptions that may be in the act, it is overridden by clause 41.1(1), which simply put says a person cannot circumvent.

What does that mean? We are talking about the government imposing penalties of $5,000. It could be less. In clauses 41.19 and 41.2, we see what the courts are directed to do. This is a court issue. We are talking about protections and exceptions. If a company decides to put a digital lock on and a person even attempts to exercise the exceptions in the act, that individual is out of luck.

Clause 41.19 states that:

A court may reduce or remit the amount of damages it awards in the circumstances described in subsection 41.1(1) if the defendant satisfies the court that the defendant was not aware, and had no reasonable grounds to believe, that the defendant’s acts constituted a contravention of that subsection.

In other words, there may be a reduction if the defendant defends himself or herself. We might be talking about young kids or teenagers. We might be talking about students. We might be talking about librarians. Who knows. In that case, the person has to defend himself or herself in court.

We have talked about the five day retroactive book burning and the thirty day retroactive student book burning. Clause 41.2 states that if a court finds the defendant that is a library, archive, museum or an educational institution has contravened these sections and the defendant satisfies the court that he or she was not aware that his or her actions constituted a contravention of that subsection, the plaintiff is not entitled to any remedy other than an injunction.

These are not small exceptions. This imposes a digital lock above and beyond anything else. Therefore, the good components of the act, which we mentioned earlier, are then subjected to digital lock, the TPM, that the government has included in its legislation in the now infamous section 41.1(a). People just simply cannot contravene or circumvent a digital lock. That is absurd.

Here is what some of the folks have said about the bill.

The Business Coalition for Balanced Copyright has said, “some parts of the legislation unfairly restrict consumer freedom and need to be revised before being passed by Parliament such as the inability to circumvent digital locks for private use”.

The Retail Council of Canada has said, “parts of the legislation unfairly restrict consumer freedom and choice and need to be revised before being passed by Parliament”.

The Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada is concerned about the overly strict prohibition against circumvention of technical measures.

The Canadian Booksellers Association would like to see the government allow the public, particularly students and educators, to circumvent digital locks on materials sought for educational and strictly non-commercial purposes.

The Canadian Library Association has said it “is disappointed that longstanding rights, the heart of copyright's balance, as well as the new rights, are all tempered by the over-reach of digital locks”. I talked about that earlier. This is what our critic on digital affairs and the NDP have brought forward, that balance.

Today, in the newspaper, Alain Pineau, national director of the Canadian Conference of the Arts, said that it bypassed the issue of extending copyright collectives in favour of lawsuits.

We are hearing concerns about how the legislation has been put forward from a wide variety of sources across the country. Earlier the member for Timmins—James Bay talked about the positive comments about the levy we proposed for artists. The National Post and the Edmonton Journal were two of those newspapers cited.

We very clearly have public and organizations all saying that the NDP is right to criticize aspects of the bill. That is what we have done. The member for Timmins—James Bay has pushed the government. We will ensure that the ineptitude of the government does not hurt the bill and that we can get the digital and digital pitchforks out of Bill C-32 before it comes back to Parliament for consideration.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member will have his 10-minute question and comment period after question period. We will now move on to statements by members.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

When this matter was last before the House, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster's time had expired, but there are 10 minutes remaining for questions and comments consequent upon the hon. member's speech. I therefore call for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will begin my questioning in general terms about the speech the hon. member made regarding copyright legislation. As he referred to, there have been many forms of this in the past little while: Bill C-60 and Bill C-61 that provided a lot of input from stakeholders.

I know he wants the bill to go to committee but once it gets to the committee process, what are the most fundamental changes that he would like to push forward in regard to Bill C-32? Would it be the digital measures that we talked about? I know he talked a lot about the educational exemption. I wonder if he could expand on that and how he proposes to change that once it goes to a special legislative committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, the elements that I talked about in my speech will be brought forward by our critic, the first digital affairs critic in the history of Parliament, the member for Timmins—James Bay. One element deals with the issue of the retroactive book burning that we talked about earlier, the 30-day requirement for educational institutions and students to burn their books. The legislation states that they “destroy any fixation of the lesson within 30 days of getting their final course evaluations”. How do we spread learning when teachers and students must destroy the material that has just been taught? That is a key element.

Another element is the provisions around the digital lock that override every other exception or exemption within the act. They are just foolish provisions, which is why we call them the “torches and pitchforks” provisions of this bill. In its ineptness, the government, prodded by the NDP to take some initial action, has added elements that clearly contradict what a progressive copyright legislation should entail.

The final element is around the whole issue of the levy for artists and expanding it to new technologies. This levy has been a good Canadian compromise over the years and ensures that small artists have access to some remuneration for their intellectual property, their music and a wide range of talents that they are applying.The current bill would simply allow larger corporations to enforce their rights. This does not help ordinary artists.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the in-depth analysis my hon. colleague has given us with regard to the bill and the problematic areas that if we do not get it right what it will mean for the artists.

We have a variety of artists in my riding of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing. Manitoulin has an abundance of artists, as does Hearst and across the riding and even in Wawa.

Would my colleague like to elaborate a little more with regard to why it is so important for us to get this right and to ensure that the bill will not be passed in its current form?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing for her great work on this issue and on all the other issues that she takes on in the House of Commons. She is one of the bright lights of the class of 2008, a new member of Parliament, who shows incredible experience and depth to everything she brings to the House of Commons. We expect great things from her, as she is doing in the present, in the future.

I want to follow up on her question around artists. The bill would allow the big corporations, the folks who do not need the protection, to basically use a pitchfork against consumers. I mentioned that with the digital locks. The NDP offered what was the essential compromise to expand the levy to ensure that new technologies would be included, such as musical players and recorders, and that would allow the levy to come back to small artists. We are talking about a very small amount but, with the sales in the millions, that amount makes a difference between an artist making a living or being literally a starving artist.

Two major newspapers commented on this levy. The first one, the Edmonton Journal, said that the NDP offered a perfectly reasonable compromise and that the Industry minister misrepresented the contents of the NDP's bill, on a bill that is thoughtful and “upholds the basic Canadian values of straight dealing”.

The National Post, which is certainly not a friend of the NDP, as it takes largely a right wing orientation on news, but the National Post said that “the government's nonsensical, 'Boo! Hiss! No new taxes!' response … is just dumb”.

Those are some of the things that daily newspapers have said about how the Conservatives reacted to what was a sensible compromise put forward by the NDP that would have allowed not only the consumers to access the material, the information and the music of Canadian artists, but would have also allowed Canadian artists to continue to make a living and contribute to Canada in the way that they do so effectively.

As usual, the NDP is bringing very thoughtful ideas to the House of Commons and will continue to push the government to end its ineptitude and to put into the bill some of the provisions that would actually guarantee balance on copyright.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am reticent to do this because sometimes we ask questions and we get put into a certain category as to our opinion, but I do not hear a lot of questions or debate coming from the government side of the House, so maybe I will provide a bit of discussion back and forth.

On the digital lock situation, a lot of people are in favour of locking certain material that they have, such as artists who create music, CDs or movies. When it comes to that, I understand what the member is saying because I, too, am trepidatious about that. I believe the member described it as a digital pitchfork. What bothers me about it is that we have a certain company taking a certain artist's material and distributing it only through its platforms, which, for the consumer, is not a lot of choice. It sort of confines the person. The balance is questionable there.

What about gaming software, which is a growing industry in this country? We have a couple major companies, one being Egosoft. These companies are in a situation where they invest a lot of money in developing the actual material as well as developing the platform. Would they have a case by saying that not circumventing digital locks is the way to go especially for them?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member's question does not address the issue. I think all of us would support digital locks on certain types of intellectual property. The problem is, the exceptions that we and many groups have been calling for, largely on educational grounds, are pitchforked by this infamous paragraph 41.1(a), which says that no person shall circumvent a technological protection measure. That is the problem.

I must tell the hon. member that there is no exception, no exemption. What it says is that we cannot break a digital law for any reason. The government puts in exceptions and exemptions and then covers it all over with an infamous clause that pitchforks the very exceptions and exemptions that are supposed to exist for educational and personal reasons.

There is the rub. There is the problem. The government, in its ineptitude, was unable to balance the needs of artists to get appropriate remuneration with the needs of consumers to access intellectual property. What we have is a block surrounding digital locks. That is the pitchfork. Then we have the book burning, the torches, that come from the destruction of educational material after 30 days.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the importance of this bill on modernizing copyrights. As a member of Parliament, I have spent a number of years working with my colleagues from all the parties to ensure that our country can support authors and copyright owners. That is an important principle.

We are at second reading of Bill C-32, which the government wants to move forward. This is not the first time we have seen such a bill. Before 2008, the government at the time introduced Bills C-60 and C-61, but they did not make it through. It is not true that these bills had a number of flaws and problems.

We are here today to talk about the importance of a bill that recognizes the changes going on in the increasingly technological world we live in.

The purpose of this bill is to modernize the Copyright Act to bring it in line with the digital age. I must mention some of the important changes that are being proposed. There are changes that would authorize individuals to make copies for personal use, such as recording television shows or transferring music onto an iPod or computer. There are also new rules that would make it illegal for individuals to circumvent a digital lock or a technological protection measure.

Furthermore, the bill gives new responsibilities to Internet service providers, which will have to inform copyright owners of a potential infringement of the copyright. As a party, we note the new exceptions regarding fair dealing for educational uses, for parody or for satire that are included in this bill.

Canada is definitely in the midst of a digital transformation. The dawning of the digital economy is upon us and it will no doubt have, and has had, profound impact on industries, especially our cultural industries.

It is clear that our aging copyright laws have received significant international criticism, which is not to be underestimated. The longer we remain behind in global best practices, the more Canadian artists and consumers will lose out. This initiative brings into play our international relations as well as the interests of consumers.

There are obviously a lot of ideas about what is in the best interests of consumers, and this is going to require serious attention in committee, where informed, serious debate will be held with a number of stakeholders, and all points of view will get a clear hearing.

We have all received significant lobbying from individuals, interested parties, stakeholders, and experts in this field. I appreciate these interventions because they are significant. This legislation and the work that we conduct in committee will, I hope, do justice to the attempts by many people to bring forth a better copyright law here in Canada.

A number of concerns were expressed by my colleagues prior to my taking the floor. Because of time considerations, I will not repeat them. Rather, I will focus on areas that my party and I believe are extremely important.

This is not a new issue for me as a member of Parliament. For a number of years, going back to 2006-07, I attempted to bring together an all-party copyright committee that would look at these issues.

I sat on the industry committee, where I am still a member, when we issued two reports on copyright, contraband, and other issues that were important to manufacturing and the evolution of technology, which we viewed in a context of modernizing our economic instruments.

Digital lock provisions allow Canadians who have legitimately purchased a CD or DVD or other products to transfer their purchase to their iPod or make a personal backup copy on their computer, so long, and I think this is the caveat, as they are not doing so for the purpose of sale or transfer to others.

That is what the legislation is looking to do. It distinguishes private personal use and commercialization. In some areas, a simple firewall can be established, but it is not clear and it becomes more clouded when we are dealing with new technologies and new electronics.

Many artists, many songwriters, many creators of art have expressed deep concern and substantial reservations about issues such as the new education provisions in this copyright legislation. They are concerned about mashups, statutory damages, and compensation for resale rights. While we have deep reservations, we will support this bill's going to committee and look for an opportunity to address the many concerns that have been brought forward.

We know the question of copyright is fundamental. It is important and must be treated with the same degree of seriousness that the public always expects from Parliament in enabling and modernizing legislation.

I explained earlier that Canada's shift to a digital economy has huge spinoffs for our cultural industries. I also mentioned that our copyright laws have been criticized internationally and that the more we drag our feet on global best practices, the more Canadian artists and consumers will lose out. We have obviously taken into consideration the fact that numerous artists, writers and creators have also expressed serious concerns about certain points, such as the new provisions concerning education, mashup applications, statutory damages and payment for resale rights. Despite these concerns, we are trying to make sure that this bill makes it to committee, where much more work can be done.

Since it was tabled, this bill has received staunch support and strong opposition from various stakeholders. The Liberal Party obviously supports modernization. However, concerns have been raised about numerous areas. The first is whether digital locks should take precedence over every other right to copy. The bill we are debating today, Bill C-32, provides for new rights authorizing Canadians to make copies for personal use, including format shifting—transferring content to a CD or iPod—as well as time shifting and making backup copies. The new provisions concerning digital locks take precedence over these rights. In other words, under the new law, a person who buys a CD that has had a digital lock on it cannot circumvent that lock to transfer the content to an iPod without breaking the law. Obviously this has given rise to some discussion. It is an extremely controversial point that was already contested when the Conservatives introduced their previous copyright bill, Bill C-61.

