Bill C-11 (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.

[Dan Bohbot]

Mr. Weston, Bill C-11 has already been passed and it already changes the system that is designed to speed up hearings. Bill C-31 categorizes people even before they have made a claim for asylum. That is where the problem lies. The minister gives himself discretionary powers and sends the message to the panel that he himself can determine who is persona non grata.

In my opinion, this political influence on the panel's decision-making process is the crux of the problem. This is political interference in immigration matters and we should avoid it. We should trust the decision-makers and let them do their jobs.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

First of all, I don't see anything in this legislation that is going to fix the problems in Hungary and its penal system. We need to get that very clear.

The other thing that I want to get out there is this term of “bona fide refugees”. We have refugees and we have asylum seekers. When they come to our shore, whether or not they come with fraudulent documents via plane or ship, we don't actually have that determination until one has been made. So I don't want to use the language that everyone who comes is fraudulent or bogus.

Bill C-11 was praised by the then-minister and the current minister of immigration as a work of art, I will say—albeit those weren't the exact words—and yet it has not been implemented. So for me to go on to say that it's broken and, therefore, we have to fix it, when we haven't implemented a solution through the legal system, from a bill that went through our Parliament, is very hard for me to sit here and do.

I think that some of the rhetoric—and I'm going to use the word “rhetoric”—I have heard today is fearmongering. It leads people, if they were to listen to certain testimony, to think that everybody who comes on our shore, including the grandparents of many of us sitting here or relatives of many of us sitting here, has come here because they want to defraud the system, that all they've come here for is to bypass and use and abuse the system. I can tell you that I've worked with refugees over the last number of years who don't like getting money from the state, who get out and work. They work very hard and they get on; they get their education, and they become contributing members in this society. That's what Canada is.

[Debbie Douglas]

As I was saying, we believe that Bill C-11, as a negotiated compromise, is actually a good bill. I think that Mr. Skarica is conflating issues of trafficking with issues of refugee determination. We absolutely believe that Canada needs to have stronger responses to issues of trafficking and we congratulate the Ontario Attorney General's office for moving forward with this case and being as successful as it has been. But let's not set national policy so that we can go after traffickers coming from Hungary.

I think this is one of the concerns, that we continue to paint asylum seekers with this very broad brush and we believe that by demonizing people needing to get protection from Canada.... We couch it in economic terms and we couch it in language about people abusing our system—

Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, In her speech, the member opposite recognized that the Liberals also have the view that the refugee system can be improved so that it is faster, fairer and better. However, she then took issue with the fact that the Liberals disagree with some of the details of how the government proposes to do this, such as going back on amendments already adopted on Bill C-11, and criticized the Liberals as working against the interests of the taxpayers of Canada.

I would like to know whether the member sees room in the process of parliamentary debate for members to bring forward their ideas as to how the actual details of the bill do not meet the test of the principles that we are supporting.

Arts and Culture

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is no laughing matter: with their Bill C-11 on copyright, the Conservatives are once again showing their total disregard for artists and the arts. If the Conservatives would open their eyes and actually look, they would see that arts and culture constitute a major driver of our economy.

Instead of supporting artists, the Conservatives are creating obstacles for them. Bill C-11 will deprive small record companies, musicians and small businesses of $21 million a year. What is most pathetic is that no one on the other side appears to be looking for a solution to the problem they have created with this bill.

It is not a big deal for the Conservatives because their strategy is always to give preference to big business, whether the subject is oil sands or culture. The NDP will not let them get away with it. Artists can rely on our support. In contrast to the Conservatives, we are here to defend creative artists.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

I was wrong then. Mea maxima culpa.

I think, apropos to the last answer I gave, we have since then seen just this huge and growing wave of unfounded claims coming from democratic European countries. We have realized, since the adoption of Bill C-11 in 2010, that the process for designation was too cumbersome, too slow-moving, and that if we were to grant a visa exemption to a European country and saw a huge spike in claims, it would take us too long to be able to use the tool of designation to address such a spike.

