This bill was last introduced in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session, which ended in March 2011.
Tony Clement Conservative
In committee (House), as of Nov. 5, 2010
(This bill did not become law.)
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.
This enactment amends the Copyright Act to
(a) update the rights and protections of copyright owners to better address the challenges and opportunities of the Internet, so as to be in line with international standards;
(b) clarify Internet service providers’ liability and make the enabling of online copyright infringement itself an infringement of copyright;
(c) permit businesses, educators and libraries to make greater use of copyright material in digital form;
(d) allow educators and students to make greater use of copyright material;
(e) permit certain uses of copyright material by consumers;
(f) give photographers the same rights as other creators;
(g) ensure that it remains technologically neutral; and
(h) mandate its review by Parliament every five years.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
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.