As a party, we obviously have concerns. As well, consumers have been passionate about sharing their fears about the digital lock provisions. We listened to these fears and we will listen to them again.

Other areas we would look at in Bill C-32 would be education. It has been mentioned here before, but the legislation introduces exemptions for copying, meaning teachers and institutions of higher learning. Education can now make copies of some work for education purposes and not infringe on copyright.

Broadly, the bill would implement two major changes. It would introduce making copies for education purposes as an exemption under Canada's fair dealing rules. It would also introduce several specific distance education exceptions to allow for copies used for lessons, communicated to the public through telecommunication for educational or training purposes. That public consists only of students who are enrolled in a course.

I think we can appreciate that there is in fact a growing concern and opposition to broad fair dealing exemption provisions. Writers and publishing groups in particular are very opposed. Fair dealing is so broad that question really becomes, what is in fact defined as fair? The writers and publisher groups believe new exemptions will give teachers and education institutions a veritable blank cheque to make copies of their work and to give it students. They believe teachers and educational institutions ought to compensate creators for their work.

In particular, one of the questions that arises is why private commercial education institutions should be permitted to disseminate works for education purposes without compensating copyright.

I do not need to get into the number of associations and groups that have advocated fair dealing exemption. They have to be taken in the context of the concerns that have been registered by those who freely and rightly create and ask that they be compensated for their work.

There again is another area that falls into what we consider the not so black and white debate about copyright. It is important for us to take and weigh both of these in accordance with the spirit of what the bill tries to achieve.

It would appear that another area we need to look at is the area known technically as mashups, and it is not something one would prepare at a dinner. It is the creation of an exemption for user-generated content where a personal movie is produced using music clips combined with personal video. Then, as some do, it is posted on YouTube.

In our view, this section is too broadly written. Under the rule, individuals can post an entire movie on YouTube as long as they add a small inserted clip at the beginning or the end. Then they can call the video a mashup. It is kind of the exemption given in this kind of circumstance.

We believe the language in this proposed legislation should be tightened to ensure that the mashup exemption cannot unexpectedly create what appears to be a loophole for further copyright infringement.

We are also concerned about the question of statutory damages. I raise this because I have not heard many other members talk about this point. The bill defines a new statutory damage provision of between $100 to $5,000 for all non-commercial infringement copyright.

A number of people to whom I have spoken, and who have come to meet with members of Parliament, have expressed concern about this section and believe applied statutory damages must be commensurate to, equal to and proportional to the severity.

That is an important factor that we must consider at committee. We may have differing opinions as to how these issues are going to be resolved. It would appear that the committee is going to be cast, once again, with having to judge two, or three or several very weighty issues.

The resale of art is also a new issue that has not really had a lot of attention, but it is one that leaves Canadian artists in a position of distinct disadvantage. As members will know, throughout Europe and in some parts of Central and Latin America, artists are rewarded when their works are sold and sold again. Original art increases in value over time and artists feel a share of the increase in value should be returned to them upon resale of their works.

At committee, we may wish to explore the European model or the European experience and see how Canadian artists can be better compensated for their work. Considering the level of interest that has now been brought forward, I am sure this is an area that our party and areas in other jurisdictions will be certainly interested in modelling as well.

It is clear that ephemeral recordings also present concerns for members of Parliament and will concern Canadians. To put that in perspective, currently copyright holders charge broadcasters for format-shifting their works. A simple example of this is a radio station that might purchase a song for broadcast. The current rules require the radio station to pay every time the radio station plays the song but, more important, when it transfers the song on to its computer servers.

As we know, modern radio stations are changing and these are being done in a way that outmodes and makes less necessary the old way of throwing a record on and paying someone at the end of the day. These are done and filed. Broadcasters want to simply pay once. Stations, whenever they play a song, do not want to pay again and again. The format shift, which is taking place will obviously do this time and time again, leaving artists without the traditional revenue stream they could once expect, basically as a result of changes in technology.

The right of copy for format-shifting and transfers is approximately $21 million each year to artists and musicians, creators of the works. Bill C-32 eliminates the ephemeral recording rights in the Copyright Act, eliminating this compensation to creators.

While I sit the industry side of things, we can all appreciate the importance of Canadian culture, Canadian music, Canadian songwriters and the great impact they have made as a result of these kinds of arrangements, constructed in large part by Parliament in previous times. We know the Canadian recording industry is sound and strong. We are very proud of it and we have to do everything we can, in modern times, to ensure it is effectively and equitably safeguarded.

I believe there is the basis in the country for solid rewrite and review of copyright. It is long overdue. Members of Parliament may have differing opinions as to where and how we view effective copyright legislation, but I think we recognize that as the world changes, as technology evolves, so must the panoply of laws and the framework that allows us to change with changing times. That is the pragmatic approach, which the bill will require in order for it to be an effective response to the demands, needs and realities that society, that those in the industry as well as those artists expect.

I am not only looking forward to the questions, but I am looking forward to the opportunity, with some of my colleagues in the House of Commons, to frame and to craft legislation that may meet those expectations. I am not saying that the bill is the be-all and end-all. It is a very important step and the first step in the right direction. It has a long way to go, but it is nevertheless a critical and very important and timely step.

I look forward to Parliament approving second reading and getting this to committee where the experts then have their work cut out for them. We can hear from Canadians and meet those expectations.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Pickering—Scarborough East for his work on copyright over the years and also IP protection. He spearheaded an all-party effort as we dealt with knock-offs, everything from the products developed to go in to the airline industry, to the hospitals, circuit breakers, a series of things. We looked at the consequences of those who stole those ideas and designs that affected everyone else. He has done a commendable job on that issue.

On this issue, I have a concern with regard to students, and I would like to hear his response to it. One thing suggested in the bill is if students purchase lessons, they have to destroy them within a certain time period after the completion of the lesson. I am of the view that is pretty harsh on students. They should be allowed to purchase that information and keep it.

In the past, although my French language skills are poor at best, and I have tried many times, I have purchased programs and gone to some different classes for that. I was able to keep the material to reference later on. Taking away what we have purchased is not fair if we use it the way it was supposed to be and do not produce it for others or share it them. If we own it, we own it and we should be able to maintain it.

Could the member share his views on that? There are a few learning issues related to the copyright bill that need some attention. I do not think it is balanced for those issues just yet.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know the hon. member was an early advocate for changes to ensure that we had copyright legislation and protection, particularly as it related to products that were counterfeit, to ensure they both met the safety standards and did not compromise the quality of Canadian workmanship, which is at the core of his riding. When we visited his riding in 2007, we had heard very clearly about how many Windsorites were losing their jobs as a result of knock-offs and bogus products being made. The member brought those very much to our attention and were part of the unanimous report on manufacturing.

He also raises today a very interesting point. When we are required, after a certain period of time, to destroy information, particularly if it is for students or for educational purposes, it conjures up images of the show Mission Impossible in the 1960s, where the tape would self-destruct in five seconds.

We have to find the balance on both the rights of those who produce these products and those who purchase them. There has to be a reasonable person test applied here. One would use that in the vernacular as common sense, something that we would certainly want to prevail.

However, the hon. member has raised an area that really speaks to the need to ensure that we have on that committee members of Parliament who have at least some background and some skill at discerning, through their own experiences, what appears to be unintended effects and unintended consequences.

I support the hon. member's concern as somebody who has seen this kind of thing being inserted, I am sure unintentionally. What he has raised is an example of what are many problems along the way. It is a good document, but it has troubles and it will require some severe amendments.

I would support the member's concern. I thank him for raising that because I am sure I will be hearing from him on the committee very shortly.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Madam Speaker, as mentioned earlier, my colleague's wealth and breadth of knowledge on copyright is certainly respected throughout this House. He is one of the leading experts in the House on all matters with regard to copyright. His opinions on these issues are certainly well respected.

We obviously agree that the creators have to be recognized and compensated. Writers must be paid. With the current method, a writer would pick up about 10% of the cover price of a book and the other 90% would go into such things as publication, advertising and distribution. A lot of writers realize the greater portion of their incomes from licensing agreements and collective licences through the various education systems. It has been a system that has worked fairly well. Teachers and students are able to reproduce some works, and there seems to be a degree of balance.

My concern is that with the new provisions under this bill, for anything that is deemed educational, anybody from a university professor to a golf pro who would be able to reproduce work. There should be some concerns around that. How does my colleague anticipate building a fence around that? How does he anticipate containing that as we go forward?

Where are there going to be assurances that the creators, the writers who are so essential to the whole process, are protected, recognized and compensated for their works?

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso has raised a very important and delicate area.

I believe that this legislation, despite its best intentions, was not drafted very well. It will probably create a number of objections in loose, unclear or awkward wording which might pit one group against another. That certainly should not be the intention. What we have to do is agree on a formal set of principles that we want enunciated here.

We do not want a situation where the minister talks about going after people who are infringers or, to use other terminology, wealth inhibitors and yet does not really take into consideration the absolute destruction and devastation that might ensue. BitTorrent or other companies that I have been made familiar with over the past little while, such as isoHunt, might be able to hide behind poorly drafted legislation.

The hon. member talked about the need to compensate authors and those who have created novel, new ideas, whether that be the outward expression in terms of their artistry, or songs, or art itself. It seems to me that we have to find the balance between those who have created and expect compensation for that creation and those who will use it for purposes that are not commercial.

In the case of education, we have to resolve once and for all the issue of institutions which use and disseminate information but do not pay. Perhaps we should be looking at another facility, and the existing one of the Copyright Board was used many years ago, to ensure there is some recognition for the use of material that takes into consideration the balance of disseminating information while at the same time ensuring that those who have provided information, innovation, ideas or thought are also appropriately compensated for the work they are doing.

This is not going to be an easy process. If the bill is not precise, loose language often leads to terrible and unforeseen consequences. The expertise of members on the committee is going to be so crucial, because there are a lot of problems with this bill, but it is a step, as I have said earlier, in the right direction.

The hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso has raised a number of very important critical concerns that go to the core of why the legislation as it currently stands needs to take into consideration some very important principles. I share with the member the concern that we have a long way to go.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, I come to this discussion on the proposed changes to the copyright law from the position of someone who had been in the classroom at one time in his life as a teacher always looking for opportunities to make the learning process relevant to those who were eager to get out of his class. In so doing, I and many of my colleagues used all the resources available to us. That meant going to those who make it their life's work to create new experiences. In the creation of those experiences, they have the right to profit from their genius, creativity and, indeed, the efforts of many who commercialize that creativity.

As a classroom teacher, I availed myself of many with that creativity. It was not always somebody who had the greatest piece of art or the greatest creation of an artifact or even someone who had written the greatest book. Sometimes it went so far, believe it or not, as picking a column out of a newspaper and giving people an opportunity to address all of the issues raised, how they were raised and how they should be addressed. In so doing, we actually photocopied some of these things and distributed them.

Now we are talking about an archaic age in communication. The consumption is still the same. Today we are in a digital age and Bill C-32 is an attempt for Canada to catch up to the digital age, not to enter into it. If one were to speak with young people, such as the pages in the House, they are experts and maybe we should have them stand up here and address these issues. We would learn a lot more from them than we are going to learn from members of Parliament.

We are good at identifying what the problems are, but they will give us the solutions. Why will they give us the solutions? It is because they have grown up and lived with the technology that we say is the new digital age. They are addressing the same problems that I addressed when I was a classroom teacher. High school students were always looking for a way to do something else because it is the nature of the age in that chronological part of our lives to be inquisitive, to look for solutions, to look for ways out, to look for alternatives.

When someone is a creator, the first thing we do is ask what we learn from that. Whether one admits it or not, that is really what one does. Teachers used to do that and maybe some university professors still do that. What we try to do is avail ourselves of the creativity of others. We do that in the classroom. We also do it in the arts industries, primarily music and the graphic arts industries.

Today, the digital age in which we find ourselves has made it much more easy and speedier to avail ourselves of somebody else's creativity. That is good, but in so doing we have been running the risk of eliminating the creator's right to profit from that creativity.