So this is really about responding to an unfolding reality of highly organized waves of false claims from liberal democratic countries.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Anonymous not only called for the removal, in its entirety, of Bill C-30, but also Bill C-11, the Copyright Modernization Act. It is clear to me, at least, and I believe to those of us on this side of the table, that there was a threat against the legislation, not against anything else. I think that's the fundamental issue we have to deal with here. There is a group out there trying to prevent a government of the day from introducing and passing legislation.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

I don't know if it's the same question or not, but I wanted to follow up on this issue of an offence versus a threat. I want to consider a few excerpts that were posted on the Internet to try to give you a handle on this.

Anonymous tells Minister Toews they're not bluffing, and that they'll give him seven days to reflect upon his personal and political crimes. Anonymous then demands Minister Toews' immediate resignation, as well as the scrapping of Bills C-30 and C-11 in their entirety. They say they “know all about” Minister Toews and threaten to release more information during Operation White North unless he accedes to their demands.

I recognize those are not physical threats, but it appears to me that they are clear threats against our democracy. If a person or a group can threaten to subvert the legislative agenda of any government, is that not a threat?

Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Trinity--Spadina for sincere concern for refugees. In the context of the NDP, she understands, unlike some of her colleagues, that there are fake claimants who do abuse our generosity, just as there are many legitimate claimants who need our protection. It is the need to recognize both sides of the ledger.

I appreciated her constructive work at committee in the last Parliament in the passage of Bill C-11. Will she not recognize that since that time, we have seen the explosive growth of unfounded claims coming from the European Union and virtually none of those claimants show up at their hearings?

Virtually all of those European claimants admit by themselves, of their own volition, that they do not need Canada's protection because they withdraw or abandon their own claims. Does she not think that we need flexible and fast tools to address large waves of unfounded claims such as those coming from the European Union?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism continually says that Canada exceeds our obligations of international law by simply giving a refugee claimant a hearing. Under the 1951 refugee convention, host countries have the obligation to assess the claim of any asylum seeker who reaches their territory.

Of course, there is no refugee queue. Everyone has the right to seek asylum regardless of how many others are doing so at the same time. There is no obligation in international law for a refugee to seek asylum in the nearest country. Refugees often escape to the nearest country. Often the country is not a signatory to the UN refugee convention and has no legal obligation to protect them. Those people are often at risk of arrest, abuse, detention, demands for bribes, forced labour, et cetera.

I would like to make a brief comment on the minister's comments on previous Bill C-11 about the independent committee to assess designated safe countries. What he said then was that those amendments “go a long way in providing greater clarity and transparency around the process of designation”. That is what the minister said about the committee in the last Parliament and he scrapped that committee in this Parliament.

Why does my hon. colleague think the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism may have changed his opinion on the process of designating safe countries?

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Five minutes, and five minutes only—I've been saying that quite a bit over the last little while on Bill C-11. It all comes back, I guess.

Thank you, Minister, for being here today. Usually it's just the minister in the hot seat, but with the temperature in this room, I think we're all in the hot seat right now.

I'd like to continue a little on the spectrum. We've been studying, in this committee, e-commerce and mobile payments. One of the things we all agree upon is that without the spectrum, which is basically the next round of infrastructure for this, Canadian consumers and companies will be left behind, so it's an important issue for all of us.

One of the things we've been talking about a lot in this committee is rural areas and how to make sure that rural Canadians get access. Of course, it's great to hear that there will some commitment to rural Canadians and rural businesses, but on this side we'd like to see a little more. We're looking to the ministry to explain or talk about how we can come up with some of these other ideas that others are talking about.

You've given the structure of the rules: incumbents can only buy one block of prime spectrum and there's a limited spectrum available, so it's five usable blocks at only four.

It is quite possible that no operator, none of the telecoms, will fall subject to the rural access rules, and even if one operator does, there will not be competition, and consumers in rural areas will possibly continue to suffer.

Maybe you can give me your comments on that initially.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, colleagues, for having me here today.

This is a pleasure.

I would first like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to the members of the committee today on the main estimates for the Department of Industry.

As you said, Mr. Chair, I am here with Richard Dicerni, Deputy Minister, Simon Kennedy, Senior Associate Deputy Minister, and Kelly Gillis, the department's Chief Financial Officer.