We know that modernizing Canada's copyright law is an absolute necessity. We have to catch up. Changes to the copyright legislation may also have to protect the rights of consumers. If we think for a moment about the example I gave, which is a personal example and I hope everyone will forgive me for it, the cost to educate the next generation of Canadians will be astronomical if every one of the classroom practitioners were to respect the letter of the law that prohibits a photocopy, or in this case, a file share. The cost would be horrendous. It is a question of balancing the commercial cost and commercial benefits.

Bill C-32 appears to meet some of these challenges. One should not always say that an initiative is negative simply because the Conservatives raised it. That would be the safe thing to do, but the bill risks being undermined due to some of the provisions dealing with digital locks and the technological protection measures, which some of my other colleagues have referred to as TPMs.

It seems a contradiction to say that a person could fairly use copyrighted items for certain purposes, but that the manner used to obtain them would be illegal. That is true. We need to clarify what we mean by that, otherwise we will be spinning around in circles over and over again. The moment we put the legislation in place, someone will find a vehicle, an avenue or a way to get out.

If Canadians have legitimately purchased a CD, DVD or other product, they should have the right to use that medium or any other device as long as it is not for commercial gain, because the commercial gain is resident in the person, persons or company that actually created whatever it is that is going to be used or shared.

It would be a waste of taxpayers' money and a betrayal of the public trust if Canadians, and I am now specifically talking about young Canadians, were fined or charged because they wanted to watch a movie they purchased on a DVD. We get into a situation where we are going to criminalize many people who are taking some things for granted because we have never really said that such activities are or are not legitimate. We have not identified that we would infringe on the legitimization of those items.

Other groups have expressed these concerns too. It is not just those of us who have been teachers, are teachers, or who are parents of a teenager, whose hair will grow my colour; other groups have expressed concerns as well.

The Quebec bar association, for example, in a letter to the ministers of heritage and industry states that the bill is severely flawed. I do not know why it is that we as parliamentarians constantly conjure up solutions that are so deeply flawed that people who deal with this every day see the holes in it immediately. We do not come here and extol the virtues of actually doing something. Specifically regarding Bill C-32 bar association officials say first of all that it does not meet Canada's international obligations as it goes against the three-step test before granting exceptions without remuneration to rights holders.

Think what that means for a moment. It really suggests that people have not done their homework in terms of what it is that has to be done. International bodies have a particular test and we do not meet it. We have not done that elementary homework. They also say it raises problems of coherence with international and provincial legal text and is ambiguous in the treatment of the responsibility of Internet service providers.

Now we have the medium, but those who activate the medium or who make it possible for all of the creators to get on the medium are also liable. This legislation does not address their liability and their responsibilities accurately, currently and effectively enough. That is from a bar association. I am assuming its officials had to talk to some consumers and experts in the use of the Internet either for file sharing, for pleasure, for education, or for the conduct of business. As I said, they probably did not talk to some of the young people who are in this House.

It introduces legal uncertainty, and whenever we introduce legal uncertainty, we are encouraging litigation. As a piece of legislation, this body representing lawyers is saying that it is good for the lawyers because if this bill is passed, there will be more people knocking on lawyers' doors. We will hear the sound of cash registers. Well, nobody uses cash registers any more; that is another archaic reference.

It reminds me of my own dad who wanted me to become a lawyer. There were at that time 4,000 lawyers in the province of Ontario. I think there are now 26,000, so my dad would have been right. He would have said, “Even if my son is not very good, look at all the market that is out there looking for bad lawyers”. It has increased from 4,000 to 26,000. Everybody is going to keep going ka-ching, as my colleague from Cape Breton—Canso said.

Those lawyers are honest enough. I realize some people would like to play with that, but those lawyers and those law associations are honest enough to say, “Pass the bill as it is and make us richer”, because that is what we will encourage, litigation. It creates exemptions, they go on to say, that depend on conditions that are either unrealistic or impossible to verify. They speak about the amounts of moneys and energies that will have to be consumed in order to bring some of these items to a forum where litigation is the order of the day. Can we avoid that? They are telling us to.

It introduces a dangerously imprecise concept of education that I talked about a few moments ago, and fair dealing, because according to the bar association, one can expect several cases of litigation, given the way the bill is written, on education alone. My principal, before I became one, said to me, “Do not go copying any of this stuff. Do not go distributing it to students. Do not do this. Do not do that”. “I have got a piece of chalk and a blackboard. Is that the way you want me to conduct my teaching?” “Well, we cannot afford to get sued.” I would not get sued if I referred to a book. However, if I copy a page out of the book, I am in trouble. If I want my students to have something physically in front of them, how do I overcome this liability that I will incur the moment I stand up in front of the class and say, “Hey, isn't this really great? You know that guy; he had great ideas, and let us take a look at it” and go on from there. I am not going into pedagogy, because it was boring then and it is boring today.

My point is that education is still the same process. It is still the same. The media and the techniques may vary, and we cannot expose today's teachers to litigation or potential for same. That same bar association says it negates the collective exercise of copyright and favours individual litigation through impractical and unrealistic remedies. So thank goodness we have members of Parliament who can read, because we actually read this material. Now we are looking at this proposed legislation in the context of some expertise from the legal side, but not from the technical side just yet.

The legal side says here is the ultimate test of unfairness. It removes remuneration from rights holders, thereby ruining the existing equilibrium between creators and users of protected material, contrary to the very objectives of the law. Certainly, if we want to make good legislation, we have to think that the legislation we propose and pass in this House has to meet that first test of balance so that it is fair for you, Madam Speaker, it is fair for me and it is fair for all those who come in between or who depend on us. It may not be the absolute thing, but at least it has to be a balance. It cannot be too much of one or too much of the other.

One can see that the bill tries to fix a problem introduced in and by the digital age, but we have been in this age for decades. As I said, these young pages were born in the digital age; they know no other. Yet here we are. We are trying to find a system that adequately compensates artists, because that is a word we have not used often in our debate so far. We have talked about creators, but really, they are artists, because that is the difference between a creator and someone who practises what has already been created. If somebody is artistic, it goes beyond the genius of a simple mathematical or scientific solution.

If we are going to find a system that adequately compensates these artists while recognizing the realities of the current world, this bill cannot be judged to work, and it will not work in the long term because that balance is gone.

The bill ignores the fact that people share files all the time. Ask any high school student, any university student, and we will receive a lesson, as I do all the time, on the latest file sharing techniques. There is always somebody out there who is smarter than the next person, and the moment one solution is imposed, somebody finds a different way to get around it.

The Conservative government aided in the creation of this file sharing culture. We might think this is good. Sure. But by not stepping in at the outset, the Conservatives implied that while file sharing might not necessarily be legal, there is no consequence to file sharing illegally. In other words, there is no consequence. No law is being broken if no law is being enforced.

There are people who are obviously interested. We have the advantage of these new technologies. A constituent of mine is following the debate today and says that it would be like a Brink's truck crashing and having all the cash fall out. At first nobody does anything, but eventually someone goes and picks up a bundle of cash, looks around, and there are no police officers. Other people show up. They pick up another bundle of cash. What do you do? You call the police. Of course that is the right thing to do, to try to enforce something. Meanwhile, a lot of people have walked away with a lot of cash.

That is why the government is implicitly culpable in the circumstances it is trying to address today. It has done very little to address the problems of the digital age when it comes to protecting the rights of artists and creators and balancing the rights of consumers and learners.

We need to create new business models not only as a government, but we need to engage industry so that it can provide those new models for us. Government needs to work with them as we move in a satisfactory direction.

Is there any example out there that we might use? The Apple iTunes that some people engage in, the 99¢ songs, is one example of the industry reacting in a positive way. I note that there are a lot of others. These ideas must also be encouraged.

Some of my colleagues have talked about mashups, statutory damages, public exhibition of arts, resale of arts, recordings, et cetera. These are the items that some of the stakeholders raised, some who have visited me in my riding office and some who have lobbied. There is a word that is not always a legitimate word to use in anything, but they have lobbied members of Parliament from all parties to give them a sense of what is involved, to give them an education about the best way to handle these problems as proposed by Bill C-32.

As a member who has been here for some time, I am constantly impressed by individuals who come with the infusion of a new idea and want to be able to resolve this. I listen to them as all members in this House of Commons tend to do and should do. I often wonder why it is that the government does not follow the same thing. It is a tried and true road to success. The government needs to listen to the people who are creators, listen to the people who are artist creators, listen to the distributors, listen to those who commercialize and manufacture, listen to the consumers, listen to the experts on the material and listen, as I have tried to do, to those who have a legal framework into which we place all of it.

All of this is to say that if we are going to have to support an initiative of this nature we need to give it more careful study, and we are going to study this more carefully.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Madam Speaker, I greatly appreciate the comments by my colleague from Eglinton—Lawrence. We have to realize that Bill C-32 is basically the third attempt to update Canada's copyright laws in the last six years.

The legislation has remained untouched since 1997, and the Liberal government attempted to update the legislation in the dying days of the Paul Martin regime with Bill C-60. Therefore this is a similar type of bill.

The Conservative government introduced Bill C-61 nearly two years ago but had to withdraw the bill in the face of widespread criticism that it was too cumbersome and too closely modelled on the restrictive U.S. DMCA, the digital millennium copyright act.

At first glance, Bill C-32 appears to strike a balance between corporate and consumer interests. However, my colleagues on the NDP side and, from what I can understand, also my Liberal colleagues are raising some concerns with respect to whether or not the bill actually does what it should be doing. I hope the Liberal members are true to their word with regard to their concerns and when the bill gets to committee they will actually be honest about wanting to change the problematic areas of the bill and will not look at passing a bill that is still going to be defective.

In looking at Bill C-32, we see that it treats breaking of digital locks for personal use the same as if the lock were being broken by commercial counterfeiting. I am trying to get some sense if the member is in agreement with me with regard to whether or not this is politically problematic, as it potentially pits artist groups against students and educational organizations.

I know the member spoke about the education aspect of it and whether we should actually be trying give criminal records to our students. I guess that is the bigger question. Should we be treating our students like criminals?

The member talked about the teachers and whether or not they should be destroying those notes. So again it is the cost to the education process.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, I hope my colleague will forgive me if I was reading while she was also making a comment. The reason I was reading is that a page handed me a faxed sheet from a major employer in the educational field in southern Ontario. The present CEO happens to live in my riding and he said, “I have been watching with great interest the introduction of this bill. It has an enormous impact on our company”. I am summarizing. “We employ some 250 people. In education this would create a serious problem for us, in all of the full range of the materials that we utilize and we sell to school boards and to teachers”.

The member's question is absolutely apropos. It should not be anyone's intention to turn students into criminals, nor should it be anyone's intention to turn teachers into criminals for sharing some of the artistry, the creativity of others, in a learning process.

We need to be able to come up with the definitions that make sense in the real marketplace. We need to come up with the definitions and the legal parameters that make sense from, in this case, the producer's point of view and the consumer's point of view. They both live, economically, in the same environment and we need to strike that appropriate balance.

I think the member can count on members of our caucus to make sure the debate goes in that direction.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Madam Speaker, this has been a very worthwhile debate. For anybody who has been following the debate today, I think a number of great points have been brought out. My colleague from Eglinton—Lawrence has on several occasions referred to balance, which is the essence of what is important here.

As taxpayers, it is important that when we look at our education dollars, we can see that a portion of those education dollars need to go to the physical structure, the heat, the lights, the roof overhead, the desks, and the materials that come in, and a portion toward the salaries of the teachers and the administration. Those are all relevant parts of the education dollars.

One per cent of those education dollars goes to the collective licensing for those who create those materials. It is imperative that we protect those writers who create those materials.

What does my colleague see as the cautionary principles or the types of parameters that we will be able to put around this to ensure that the creators are protected, recognized and compensated?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Cape Breton—Canso has put his finger right on it.

School boards, universities and libraries around the country think in terms of what portion of their budget they ought to allocate to the rights of creators and artists. We call those licensing agreements for legal purposes and those licensing agreements must carry a particular value. They permit anybody in that educational library or information dissemination industry to share that creation and, when they do, they think in terms of the obvious limits. They constantly upgrade their product.

We can see that it would be unrealistic, let us say a generation ago, to buy a textbook, seal it in Saran wrap or some such other thing, give it to someone and say, “I give it only to you. Once you have taken off that wrap, then it belongs to you. You cannot give it to anybody else. If you share your book with another student, the book self-immolates, it burns”.