Industry Canada is part of a group of 10 agencies and councils, as well as the department, that report through me and two ministers of state.

As presented in the 2012-13 main estimates, the department anticipates a total of $1.3 billion in spending for the year, and the portfolio organizations together anticipate a total of just over $3.5 billion.

Our goal is to help make Canadian industry more productive and competitive by advancing three strategies: one, supporting business; two, fostering the knowledge-based economy; and three, advancing the marketplace.

Overall, we have made significant progress towards reaching our goals. As government members, we have taken action to support businesses and to create jobs across the country.

During the global recession, we have acted decisively to counter the downturn with a targeted action plan.

More Canadians are working now than before the downturn. Actually, over 610,000 net jobs have been created since July 2009. That is a testament to Canadians' efforts.

Over the past 10 years, the Canadian economy has seen stronger growth than any other G7 economy. And we continue to find ways to give Canadian businesses a competitive edge.

We have cut import tariffs on manufacturing equipment. We have reduced federal corporate taxes to 15%; we have the lowest tax rate on new business investments in the G7, which is also less than half the rate of our American neighbours.

We have extended the 50% capital cost allowance rate through the straight-line method for machinery and equipment.

We have also extended work-sharing agreements to help workers. We continue to support research and efforts to market innovation. Our net debt to GDP ratio is still the lowest in the G7.

Our accomplishments have been recognized around the world. Forbes magazine ranks Canada as the best place on the planet for businesses to grow and create jobs, the Economist Intelligence Unit has rated Canada the number one place to do business in the G-7 for the next three years, and both the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development forecast that our economy will be among the strongest in the G-7 this year and next.

This is all within the context of a low-tax plan that leaves more money in the hands of Canadians.

Today's meeting comes at an appropriate time. Over the past few weeks, we have had the opportunity to set in motion some key initiatives that are going to help us maximize our opportunities.

As you know, Canada is one of the few nations with the whole range of design and manufacturing capacities in the aerospace industry. With almost 80,000 high-level jobs, several of which are in small and medium-sized businesses, this industry has a significant impact on Canada.

The 2011 budget committed our government to reviewing programs and policies related to the aerospace and space industries. That is why we created a committee—which I announced last month in Montreal—to undertake this study. The committee will be chaired by the Hon. David Emerson, who will share with us his vast experience and expertise in the field.

This study will cover key features, such as trends in the global aerospace industry and their impact on the Canadian industry; key opportunities and challenges in this sector; the sector's strengths and weaknesses; and, finally, long-term objectives for a sustainable domestic industry.

Mr. Emerson's study will also deal with the issues related to the space industry. To that end, I have recently announced that Canada intends to renew its participation in the International Space Station. Our commitment will contribute to maintaining Canada's leadership role in space technologies. I am particularly proud that Chris Hatfield will be the first Canadian commander of the International Space Station during its mission, which is scheduled to start in December of this year.

I'll turn now to the automotive sector. It is the largest manufacturing sector in Canada, representing 12% of our manufacturing output and 20% of manufactured exports. In 2011, the auto industry directly employed more than 109,000 Canadians and created another 332,000 jobs indirectly.

That's why we have invested in the automobile sector, including in clean vehicle technologies. These investments are a catalyst for further private sector activity and innovation, and they foster Canadian competitiveness.

Beyond the sectors I've mentioned, we know that our competitiveness ultimately depends on supporting business innovation throughout the entire economy. That is why support for science and technology has been a priority for our government since 2006. To this end, Canada has invested heavily in science and technology. Federal science and technology expenditures reached $11.7 billion in 2011.

We have supported new world-class policies and programs and are expanding private sector participation in science and tech. We are building Canada's knowledge base and are successfully branding Canada as a destination of choice for talented, highly qualified S and T workers and students.

But, as you know, we could get better innovation results in our country. Private businesses in particular are lagging in innovation. That is the case despite our excellent record in research and development by higher-education institutions and despite our strong support for research and development by businesses.

Our government recognized this problem and it received a report this past fall from a panel of experts tasked with reviewing federal support in research and development. Over the past few months, we have gone over the report and, under the leadership of my colleague Minister of State Goodyear, we will soon take action to fix the problems identified in the report so as to strengthen Canada's global competitiveness in a broad range of sectors.

At the heart of the digital economy are information and communications technologies. Technology adoption boosts productivity, accelerates innovation, and generates new products and business models. To this end our government has launched the digital technology adoption pilot program to promote adoption by small businesses using community colleges as partners.

This complements recent initiatives by the BDC, which has set aside $200 million for loans to entrepreneurs to adopt ICTs and has created an online resource centre that offers technology tools for small businesses. We are also boosting our support to increase university capacity in key digital skills disciplines.

I'm also looking forward to this committee's report on e-commerce in Canada.

Speaking of the digital economy, I'd note the swift progress of the copyright committee chaired by our NDP colleague from Sudbury, Mr. Thibeault. I know that Mr. Regan, Mr. Lake, Mr. Braid and Mr. McColeman worked long hours on that committee as well.

Bill C-11 attempts to achieve a balance between the rights of consumers and creators. While all of us know finding that balance has been challenging, this legislation is about strengthening Canada's ability to compete in the global digital economy. It is important for this bill to be passed as quickly as possible.

Turning to telecommunications, just yesterday I was pleased to announce significant decisions for our wireless sector. We understand that Canadian families work hard for their money, and they want their government to make decisions that will help them keep more of it. The measures I outlined yesterday will ensure the timely availability of world-class wireless services at low prices for Canadian families, including those in rural areas.

These measures include lifting foreign investment restrictions for telecom companies with less than a 10% share of the market; applying caps in the upcoming 700 megahertz spectrum auctions; applying measures to ensure that rural Canadians have access to the same advanced services; slowing tower proliferation by improving and extending roaming and tower-sharing policies; and reserving a portion of the 700 megahertz spectrum for public safety users such as police and firefighters.

I am proud of the balance that has been reached with those decisions. As Canadians are increasingly relying on wireless technology, it is important that we make good decisions to provide prompt service with more choice and lower prices.

In addition to the legislative changes I mentioned earlier, we are moving towards strengthening other pieces of legislation and policies related to the economic framework. We have made a commitment to ensure that the review process under the Investment Canada Act continues to promote investment while providing a net benefit for Canadians.

Meanwhile, we are continuing to review the act, especially in terms of transparency, to make sure that it is balanced. We have to be clear that the purpose of the Investment Canada Act is to promote foreign investment in Canada. Our government strongly believes that free trade and the ability to attract investments to our country play a fundamental role, not only in our economic recovery, but also in our country's long-term success. As a result, when we bring forward proposals for change, the changes will be about promoting investment that will benefit Canada.

In addition to the work accomplished on the Investment Canada Act, we have also been successful in introducing Bill C-14, Improving Trade Within Canada Act.

We are also acting on a number of other fronts, such as moving forward with priority trade negotiations, including with the EU and India. We are cutting red tape in order to boost productivity and reduce the compliance burden on businesses, especially the small and medium-sized businesses that drive our communities, whether they are located in large cities like Edmonton—whose Chamber of Commerce I was pleased to meet with in the fall—or rural centres like my own town of Thetford Mines.

In conclusion, Mr. Chair, I believe that those initiatives will contribute to strengthening the competitiveness of the Canadian economy and to support job creation and economic prosperity, which is at the heart of a strong Canada.

Thank you for your time. I will be pleased to answer any questions the members of the committee may have.

Thank you.

Copyright

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

Mr. Speaker, our Bill C-11 on copyright will do the following for Quebeckers and Canadians: protect the interests of consumers, artists and creators; make piracy illegal in Canada and implement the WIPO Internet treaties; and ensure that creators all across Canada know that their efforts to achieve cultural excellence will be protected in Canada and abroad. That is the Government of Canada's job, and we take it seriously. That is what Bill C-11 will do.

Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Vancouver Centre.

In a speech he delivered in the House when Bill C-4 was introduced, the Minister of Immigration said that we needed this bill's harsh measures against asylum seekers in order to communicate to them in no uncertain terms that Canada's streets were not paved with gold and that Canada was not the place for them.