That is essentially what we are asking these digital locks to do, which is to prevent somebody from actually opening that book. When people open it, they will actually read it and consume it. Whether the individual is standing or sitting beside them as they read this book or whether we send it to them and say that they can borrow the book for a week, it is the same concept.

As my colleague from Cape Breton—Canso has so rightly pointed out, we may need to revisit some of these licensing agreements as the infrastructure for the digital lock problem from the point of view of educational institutions.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the government has been arguing that it has to follow the United States model because of the WIPO, World Intellectual Property Organization, Internet treaties. However, the reality is that of the 88 states in the world that have ratified the WIPO Internet treaties, fewer than half of them have actually adopted the U.S. model.

Why is the government attempting to steadfastly follow the American model when only half of the 88 countries that have ratified the treaties have in fact followed the American model? Could it have something to do with the entertainment lobbyists in the United States, the recording studios and maybe even the United States politicians themselves having influence on the Conservative government?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would enjoy the opportunity to engage in some mirthful repartee here but the member is asking me to attempt to justify the government's positioning and thinking on this. I always find that a difficult exercise, not being a Conservative by demeanour and certainly not being so by ideology.

A strict fact of life that my colleague will know is that the creative community is no longer completely, almost homogenously, contained in the United States. It is a very creative environment but it is not exclusively so. There is great competition in the many states of Europe and even more in the emerging and increasingly commercialized China, India and Southeast Asia.

One might say that we are doing great damage to those countries in Latin America and South America that have their own creative geniuses that we have not recognized. Many of them are also engaged in producing creations that have a trans-world application. Why the government seems to follow singularly and exclusively an American model is beyond me. There are other people who have—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was really enjoying what my colleague had to say and it is unfortunate that he ran out of time.

I am glad to join in this debate and add my thoughts on an important issue for Canada and for Canadians. The effects of this legislation, if it becomes law, will be felt throughout our economy and society. Therefore, it is important for us to ensure that Bill C-32 lives up to its billing as a balanced Copyright Act.

I am certain that all of us in this place have a desire to get it right this time since it is the third time in five years that Canada has tried to modernize its Copyright Act. Not even the Liberals before that could get it right. It is something we promised to do when we signed on to the WIPO treaties in 1997. Again, WIPO stands for World Intellectual Property Organization. This is an issue with a lot of stakeholders. It might be tempting to look at it as a debate over the rights to one specific item, like music, but that is too simplistic.

Music is a useful example because it shows us many of the ways this legislation will be tested, but there are arts communities, educators, students, corporations, technological innovators, entrepreneurs, a vigorous open source community and nearly every Canadian involved in his or her role as a consumer that need to be considered too. That is not a complete list but it shows us how many diverse and, in some cases, opposing opinions need to be considered when we talk about the modernization of Canada's copyright laws.

It is easy to see why we need to do this. The technology available today has made our existing laws almost obsolete. The laws we have are suitable for another era. The last time we updated them, computers did not have the ability to hold much information. The Internet was still new, slow and not as diverse or complex. There was not a reliable or standard format for digital music beyond the CD. It was a time when a lot of us still had cassette players and some of us still had eight-track players in our cars. That was only 13 years ago. Let us fast forward now.

Now in 2010, we can see people using public transit watching a television program from the night before on electronic devices no bigger than a cassette tape. We see others listening to music on digital devices that can hold hundreds of songs. It is clear that the memory capacity of these devices has improved considerably compared to the cassette tapes we listened to 13 years ago. It is also clear that advances in digital technology have already gone beyond the scope of the existing version of the Copyright Act.

As I have mentioned, this is not the first attempt by the government to update the Copyright Act. Canada needs to be brought in line with advances in both technology and current international standards. The issue is not simple and yet it must addressed since it is at the heart of Canada's ability to be a competitive player in our increasingly technologically-defined world.

Ever since Canada signed the World Intellectual Property Organization Internet treaties, we have been on a collision course with the revamping of our existing laws. It is our commitment.

While it is important to protect the rights of the biggest players in the industry, such as movie studios, record labels, gaming and software companies and the like, it is also important to protect the individual artists, educators and consumers. We need to recognize the way in which people choose to consume copyrighted work and to have legislation that reflects this.

As we saw from the American prosecution of Napster, using the courts to fill in gaps in existing laws can become a bit like a game of WHAC-A-MOLE. We learned from that experience that the desires of the consumer will not conform to approval formats. If we close down Napster what happens? We get different file-sharing sites. I can see how this would drive some stakeholders crazy but it also illustrates how every battle won may not have a happy ending and that emerging technology can have the ability to expose loopholes in copyright legislation.

New Democrats are happy to be having this debate and see in Bill C-32 some good measures along with some that need improving. It is our hope that we will be able to roll up our sleeves and make the fixes that will allow this legislation to ultimately pass.

For many people, the sticking point in Bill C-32 is the overarching power given to digital locks. Copyright activist, Russell McOrmond. says:

All of the comparatively positive aspects of the bill are nullified by the legal protection of technological measures, including by allowing these all too often abused technologies to supersede and effectively replace the rest of the Copyright Act.

Digital locks exist. It is a phenomenon that has been accepted in some things and not others. People buy and use locked items now, such as video games, DVDs, software and so on. They are not really the issue. It is the legal power they will have and how that power is greater than it needs to be that is the issue.

This update treats the breaking of digital locks for personal use the same as if the lock were being broken for commercial counterfeiting. We do not do that in other areas. We do not treat a first-time shoplifter the way we do a bank robber. Why should we penalize a kid posting a mashup on YouTube that uses previously locked material the same way we would a real video pirate?

It was hoped that Canada would not go as far as the United States has with its digital millennium copyright act. We see in the United States a desire to criminalize the consumer and exact punishing fines that is too heavy-handed. We have concerns about emulating too much of the American position when it might not be necessary.

In the long debate leading up to this current update, we heard that Canadian musicians and songwriters reject lawsuits against individuals as a way to protect their material. They did not want to bring new meaning to Joe Strummer's Jail Guitar Doors. In fact, there are some musicians who see little value in trying to sell their work. A lot of artists in Canada release their own music online for free. They might use a Creative Commons licence to do this.

If the music is shared for free by others, with the owner's permission to do so, would it still be legal? I would be interested in hearing the answer to this question, since it will have an effect on the legitimate business practice.

For the artists who use a Creative Common licence, they see their products as advertising and a way to get people out to their shows. The new reality in the music business is that the money is to be found at the box office and not in the record store.

This update goes some of the way toward distancing Canada from the kinds of fines we have seen in the U.S. for consumers who download copyright material. The government tells us that it does not want to punish individual users. It wants to focus its deterrence and enforcement efforts on distributors and large websites that illegally host copyrighted content.

The fact remains that provisions in the legislation, especially the power given to digital locks, can lead to prosecution. Fines might be reduced from a maximum of $20,000 per copyrighted work to a one-time maximum penalty of $5,000 in situations in which copyrighted works have been illegally accessed for non-commercial purposes, but there are a lot of ways this can be interpreted.

We need to ensure the law does not prescribe excessive force when it is not needed. This update creates new limited exceptions to the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright Act, including exceptions for educators and exceptions for parody and satire for which Canadian artists have asked.

For educators, it is problematic. They will have to determine what these exceptions mean for materials used in the classroom. We have heard this on a number of occasions today with respect to educators.

There are also new regulations for materials distributed for distance learning and a requirement to destroy those copyrighted materials 30 days after the class has ended. One would have to get another copy to go back and re-read something. This will not make sense to many Canadians. It runs counter to most of our experiences.

Truth be told, there is more in the bill than I could cover in the time allotted to me. For example, there is a section that deals with those who do cover work. For a performer who makes a living by interpreting someone else's work, this is an important consideration as it is for the artist who has created the work on which the performance is based. Still, I would hope this does not extend to the average garage band that might make a few bucks here and there and basically learn the ropes by playing other people's songs. It would be something like charging a kid in minor hockey for emulating an NHL player's moves on a breakaway. Again, it would go against what Canadians would see as being both right and fair.

I will focus on the larger issues and leave the fine details to the work of the committee. I have outlined one already with respect to the power given to digital locks, and I will explore one more.

The bill effectively would end the copying levy on blank media by not including music-playing devices like iPods as the natural next in line to older forms that were taxed, such as CDs and cassette tapes. The legislation would end an important revenue stream for artists and would ignore the way that technology has changed, the very thing the bill is supposed to do.

On that note, I am sure that many of my colleagues here have been lobbied by some of these artists who have indicated that this is an important part of their ability to continue to be an artist and get a little revenue for what they have done. The exclusion of this provision sends the wrong message. We are really missing the mark if we do not include some kind of compensation to recognize the way these devices are used and the way that music, ebooks and other forms of digital art are shared. Without such a measure, we are cutting artists out of the mix and ignoring the reality and purpose of the current technology. We did not do that for previous forms of blank media. I ask the government this. What is so different about things like iPods?

If we want to hear an authoritative voice on this subject, we can listen to my colleague, the member for Timmins—James Bay. He is both a recording musician as well as an author and knows a thing or two about copyright from the perspective of an artist. Recently he was a featured guest at an American conference discussing the issues of the digital culture and the music industry.

To give members and idea of the importance of this event, T Bone Burnett addressed the same audience. Mr. Burnett also knows a thing or two about the music business. A musician and fabulous producer, he has worked with notable Canadians, like k.d. Lang and Bruce Cockburn, as well as international stars like Elvis Costello.

He has been nominated for an Academy Award for his work on film scores and is active in the search for a better way to present digital music than the current formats that are dramatically less responsive than the album format we have largely abandoned.

All this to say, the member for Timmins—James Bay, one of my colleagues from the northern team, is in good company as a stakeholder in this debate. The member has this to say about extending the blank media levy to the new music playing devices, “In a world of endless downloading, we need to provide a monetizing stream for artists...the levy is compensating artists for some of the enormous amount of copying that is taking place”.

It is fair to say that the New Democratic Party's position on copyright is based on the principles of compensation and access. It reflects our belief that artists need to be paid for their work and consumers should be able to access these works with the least amount of restrictions.

I want to go back and quote a few things from Dr. Jeremy de Beer. He raised this issue in his study of Bill C-61, of which Bill C-32 is a re-enactment. He stated that the digital rights provisions were:

—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. Future iterations of Bill C-61 that do not take the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright Act (and the overall scheme of the Act) into account would also likely to fail constitutional scrutiny.

There is some grave concern with respect to the constitutional scrutiny that the bill would actually have in place.

The copyright reform must be based on a willingness to work collaboratively to amend the many outstanding problems with the legislation.

As I have indicated, this is the third time there has been an attempt to update Canada's copyright laws in the last six years. The Liberals could not get it done with Bill C-60. The Conservatives could not get it done with Bill C-61. We hope that with Bill C-32 people will want to work together to address the problematic areas in the bill in order to ensure artists have legislation that will work.

We will see the bill through to committee with the hope that it can be improved so it will reflect the belief and be able to give Canadian copyright law the update it really needs.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I think people watching at home are very surprised to hear that Bill C-32 would require teachers and students to destroy digital lessons 30 days after the course concludes. That will be a big surprise to a lot of people. In addition, Bill C-32 would require librarians to ensure that intra-library digital loans self-destruct within five days of first use.

Could the member confirm that this is the case with Bill C-32 and does she think that is fair?

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely correct. People have a reason to worry about what the legislation would do if it was unamended.

The fact is we do not want to treat them like criminals. We want to ensure they will not be charged. We want to also ensure they have access to the materials that foster the future of our country, which is our young people. It does not make any sense to instill penalties on the work or the tools that they need to do the job.

As far as I am concerned, these areas really need to be amended. I hope the government side will see fit to make those necessary changes.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague from Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing a civilized question.

I listened to my colleague's speech. She was very courteous. She has listened to everybody else's debate in the House. I thought she had some very good insights.

Her concern centred specifically around the one provision about locked in measures that would prevail, whether we were talking about video games, or information of great value or creative pieces.

She has indicated that her party will support the bill at second reading. I did not hear anybody say that before. I deduced that from her suggestion the bill would be scrutinized at committee and the only way it could get there was if someone supported its passage and direction to committee.

That seemed to me to go a bit beyond saying that this was a really bad bill that should be eliminated on the floor of the House at second reading. The other position is that it is really bad but we should send it off to committee in an environment where coalitions develop. The government is always looking for a coalition partner. Perhaps it will find somebody on committee to support it.

Did I hear that correctly? Does she really want some co-operation in committee to effect a bill that actually makes sense other than this one?

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not the only member of the New Democratic Party who has indicated we are willing to move the bill to committee so we can look at the problematic areas. My colleague has also indicated that his party was willing to work with it as well.

He also mentioned a coalition, which surprises me. People are getting a little tired of hearing the government side always referring to the coalition. There is no bigger coalition than the Liberals and the Conservatives. The Liberals either vote in favour of what the government does and gives it the majority it needs, or they do not show up to vote. Then they turn around and say that they voted against it, but in the meantime they sent some members out the chamber.

I want to talk about the digital locks. The digital lock provisions in the bill make a mockery of any claims of balance. The government claims to be providing new exemptions and rights, fair dealing of educational uses, reproduction for private purposes, making backup copies, copying rights for the printed disabled and the so-called YouTube mashup provision. If there is a digital lock in place, an individual will be criminalized if he or she tries to use these rights. These sections need to be fix.

Proposed section 41 lays out technological protection measures, which supersede the rights of citizens who would normally be able to enjoy the non-digital realm. Bill C-32 offers rights that the consumer will not be able to exercise.

It is quite important to see what is in the bill and what needs to be changed. The government is creating a two-tier level of rights between digital and non-digital products instead of legal certainty. Canadian citizens will face arbitrary limitations on their legal rights to access.

As I have indicated, the NDP is supportive of moving this bill to committee. The committee will then decide on what amendments to make to it. The seriousness of this is whether or not the Liberals and the Conservatives are willing to work at fixing the problematic areas to ensure that educators, students and some of the artists are not made criminals.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the member.

The Conservatives have indicated that they are forced to, in effect, follow the American approach to the WIPO Internet treaties and the digital locks by virtue of the fact that they have signed the treaties. The fact of the matter is that 88 states in the world have actually ratified the WIPO treaties, with only half of them actually supporting the American approach.

The question I have for the member is whether she believes that perhaps the government is being overly influenced by the American movie lobby and business lobby, and perhaps even American politicians, to get their version of what should be a proper agreement in force in Canada.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is evident that we should be following the WIPO approach.

Certainly we can look at some of the language that is in there, but does Canada have a plan to review new exceptions every three years? The answer is no.

The U.S. DMCA experience leaves little doubt that the introduction of anti-circumvention legislation will create some unintended consequences. No matter how long the list of circumvention rights and other precautionary measures, it is impossible to identify all future concerns associated with anti-circumvention legislation.

So they are committed to looking at it every three years. It does not appear to be in the plan of the government.

I thank the member for the question.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-32. I listened to a lot of very good presentations today regarding this very important bill.

At the outset I would like to say, following up on the previous member who spoke and the NDP critic who spoke to the bill this morning, that members of the NDP will certainly be supporting this bill going to committee. We support it in principle. It is a outstanding issue that has to be dealt with by Parliament.

In many ways, I hope it follows the route of Bill C-11, the immigration bill, which basically proved to be successful at the end of the day with the help of all four parties in the House. We have the potential to follow that route with this bill. Some of the concerns that were raised today by the NDP critic in debate were responded to by the minister of the government.

It appears to me that there certainly seems to be an interest on the government's part in working with the NDP critic and our party, and I believe, the other parties as well, to try to work out perhaps even an all-party agreement on this legislation. I really do not feel that we are that far apart.

Speaker after speaker has concentrated on really, more or less, the same issues. Some issues were not addressed, but by and large, the same issues came up over and over again. So it is incumbent upon the government in committee to resolve those issues, and perhaps before Christmas, Parliament will have a second successful bill as opposed to having it end up not going anywhere.

The government has certainly had ample experience over the last five years with bills it proposed going nowhere because it is in a minority situation and knows that all it takes is for it to bring forward a bill that the opposition does not agree with and the bill will not be successful. That is really the end of its effort.

I recognize that we have only 20 minutes to discuss this matter and I do not know that it will be sufficient. Nevertheless I want to deal with some of the issues involving Bill C-32.

Canada's technological community has long been calling for a major overhaul of the Copyright Act to bring fair and balanced copyright legislation to this country. The act has not been reviewed since 1997. I think back to those days 13 years ago and realize how the technologies have changed during that period. It is tremendous.

John Manley was the minister and Jean Chrétien was the prime minister in a majority government. How and why the Liberal government of the day, a sort of command style government with an absolute majority, could not get this job done seems a bit surprising to me. Nevertheless it did not do it. That might be indicative of how controversial it actually is and how many players are involved.

I recall a number of years ago, in 2000, when I was involved in putting together Bill 31 in Manitoba, the province's Electronic Commerce and Information Act. That was internal to the government. We had to sit down with four or five government departments that were dealing with electronic issues. The Uniform Law Conference had a template that we could follow. Just trying to get those silos, those departments within a provincial government, onside proved to be fairly difficult, although we did get the job done.

In this case, it goes way beyond the government, because we are dealing with many competing forces within the country itself. The Liberal critic pointed out this morning how substantial this area is in Canada in terms of jobs and employment and the large part of the economy that is involved.

The Conservatives' copyright modernization act seeks to enact long overdue changes that would bring Canada in line with advances in technology and current international standards. At the rate we are going and with the technology changing, we are never going to catch up unless we get this job done now.

The issue is highly complex. It features competing demands from stakeholders and the artistic, academic, business, technology, consumer rights and communities. We have heard conflicting views from a number of them even today. However, it is a top priority and a multi-faceted issue that the government must take on if it wants Canada to be a competitive player in our increasingly technology-reliant world.

When Canada signed onto the World Intellectual Property Organization, or WIPO, Internet treaties in 1997, 13 years ago, it committed then to modernize its copyright legislation. Before Bill C-32, two other attempts were made to enact legislation that would achieve the goal, most notably in 2008 when the Conservative government brought forward Bill C-61 and that bill was met with widespread opposition. It died when Parliament prorogued in 2008.

Bill C-32 is designed to be technology neutral, which is a very good way to deal with it, because if we do not do that we will be dealing with technology referencing typewriters or old technology from many years past. Taken forward to the future, 20 years from now people will not be understanding the type of technology that we are dealing with in the bill right now. So we have gone to a technology-neutral position that applies across a broad range of devices and technologies with a view of ensuring adaptability to a constantly evolving technology environment.

During the summer of 2009, as the minister referenced, Industry Canada held a series of nationwide consultations on copyrights, soliciting input from Canadian consumers, industry experts and content developers. During the consultations, the most discussed and most contentious issue was digital rights management, including the digital locks, which has been talked about by many speakers today, anti-circumvention measures and TPMs, or technological protection measures.

User rights advocates made it clear that they wanted to see the government expand the fair dealing provisions in the Copyright Act and provide more exceptions for consumers. In Canada, fair dealing as defined by the Copyright Act is more restrictive than the fair use provisions in the United States, particularly with regard to education and teaching. It refers to uses of content that are considered valid defences to copyright infringement, such as for purposes of criticism and review, news reporting or educational use.

While user rights appear to have been taken into some consideration in drafting the bill, Bill C-32 is fairly heavily weighted in favour of the rights of content owners. I reference Sony, Hollywood studios and so on and have asked the question about the influence of the Hollywood lobby, the American political lobby on the Canadian government to come up with a solution that they basically approve of.

The Conservatives laugh and say it has taken six years and obviously they are not responding to any pressure because had they responded to pressure they would have done this a long time ago. What matters here is that the American government and American business interests want to see a piece of legislation that fits in with their legislation, because they see this as a continental market. I have explained before that of the 88 countries that have approved the WIPO Internet agreements, only half of them follow the American model. The other half have a lesser approach than the American system of supporting digital locks.

The government tries to bamboozle us by telling us that we have to give industry the digital lock provisions because we are following the United States, following WIPO.

However, half the countries that have approved and ratified these agreements are not following the digital lock procedures the way the Americans are. Let us understand that from the beginning. We do not have to go holus-bolus, cap in hand, following on the trail of the Americans, contrary to what the government would like us to believe.

The government has stated that its aim in updating the Copyright Act is not to punish individual users, but rather to focus its deterrence and enforcement efforts on distributors and large websites that illegally host copyrighted content. Of course we agree with that. No party in this House wants to be causing grief to the citizens of Canada. There is no question about that at all.

The copyright modernization bill contains three broad categories of changes that Internet and e-commerce law expert Michael Geist termed sector-specific reforms, compromise provisions, and no-compromise rules regarding the DRMs.

The sector-specific reforms are designed to appeal to a wide cross-section of Canadians and include measures that extend the term of copyright for performers and producers to 50 years from the time of publication of a musical performance. They also create a new "making available" right in accordance with the WIPO treaties. This measure will give copyright owners exclusive control over how their content is made available on the Internet.

It also introduces a mandatory review of the Copyright Act, to take place every five years. It is important to have a mandatory review every five years. Even though the bill itself is technologically neutral, things may change in five years, and it is important that we have the ability to require the government to do a review after that point.

Bill C-32's compromise provisions will formally enshrine 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. That is called time-shifting. I know that some people are not going to be happy with this. There are people who like to use their PVRs to copy programs and want to be able to make copies of those and record them. But they are not going to allow people to compile a library of recorded content.

The provisions regarding transferring songs from CDs to MP3 players, called format-shifting, and making backup copies create new limited exceptions to the fair- dealing provision of the Copyright Act. These include exceptions for educators and exceptions for parody and satire, which Canadian artists have been asking for. Bill C-32's compromise provisions will create an exception for content creators that would enable the circumvention of DRMs for the express purpose of reverse engineering for encryption research, security testing, perceptual disability, and software interoperability.

It would also introduce a new YouTube exception that would allow Canadian users to compile clips of copyrighted works into a remix work, as long as it is not created for commercial purposes.

I also want to point out that no one here today has mentioned that this legislation will also give photographers, for the first time, the same rights as other creators. I listened for that all day long and I did not hear anyone mention it. Photographers should be happy, because for the very first time in the history in Canada they will be given the same rights as other creators.

Bill C-32 also creates a new exception for broadcasters to allow them to copy music for their operations.

In addition, it creates a carve-out for network locks on cellphones. This is another one that I think is going to be popular. One of our members actually introduced a bill regarding cellphones, but understand that we are talking about network locks on cellphones. Right now we are stuck with a network when we buy a cellphone. The locks are going to be taken away, and Canadians are going to have the right to unlock their phones. I think people are going to be happy with that if they want to switch carriers, as long as they abide by the providers' contract terms when they make the switch.

There is also a reduction of statutory damages from a maximum fine of $20,000 per copyrighted work to a one-time maximum penalty of $5,000 in situations where copyrighted works have been illegally accessed for non-commercial purposes.

The government touts this reduction of penalties as a progressive, positive change. However, if we read Michael Geist's work, he argues that this is not going to be the effect, that it is not going to work, that we are creating legislation that is going to produce a lot of litigation.

Our critic mentioned that artists have better things to do with their time than hire lawyers. Therefore, the bill is going to be good for lawyers. But if we are talking about little artists who are trying to practise their trade, the last thing they are going to want to do is hire lawyers to track down people who are infringing on their copyrights.

Perhaps we have to take another look at the whole issue of the fines. Perhaps we ought not to think that, because we are reducing fines from $20,000 to $5,000, we have solved the problem. Michael Geist, who is a recognized expert in this area, has made a convincing argument that this is not the case.

Finally, the copyright modernization act contains no-compromise provisions that are likely to have a huge impact on the way Canadians obtain, use, and share copyrighted content. These include measures that create powerful new anti-circumvention rights for content owners like Sony and other big companies, as distinct from the creators and the developers, that prevent access to copyrighted works on pain of fines of up to $1 million, or five years in jail. This measure is based directly on the United States' controversial Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the DMCA, and that is one of our criticisms of the bill. The government is slavishly following the American model as opposed to following the 88 countries in the world that are not following the American model, that have separated from the American model, and have gone easier on the digital lock issue.

An immediate result of this provision would be to convince the United States, and particularly its powerful entertainment lobby, that this country is in line with U.S. regulations and is an attractive and secure place to conduct business.

I think that is what it is all about with the Conservative government. It wants to convince the Americans that we are a good, safe market, with the same standards that they have, so that they can come and do business with us. Instead of this, the government should be looking out for our citizens.

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 all rights. So what is the point of giving people all these rights if we simply take them away by making sure that the digital lock trumps all these new rights?

This means that both the existing fair-dealing rights and Bill C-32's new rights all cease to function effectively so long as rights-holders place a digital lock on their content or device. It would also require that, where a digital lock exists, digital copies made for the purposes of self-study self-destruct within five days, and that course materials be destroyed no later than 30 days after the conclusion of a course. What good is that?

We have had speaker after speaker criticize that provision of the bill.

Perhaps I can deal with the remaining points in the question-and-comments period.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, there were some good points made in the member for Elmwood—Transcona's presentation. I agree with his point about a failure to act. We do not want to hurt those who create the work in this country. But if we pursue a course of inaction, if we do not adapt our laws and regulations, we will continue to hurt this group. Our singers and songwriters are being disadvantaged right now.

Recently, I saw some comments from Warner Bros. that it now has only half as many Canadian acts signed as it did five years ago, that it is not able to put its money into artist development, and that it is not able to take chances on young up-and-coming artists. A failure to act would have a tremendous negative impact on young artists.

I will speak specifically about writers and authors, those who write and provide content within our school system. There is a great deal of concern about the compromise on the collective licensing; it is feared that there will be no revenue stream for those writers. Only about 10% of the revenue received from the sale of books goes to the authors. They realize a great deal of their own personal income from licensing agreements through the various education ministries.

I think it is imperative that, as legislators, we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater, that we ensure that those people who write, who provide the content, are looked after in this legislation.

I would ask my colleague for his insights and suggestions on how we are going to do this as we go forward with this bill.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think we have to pass this bill into committee, which I think will happen. Then the committee should take a thorough look at all of the 88 countries that have passed the WIPO Internet treaties to see how they have structured their agreements and legislation. We should contrast this information with how the Americans have structured their legislation around digital locks, because the digital locks seem to be the key to this bill.

Clearly, it is not as the Conservatives say, that we have one option, that we have to follow the American system because that is part of signing the WIPO agreements, that because these digital locks are part of the American system they also have to be part of ours.

We have to take the time to look at Australia and other countries. Half of the countries that have signed the WIPO agreements have legislation different from the American version. The Americans lost that battle; they lost that argument, and rightly so. The world does not have to follow in lockstep with what the Americans want. Just because their industry wants digital locks, that does not mean everybody has to follow suit. Half the countries have not.

So let us look into this in committee and see if there is any way that we can get something that is a little more user-friendly and a little lighter on the lock issue.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I ask my colleague a question, I want to correct something I said a while ago.

I mentioned that the bill being tabled, contrary to the United States legislation, did not have an avenue in place for a mandatory review of the Copyright Act. However, in reviewing the bill, I see that it does have that. It is a five-year as opposed to a three-year, which is what is in the Untied States.

My colleague talked about the digital locks and the importance they would have to artists and students, as well as the impact on someone charged based on this legislation. We certainly do not want to make criminals out of teachers, artists or students.

I want to address a serious problem with this bill regarding the number of previous revenue streams for artist organizations that appear to be undermined through exemptions and changes. The most noticeable impact is the government's decision to not extend the private copying levy on not just CDs but ebooks, iPods and other playing devices. This has been a good revenue stream for the artists.

Maybe my colleague could indicate whether he has been lobbied by some of the artists and whether some of them have called or emailed him on this issue. It is a big issue for the artists not only within my riding of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing where I happen to have a lot of artists in the area, but across the board.

Perhaps the hon. member could also talk about the New Democrats' position on copyright on the basis of principles and compensation to access.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, our critic, the member for Timmins—James Bay, explained this very well in his speech. In fact, artist compensation is a very important component of this whole equation. He took considerable time this morning to explain how, as technology changed, people in the country were alarmed that a certain business model was coming to an end, but the companies adapted.

Years ago the Pony Express delivered mail across the United States. When the telegraph came in that put it out of business. When the telephone came in it replaced the telegraph. The one constant is that technology will change and we need to adapt to the new technology.

The key is to not tie ourselves up in litigation by bringing in legislation that will involve all sorts of lawsuits and lawyers. The idea here is to facilitate commerce so that the public is well served, but the artists get their fair share of compensation as well. That is the whole idea behind having a workable piece of legislation in this country. I think we can do it if there is a will on the part of all parties to work together on this when it gets to committee. I know the Bloc has some serious issues and I do not know whether they can be resolved. Even In our case I do not whether we will get all of our issues resolved

. However, if we are positive about this and move forward, hopefully we can follow what we did with Bill C-11, the immigration legislation, and get a successful conclusion.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Copyright Act.

There is probably no bill in this House that has occupied more parliamentarians' time than this one, not just in this particular session of Parliament but in previous sessions of Parliament. We have debated and debated this issue but we cannot seem to get it right. There have been several bills in the past, introduced in previous sessions of Parliament.

We have read the bill and we have serious concerns with it. However, we think it merits going forward to committee where it can have the proper study, the proper hearings and we can hear from the stakeholders groups and hear their concerns. We have already heard mixed reviews of the bill from different groups.

We want to see how we can make this bill a better bill for all Canadians. Canadian artists and consumers across the country are demanding action on this very important issue and they are looking to all of us for leadership. It is unfortunate that we have taken so long to get this legislation on track.

In Canada, we are in midst of a transition to a digital economy, which has a profound effect on our cultural industries. Our aging copyright laws have received international criticism and the longer we lag behind global best practices the more Canadian artists and Canadian consumers lose out.

We believe it is time for Canada to implement fair and balanced copyright modernization in order to balance the needs of creators and consumers.

We in the Liberal Party feel there are some serious challenges with this bill but that it merits going forward for further study at committee. We want to ensure that digital lock provisions allow Canadians who have legitimately purchased a CD, a DVD or other products have the ability to transfer their purchase onto their iPod or make a personal backup copy on their computer, so long as they are not doing so for the purpose of the sale or transfer to others.

Many artists, writers and creators have also expressed deep concerns about issues like the new education provisions, mashups, statutory damages and compensation for resale rights. While we have deep reservations, we will be supporting this bill going to committee to hopefully address some of the concerns that I have raised and that other members of this House have raised.

We need to take this issue extremely seriously because there are artists, stakeholders and people in our society who are looking to us for leadership. We need to take their concerns seriously and address them as soon as possible.

We are supporting copyright modernization to protect the works and intellectual property of Canadian artists and creators. We want to see Canada's laws updated as soon as possible.

Several areas of concern have been raised and I think it is important that I also raise them to have them on the record so we can figure out how to deal with some of these issues. One issue concerns whether digital locks should trump all other rights for copy. Bill C-32 introduces new rights for Canadians to make copies for personal use, such as format shifting, transferring a CD to an iPod; time shifting, recording a show for later viewing; and making back-up copies.

However, in Bill C-32 the new digital lock provisions, the technological protection measures, TPMs, override these new rights. In other words, under this new law, if a company puts a digital lock on a CD, the people buying the CD will not be able to circumvent the law to put the music onto their iPod without breaking the law. This exact issue was a highly controversial change when Bill C-61, the Conservatives previous copyright bill, was introduced.

We are in a constantly moving, dynamic digital economy and we have a hard time catching up with all the changes. At times we question whether we should have no legislation or deeply flawed legislation. I am one of those who believes that we should have some legislation and that hopefully it will not be deeply flawed once it goes to the committee stage.

However, we need some type of protection because having nothing at the moment is embarrassing to Canada and it is not looking after the best interests of Canadians from coast to coast.

Passionate consumer concerns have been expressed with regard to the digital lock provisions and media stories are reinforcing the belief that the Conservatives are preventing Canadians from transferring their CDs onto their iPods. Canadians believe that when they buy a CD, they are buying the right to listen to that music in the format they choose, whether it is on their CD player, their iPod or computer.

There is an education component to this bill that is also of great concern. The new education exemptions for copying means that teachers and educational institutions could now make copies of work for some educational purpose and not infringe on copyright.

Broadly speaking, the bill proposes to implement two major changes. It introduces making copies for educational purposes as an exemption under Canada's fair dealing rules and introduces several specific distance education exceptions to allow for copies used for lessons communicated to the public by telecommunication for educational or training purposes, if that public consists only of students who are enrolled in a course.

There is growing opposition to the broad fair dealing exemption. Writers and publishing groups in particular are very opposed. Because fair dealing is so broad but what is fair, the writers and publishing groups believe the new exemption will give teachers and educational institutions a blank cheque to make copies of their work to give to their students. They believe teachers and educational institutions should have to compensate creators for their work. In particular, why should private, commercial educational institutions be permitted to disseminate works for educational purposes without compensating copyright? This is not an easy issue. It is very hard to please both groups on this important contentious issue.

Groups, such as the Canadian Association of Student Associations, CASA, and the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, AUCC, have advocated for the education fair dealing exemption. Educators, whether they are post-secondary or K-12, have traditionally tried to make free copies of works for students claiming that they were infringing copyright under the fair dealing exemption of private research and study. The dissemination of works for students, however, stretches the concept of private research and study.

Furthermore, some teachers want to be innovative. An example is a teacher wanting to show a one minute clip of a movie to make a point but he or she cannot now without paying high copyright fees.

Essentially, CASA and the AUCC want to have a clearer delineation of fair dealing to allow them some clear and reasonable freedoms to use copyrighted material in certain circumstances. CASA and AUCC, however, are also pursuing this route to avoid expensive fees and course packs that charge up to $45 per person for copyrighted material for classes.

We can see that a lot of groups are depending on us to get this legislation right. We want to reward our artists and our artist community, not punish them. We also do not want to punish students.

I realize that these are very complex issues but it is time that we collectively work together to ensure we get this one right.

This fair dealing change, however, could have profound effects on the creation of textbooks, particularly in Quebec. Textbooks are specially designed in Quebec and, given the small size of the education market, copyright fees are quite high in order to recoup expenses. Allowing the fair dealing copying of even sections of textbooks in Quebec or in other parts of the country would significantly reduce the compensation authors receive.

Further, how far can exemptions be applied? Could a teacher make a copy of an entire movie and show it in class and not pay copyright fees based on the premise of education?

It was so much easier once upon a time when teachers could show movies without any issues of breaking the copyright law and so forth, but we have moved into such a new digital age that we have to figure out how we can be innovative and at the same time be fair.

The mashup section, clause 22 of the bill, creates an exception for mashups and user-generated content. An example of the mashup is a personal movie produced using movie and music clips combined with personal video and then posted on YouTube, for example. The clause, however, is too broadly written.

Under this rule, an individual can post an entire movie on YouTube and as long as the person adds a small inserted clip at the beginning or the end, he or she can call the video a mashup. We believe the language in Bill C-32 must be tightened to ensure that mashup exemptions cannot unexpectedly create a loophole for further copyright infringements.

There is also the issue of statutory damages. Clause 38.1 of Bill C-32 defines new statutory damages of $100 to $5,000 for all non-commercial infringements of copyright. Many stakeholders have expressed concerns about this section and believe applied statutory damages must be commensurate with the severity of the infringement.

As well, there is public exhibition of art. Currently, paragraph 3(1)(g) of the Copyright Act defines the right to present at a public exhibition an artistic work created only after June 7, 1988. The Liberal Party feels this is discriminatory to artists who created work before 1988, and we want to amend this part of the legislation.

There is the resale of art. Throughout Europe, artists are rewarded when their works are sold and sold again. Original art increases in value over time and artists feel a share of the increasing value should be returned to them upon resale of their works. In committee we wish to explore this European model.

Currently, copyright holders charge broadcasters for format shifting their works. A simple example of this is when a radio station purchases a song for broadcast. The current rules require the radio station to pay every time it plays the song but also when it transfers the song onto its computer server. Broadcasters want to simply pay once, whenever they play the song, and not pay again for the format shift being discussed.

The right of copy for format shifting, however, transfers approximately $21 million each year to artists and musicians, the creators of the works. Bill C-32 eliminates the ephemeral recording right from the Copyright Act, eliminating this compensation to creators.

Everyone can see that there are a lot of issues to be dealt with in committee, and we wish committee members all the best because this has been an ongoing issue as long as I have been in Parliament. We shall see if it actually gets resolved by the time this session is over. I certainly wish them all the best.

The stakeholder reaction, as I mentioned earlier, has been mixed. Michael Geist and consumer advocates oppose the bill, as the digital law provisions are considered overly restricting to Canadians who wish to download their CDs onto their iPods.

Some arts groups, such as the Canadian Film and Television Production Association, have supported Bill C-32 as a good step forward, but others, such as the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists, ACTRA, and other Quebec arts groups have opposed Bill C-32 because it lacks a levy, inserts the new education exemption and is not strong enough on issues such as notice and mashups.

Large business groups like the chambers of commerce, the Entertainment Software Association and the Canadian Council of Chief Executives have expressed support for the bill.

Other information technology business groups such as Google, Bell, Rogers and others have expressed support for the bill's direction, but have expressed concerns about the digital lock provisions.

Several education stakeholders, like the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations and the Canadian Association of University Teachers, have also expressed support for the education amendments but also concern with the digital lock provisions.

The Writers Guild and the Association of Canadian Publishers strongly oppose the new exemptions for education.

The Canadian Artists' Representation and many other arts groups are opposed to many parts of Bill C-32 and would especially like to have the resale right included in the new bill.

We have a bill that is quite complex. I will not use the word “mess”, although some others might say it is a mess, but we have been in this situation for a very long time. Certainly it has been debated over the last 10 years through various sittings of Parliament. With what the Conservative government is now bringing forward, different pieces of legislation have been changed. We had elections and then we had prorogation. All of that has killed past bills. A new bill has been introduced at this time and we do not know when an election is going to happen, but we will see what happens to the bill. If it actually makes it beyond the election, that would be great, but I have some reservations. I am hoping the committee will have an opportunity to look at these different issues and address them.

Canadians from coast to coast are looking for leadership from all of us. I do not want to see this as a partisan issue. We need to get copyright right for all Canadians. It is of great value for all of us.

So many people are depending on us to make the right decision, so I am hoping there will be co-operation at the committee. I am hoping we can all get together to work on this very important issue, bring it back to the House, have a final vote and then move it to the other chamber.

I cannot say how important this legislation is to all of us, and I am hoping that in the spirit of co-operation and with the limited space of a minority Parliament, we will have the bill passed before the next election.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for a great speech and to bring forward some points that I think are important.

The New Democratic Party's position on copyright is based on principles of compensation and access. Artists, as we have all said, need to be paid for their work and consumers should be able to access these works with the least amount of restriction.

We also support collective licensing. We support fair access to education materials. That is where I would like to ask my hon. colleague a question, because he talked about that.

Under the bill, for example, digital lessons for long distance learning must be destroyed within 30 days of a course. In our opinion, we feel this would treat students in digital learning environments as second-class citizens. It undermines the potential of new learning opportunities. Coming from a city that has three post-secondary institutions and provides education to many people throughout northern Ontario, I would like to hear my hon. colleague's comments about this aspect of the bill.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made some very valuable points. They are important on the issue of compensation for our artists and access for education. There are a lot of valuable points he made that need to be clarified and addressed at the committee stage. I hope we will come back with a better bill than the one we have at the moment.

I do not have an answer to all his questions. These are things with which I have also been grappling personally as to what is the best direction. I am hoping that the collective wisdom of the committee will allow us to come back with a bill that will be supported by all of us.

I am one of those who strongly believe we have to have some legislation. We do not always get perfect legislation, but we need something with which to move forward.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There will be eight minutes left for questions and comments for the hon. member the next time the bill is before the House.

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 2 consideration of the motion that Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Copyright Act.

I want to begin by saying that, as everyone knows, we have been waiting for this bill for a long time. We need this bill, we want it and we have been waiting for it. The government was elected two years ago, and we are just now beginning to debate this bill at second reading.

Nevertheless, as they say, “better late than never”. Now is our chance to debate it, and we must do so. Over the past few years, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party have tried to introduce bills. Once again, this one comes from the Conservative government. It was a long time coming, but it is here now, and we will debate it.

We need this debate because we have to modernize the Copyright Act. I am sure everyone will agree that is necessary. This legislation must be modernized and adapted to the reality of the century we live in, the 21st century.

We need legislation that takes into account the technological changes that have already happened and will continue to happen at a dizzying pace. We need only consider everything that has happened over the past 10 years and all of the new products that have come to market. For example, consider the role of the iPod, the iPad and all of the other new devices that did not exist 10 or 15 years ago. Today, everyone uses these devices to listen to music and watch movies. We have to take into account the extraordinary technological changes in terms of platforms, production and dissemination.

That is why we need legislation that reflects these changes. We also need legislation that protects the rights of creators and artists. That has become even more important in the digital age now that everything happens so quickly.

It is just as clear that we need legislation that sends an unmistakable message to the international community, legislation that shows Canada takes copyright seriously and promotes and protects those rights. That is the most important part of this.

Unfortunately, we are dragging our feet. We are lagging behind. In some ways, we are looked down on by the international community. All too often, we are being singled out as a bad example. That needs to change.

The law needs to be modernized for all of the reasons I listed, but also to allow us to ratify certain international treaties that are of significant importance to us and our allies.

In preparation for the debates surrounding the passing of this bill, I decided to travel across Canada to meet and talk with those directly or indirectly affected by this important issue. Other members did the same. I am thinking about my colleagues from the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology as well as my colleague and our industry critic, the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, who has done incredible work on this issue.

As I was saying, I travelled from one end of Canada to the other in order to meet with the people concerned by this significant bill. I met people in Halifax, Montreal, Winnipeg, Toronto, Regina, all over, in fact. I could list them all, but it would take too long because there are more than 100 groups.

I will simply say that I met with people from the film, television, production and music industries. These are artists, musicians, Internet service providers and others. Over the past several months, I have had extremely productive and worthwhile discussions with people from all of the provinces, except Alberta, where I will be next week to discuss this very important bill.

We need to talk in a fair and balanced manner about this copyright modernization bill. We have to find a delicate balance between the important needs of creators and the needs of consumers, which is not easy. Unfortunately, numerous critics are already speaking out against this bill. They come from everywhere—Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia.

Creators and copyright owners are afraid that this bill will undermine their current rights. That is one fundamental aspect that we need to examine closely. While the bill is a step in the right direction in some cases, is there not a chance that it will undermine or eliminate some existing, protected rights in other cases?

That is an absolutely fundamental issue that must be addressed, and we will take the time to do so. And just because the government took so long to introduce this bill, that does not mean we will examine it hastily and without taking a step back. That would be irresponsible on our part. On the contrary, we will take the time to consult all the stakeholders involved in order to come up with a bill that is fair and balanced and that really protects copyright owners. Thus, we will meet with several people with whom members of the Liberal caucus have already met, and others with whom we have not yet had the opportunity to meet. This could all be done in committee.

Copyright is a vast, complex and rapidly changing subject. On this side of the House, we understand that it has a real impact on artists, writers, poets, filmmakers and musicians, as well as on video game makers, photographers, merchants, producers, Internet service providers and of course consumers. Copyright has an impact on many people and industries, and we must take that into account. We also need to make sure we have long-term legislation that will not need to be replaced tomorrow, since it is so hard to reach a consensus. Furthermore, the proposed legislation must be as neutral as possible in terms of technology.

Clearly, finding common ground when so many different parties are involved will demand some compromises, but they must be fair and balanced. In order to achieve this, we need to have frank, open discussions from beginning to end.

At this time, I would like to mention some of the issues that were raised during my cross-country visits and some points that were raised during meetings here in Ottawa with stakeholders from the cultural community and from industry.

I want to raise some of the important concerns and questions that we should be debating, especially with regard to digital locks. For example, should these famous digital locks prevail over all other rights to make copies? That is the question because Bill C-32 includes new rights that authorize Canadians to make copies for personal reasons, including format shifting, time shifting and back-ups. Nonetheless, the new provisions in the bill having to do with digital locks take precedence over these rights. In other words, to be clear, under the new legislation, someone who buys a CD on which a company has installed a digital lock cannot get around this lock in order to transfer the content of the CD to another format without breaking the law.

I know that is a bit technical, but it is a fundamental aspect of the bill and we must debate it. It is also extremely contentious and was highly contested when the Conservatives introduced their other bill, Bill C-61. We have already heard many protests and discussions on this aspect of the bill. It is clear that this point needs to undergo further review, and we believe that amendments will need to be made in committee.

The second point has to do with education. Bill C-32 contains new exemptions that allow teachers and teaching institutions to make copies of works for educational purposes without copyright infringement. This blanket exemption from fair dealing rules is facing growing opposition from the various cultural communities.

Given the comprehensive nature of fair dealing, writers and publishers, for example, believe that this new exemption will permit teachers and educational institutions to make copies of their works at will and then give them to their students. Will that happen? Is that really what will happen? We will have to see and study the bill, but I can say that many people believe that teachers and educational institutions should be required to pay royalties to creators for the use of their works. I find this to be a fair and consistent position.

Let us go a little farther. How should this exemption be applied? Should a teacher be able to claim that a copy of an unedited version of a movie was made and shown to a class for educational purposes and not pay a royalty? We have to ask the question. Is that the case?

We realize that it is important to modernize the act so that teachers can apply it in the digital age. But we also believe that authors and creators are entitled to be compensated for the use of their works and for what they have created. That is clear. We will want to discuss this in committee as well.

Similarly, we will have to clearly define what constitutes “fair” dealing, as it is used in the bill. I ask the question and we will ask it in committee. What are the limits and the parameters that apply to the term “fair”? We must answer this question.

The third point has to do with mashups, or user-generated content. Clause 22 of the bill provides for an exception for mashups and user-generated content.

What is a mashup? A mashup is, for example, a personal video produced by combining excerpts from films and sound recordings and then posted on YouTube or a similar site. That happens.

In our opinion, the wording of this clause is far too broad. With this rule, someone could post the full version of a movie on YouTube. All they would have to do is add an excerpt at the beginning or the end and call the video a mashup. That seems a bit too broad. We want to define this and debate it. This point will also have to be carefully examined in committee.

The fourth point has to do with the statutory damages in the bill. Clause 38.1 of the bill provides for damages of between $100 and $5,000 for all copyright infringements for non-commercial purposes. Members will understand that we have some concerns here. It seems logical to us that damages related to copyright infringement should be in proportion to the seriousness of the infringement. That is also something that will have to be analyzed and studied in committee.

The bill also leaves a few things out, such as the public display of art, for example. Currently, if an artist displays a piece of art in a public space for reasons other than to sell it, they receive compensation. However, if the work was created before 1988, the artist does not receive compensation; they do not receive a penny. We need to use this opportunity to fix this situation, which we find to be discriminatory.

Another thing that has been forgotten is the resale of artwork, or resale right. Across Europe, artists are compensated when their works are sold and resold. Everyone knows that original art increases in value over time. Artists become more and more well known and the value of their works increases. Artists feel, and rightly so, that part of this increase in worth should come to them upon resale. It already exists in Europe.

When this is studied in committee, we would like to look at what has happened in Europe to see how Canadian artists could be more fairly and equitably compensated for their work. We believe that our artists' efforts are no less valuable that those of their European counterparts.

There are many other points that I would like to raise, but I do not have the time. However, I will definitely raise them in committee. We just need to remember that this bill has some good points but also some flaws and, in certain cases, leaves things out altogether. We will work hard to improve it.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member seems to be very knowledgeable about the subject matter of the bill.

The government has made the claim that it must follow the American approach to the WIPO Internet treaties and must support the digital lock measures in the bill. However, 88 countries have now ratified the WIPO treaties and only half of those 88 countries support the American approach.

Does the member believe that perhaps the current government is being overly influenced by the American movie industry, business lobbyists or perhaps even American politicians to get their version of what should be a proper agreement in force in Canada with the view to having a sort of common competitive market in North America?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. First of all, I would say that generally speaking, the government is always a little too easily influenced by what happens in the United States, especially during the previous administration, the Bush administration.

The issue of digital locks is interesting, because there are various options and various ways to respect our treaties. We think it is acceptable, however, but not in an absolute way. There must be some kind of reasoning behind it, a certain limit. For instance, when people buy a certain product, there must be a way for them to make a copy for their personal use without violating the copyright.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it appears that there is a conflict in terms of intellectual property that would be applicable to educators, the teaching profession and those involved in long distance learning, and so on. On the other hand, the copyright law is trying to establish a broader umbrella to protect those who are the initiators of creative musical and artistic property. Does the member think the committee can come to a resolution?

I must say that I lean on the side of those from the educating field who are saying that in terms of intellectual property and the ability to use in the classroom that which has been created to the benefit of students is an extremely important objective and concern that has been raised. Would the member please address the question of whether the committee in fact can deal with the elements of that issue?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his important question.

The bill adds another exemption for the education sector. I understand the member's reasoning and I know how much he cares about the education sector, and so do I. However, just as a teacher would not agree to work for free, an author should not have to work for free, or in other words, supply his or her work without getting paid.

That is, in fact, the point of this bill. We need to strike a balance between, on the one hand, the rights of creators, authors and publishers and, on the other hand, the rights of consumers. In this case, we could also add the rights of students and teachers.

We do not believe that this bill is balanced. The government tells us it is balanced, but I do not believe that is the case, because certain points from the consultations were not included. We can do much better, and that is exactly what we hope to do in committee. We want to come up with a bill that is fair to both creators and consumers.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats support collective licensing and fair access to education materials. We have three fantastic post-secondary institutions in my great riding of Sudbury. We have Cambrian College, Collège Boréal and Laurentian University, which, I might add, has a new chancellor, Aline Chrétien who I congratulate on being the new chancellor. One of the things that all three post-secondary institutions have is fantastic distant education programs.

What is concerning about this bill is that we are hearing that under the bill digital lessons for long distance learning must be destroyed within 30 days of a course. We feel that this would treat students in digital learning environments as second-class citizens and would undermine the potential of new learning opportunities. If we look at the vastness of northern Ontario, we need to ensure that all students who participate in digital learning have that opportunity.

I would like to hear the hon. member's comments on what he thinks about that piece of this legislation.

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

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

This, too, is an important issue because it deals with education, particularly the education exemption. It is extremely important precisely because we have to bear in mind the challenges faced in the regions and the ability to provide distance education. It is an extremely important aspect.

I want to reiterate the importance of striking a balance. We have to be able to make it easier for students to take these courses and for professors to teach them. But in so doing, must we accept that authors and creators will not be compensated?

My colleague refers to the fact that course materials must be destroyed. They must be destroyed because no royalty is paid on them because of an exemption. In fact, because the materials are exempt, they do not infringe on the copyright; however, because no royalty is paid, they must be destroyed. That creates a challenge: the materials have to be recreated. It is one of the rather odd and strange aspects of this bill. The options are as follows: either royalties are paid or professors are not required to destroy the materials. We must strike a balance that currently eludes us.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I can see this bill being popular with photographers because it includes giving them the same rights as other creators. That is certainly a first.

The carve out for network locks on cell phones is bound to be popular with people. Canadians will have the right to unlock their phones if they want to switch carriers as long as they abide by their provider's contract terms.

However, I think what people will not like is what was followed up in the last question by the member for Sudbury, which is that teachers and students will need to destroy digital lessons 30 days after their courses conclude. That is absolutely ridiculous and I think there will be a lot of push back by citizens of Canada on that very point.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, I thank my colleague, who raised the issue of education with good reason. That is one of the fundamental elements of Bill C-32. I would say that there is no definite answer because we do not yet know the bill's scope with respect to education. What does “fair” mean? As I said in my speech, we need to figure out what the word “fair” means, what its parameters are and what it covers. What is included in the exemption for education and what is not?

We have to find a balance. We want it to be easy for students to access and easy for teachers to prepare, but we also want our creators to get paid. As I said earlier, would teachers—both of my parents were teachers—agree to work without being paid? No, because teachers have to earn a living. So do authors and publishers. Once again, we have to find a balance here, a balance that the bill does not provide. We hope to find that balance in committee.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Copyright Act.

I, for one, am a strong advocate of reforming Canada's copyright regulations in order to modernize them and ultimately align them with the realities of the 21st century. Yet, despite my belief that Canada is in dire need of a modernized, intellectual property rights regime, the bill fails to realistically address what is needed.

The government has stated that its aim in updating the Copyright Act is not to punish individual users but rather to focus its deterrence and enforcement efforts on distributors and large websites that illegally host copyrighted content.

The first thing we need to know about creating balanced copyright is that we need to engage all the players. Bill C-61, the government's initial attempt at reforming copyright law in Canada was legislation that was so badly constructed it had to be dropped as soon as it was announced. The Conservatives were forced back to the drawing board, so here we are, after another two years of waiting. Unfortunately, they still have not got the message. The lack of thorough consultation has left major questions about the impacts of the bill.

Specifically, whether the bill will achieve the intended objectives is a subject of debate among the various stakeholders affected by copyright reform, including authors, artists, musicians, record labels, book publishers, collective societies, libraries, museums, school associations, software developers, retailers and consumers.

The lack of thorough consultation with independent stakeholders, such as those mentioned above, is troubling, considering the same problem plagued the bill's predecessor. It all seems to me that there needs to be a consensus-building process which takes into account the concerns of all stakeholders in order to wholly legitimatize the regulatory framework being proposed.

On a different note, it is my opinion that the scope of the bill strongly misses the mark through its heightened focus on individual consumers as opposed to going after the more heinous commercial pirates who profit monetarily off the intellectual property of others.

There are two key problems with the Conservative approach to copyright. The first problem is that the rights that are offered in terms of the fair dealing, mashup and parity exemptions can be overridden by the heavy, legal protections being put in place by digital locks.

Under Bill C-32, it is illegal to break a digital lock, even if that lock prevents us from accessing material that we would otherwise be legally entitled to access. In fact, it treats breaking of digital locks for personal use the same as if the lock were being broken for commercial counterfeit.

We oppose the criminalization of consumers, which this aspect of Bill C-32 represents. The government needs to re-evaluate its stance on copyright reform in order to properly address the current realities of the 21st century. Criminalizing hundreds of thousands of individual consumers for simply digitizing their music for personal consumption fails in this regard. We need to focus on commercial piracy, not individual consumption.

I happen to have a seven-year-old daughter who is a huge Hannah Montana and Jonas Brothers fan. We must buy as many Jonas Brothers and Hannah Montana movies and music as we possibly can in my household. I can rhyme off Hannah Montana songs. I am sure many other MPs who have young children could do the same thing. I will not sing one for the House. I do not want to embarrass myself that badly because I am not a great singer. My daughter has a CD collection but we cannot find CD players, so we need to put those on to our MP3 player. Under the bill, my seven-year-old daughter is now breaking the law.

We need to ensure that we are not criminalizing the consumers. The approach the Conservative government is taking goes far beyond the norms adopted by many of the World Intellectual Property Organization countries, or WIPO. In terms of copyright reform, we have been consistent. We support the fundamental principle of remunerating creators for their content. We have consistently called on the government to bring the WIPO treaty into the House to be ratified. If the government had taken this advice, it would have alleviated a great deal of international pressure and given us the space to create a truly made in Canada approach to digital copyright issues.

The Conservatives had five years to address issues in WIPO, and stalled on the WIPO ratification. Instead, their first run at copyright was constructed entirely behind closed doors and read like a wish list for the U.S. corporate lobby.

The second serious problem with the bill is that a number of previous revenue streams for artist organizations appear to be undermined through exemptions and changes. The most notable of these is the government's decision not to extend the private copying levy on CDs to music-playing devices. This fails to address the reality that more and more consumers are choosing to purchase intellectual property through non-traditional means such as digital music files. The levy worked on cassettes. It worked on writable CDs. However, if it is not updated for MP3 players, the levy will die.

The New Democrats put forward Bill C-499 to update the levy on devices marketed specifically as music players and recorders. The Conservatives have misrepresented this levy. They have used it as a straw man for their mailings attacks in our ridings. They have made up figures for the cost of the levy and have denounced copyright licensing as a killer tax.

Let us see what the national media have to say about this attack on the remuneration of artists. The Edmonton Journal said that the NDP offered a perfectly reasonable compromise, but that the industry minister misrepresented its contents on a bill that is thoughtful and upholds the basic Canadian values of straight dealing.

The National Post was even blunter, saying:

...the government's nonsensical, “Boo! Hiss! No new taxes!” response … is just dumb...

This is the National Post we are talking about, definitely not a progressive bastion that routinely calls for more expansive powers in taxation and regulation. Even this newspaper has shown a willingness to confront the real issues. Why has the government not come to its senses on this matter?

The widespread use of iPods, iPads, and MP3 players, as well as the emergence of products like Kindle, serves as an excellent example of the changing nature of consumption in a technology-driven environment. We must address this gap to ensure that Canada's intellectual property regime is appropriate for the ever-changing technological landscape.

The most obvious criticism that can be made of Bill C-32 is that it fails to address the realities presented to us by 21st-century technology. The fact is that no amount of legislation or legal action will force consumers to return to the business models of the 1990s. The emergence of the digital economy has changed the dynamics of intellectual property. The digital economy is not going away. We need to recognize this. We are attempting to rectify 21st-century problems with 20th-century solutions. Let us be clear. An intellectual property regime designed for the dynamics of the 1990s is not the best means for dealing with the issues of commercial piracy, which is really where our energies need to be focused.

Over the past 20-odd years, technological innovation has led to massive and abrupt changes in the way Canadians live their daily lives. Whether it is the way we get the news, or the way we do our banking, or pay our bills, technology has dramatically altered our consumption habits. Instituting a regulatory regime that fails to observe the significance of the transition to an information technology and e-commerce paradigm will only lead to further failure in distinguishing between commercial piracy and legitimate consumer uses.

Nowhere is this folly more clear than in the United States, with its digital millennium copyright act. The U.S. entertainment industry has used legislation in courts to lock down content and criminalize consumers. The result has been a scorched earth policy waged by the recording industry of America against its own consumers. After more than 35,000 lawsuits against kids, single moms, and even dead people, the digital genie has not been put back in the bottle. The market has simply moved on.

Does this mean that digital technology has trumped the traditional right of creators to be compensated? Certainly not. New markets and new models are emerging. The difficulty is to find the best way to update copyright to meet these challenges. We have a unique opportunity to develop legislation that looks forward rather than back. That is why it was unfortunate to hear the Minister of Canadian Heritage denounce citizens' legitimate questions about the bill as digital extremism.

If copyright reform is to succeed, the government must move beyond the rhetoric of a self-defeating culture war. The choice is really about whether we support regressive or progressive copyright. Regressive copyright tries to limit, control, or punish users of creative works. Regressive copyright is self-defeating, because the public will ultimately find ways to access these works.

Progressive copyright, on the other hand, is based on two clear principles: remuneration and access. The digital age has shown us that consumers of artistic works want to be able to access these works. The Internet is not a threat; it is an amazing distribution format. As legislators, artists, and technological innovators, we need to find the monetizing streams in this new distributing culture.

This balanced approach represents the mainstream of Canadian copyright opinion. I refer the House to the judgment in the case of Théberge v. Gallerie d'Art du Petit Champlain inc. The Supreme Court stated that copyright's purpose was to strike a balance between promoting the public interest in the encouragement and dissemination of works of art and intellect, and obtaining a just reward for the creator.

There is a public interest in the access and dissemination of works and a public interest in obtaining a just reward for the creator.

The New Democratic Party's position on copyright is based on the principles of compensation and access. Artists need to be paid for their work, and consumers should be able to access these works with a minimum of restrictions.

The New Democrat position is that we support collective licensing and fair access to educational materials. For example, under the bill, digital lessons for long-distance learning must be destroyed within 30 days of the completion of a course. This would treat students in digital learning environments as second-class citizens and would undermine new learning opportunities.

Specifically, under Bill C-32, students who take long-distance courses would be forced to destroy their class notes after 30 days, and teachers would be forced to destroy their on-line class plans after every semester. This is the digital equivalent of telling universities to burn their textbooks at the end of every session.

What kind of government would force students engaged in digital learning to burn their class notes? No writer gets compensated and no student benefits. This provision shows just how badly out of whack the government is when it comes to understanding the importance of digital education.

In my great riding of Sudbury, we have three fantastic post-secondary institutions: Laurentian University, Cambrian College, and Collège Boréal. All three of these post-secondary institutions offer distance education and distance learning. We want to ensure that this continues, because it is a great way for students in the vastness of northern Ontario to get the education they need.

All this is particularly troubling for me as an MP from northern Ontario. Our country contains many remote areas, and we should be encouraging distance and online education, since course offerings of this type are often the only way for Canada's rural residents to gain access to quality higher education.

We should not be discouraging these types of educational regimes with unduly burdensome regulations prescribing how long a digital lesson can be held.

It is therefore my hope that all parties will be able to reconcile their differences so that we can provide Canadian artists, performers, writers, and the cultural community as a whole with the intellectual property rights protection they deserve, while ensuring that the new regulatory regime respects the changing nature of individual consumption in the 21st century.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Sudbury will have five minutes remaining when the House returns to this matter.

It being 5:52 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 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[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 motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly the bill stands referred to a legislative committee.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)