As a case in point, the minister said that asylum seekers believe they will be given $50,000 upon arrival in Canada. We know this, obviously, is not the case. There are no such pots of gold awaiting refugee claimants at Canadian border points. This false and, ultimately, disappointing picture for asylum seekers of the easy prosperity that supposedly lies at the end of a long, arduous and sometimes deadly boat trip across the seas has been attracting the world's poor, persecuted and downtrodden to North America for well over a century. As well as the very real promise of freedom, this has been a point of attraction for immigrants and refugees who desperately seek a better life free from violence or squalor.

I do not think the minister's speech nor the bill would change this fact. We also need to realize that there is a flaw in the argument that Bill C-4, which is now part of Bill C-31, somehow will discourage people from coming to Canada.

The minister assumes that we live in a world of perfect information as the neo-classical economists regularly assure us in their economic models, but the fact is that would-be asylum seekers are fundamentally unaware of what awaits them here beyond the images they have borne of a hope they often desperately cling to. Indeed, not even the minister can extinguish the hope that is, in some ways, the psychological and emotional sustenance on which many people around the world living in harsh conditions survive.

It is a given that asylum seekers have a distorted view of the benefits that await them here in this country. There is no $50,000 pot of gold that awaits them when they arrive here. The corollary of course is that they also have a distorted view of any negative consequences that might await them should they arrive as refugee claimants aided and abetted by human smugglers. They cannot be expected to have accurate knowledge of the measures in Bill C-31, the measures imported from Bill C-4, that have been created in an attempt to discourage asylum seekers from coming to Canada.

Not only are would-be asylum seekers misinformed about what awaits them in Canada but many Canadians who have access to the 24-hour news cycle and who are generally well informed are themselves unaware of the manner in which Canada treats refugees upon arrival. I am sure many members in the House have received a chain email which I have been receiving if for about eight years now. I have been getting this email from highly educated Canadians, friends of mine, good people, good Liberals who believe in individual rights and who want fair treatment of immigrants and refugees. However, because it comes in on the Internet there is a tendency to take it at face value. I will quote from the email I have been receiving and that many members have been receiving. Only in Canada. It says:

It is interesting to know that the federal Government of Canada allows a monthly pension of $1,890 to a simple refugee, plus $580 in social aid for a grand total of $2,470 monthly. That’s $28,920 in annual income.

By comparison the Old Age Pension of a senior citizen who has contributed to the development of Our Beautiful Big Country during 40 or 50 years cannot receive more than $1,012 in Old Age Pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement per month, for $12,144 in annual income.

That’s a difference of $16,776 per year.

Perhaps our senior citizens should ask for the Status of Refugees instead of applying for Old Age Pension.

That is what is circulating on the Internet here in Canada. It is so false, so prevalent and so ongoing as a form of a spam email that the Department of Immigration has actually put up a web page to try to clarify the situation.

There is a lot of misinformation both in Canada and overseas where people are getting their information from human smugglers about what awaits them here. That is true of the false benefits that await them. If we assume that, which is what the Minister of Immigration said, people think they are coming here to a pot of gold of $50,000 when they arrive, that somehow officers from the Canada Border Services Agency await asylum seekers with chequebook and pen in hand, we also have to assume that would-be asylum seekers do not know what is in Bill C-31. They do not know what was in Bill C-4. They will not be discouraged by the harsh measures in Bill C-31. Who will tell them about the harsh measures in Bill C-31. Will it be the human smugglers? Will the human smugglers tell them that they will take their money, that they will bring them over to Canada, then tell them about the new legislation that may put them in detention for a year and say that maybe they will not do that human smuggling deal after all? There is a flaw in that logic.

We all view legislation through the prisms of our respective political philosophies. For me and others in the House that prism is liberalism. Liberalism is fundamentally about the primacy of the rights and dignity of the individual. Of course, liberals recognize and understand that human beings are social animals, that we can only thrive in a group or community. Living in a group or community makes everything possible, including individual economic prosperity. A simple example is the real estate value of one's home is a function of the vibrancy of the community in which it lies: no community, no capital gain upon home resale.

Community is not only the context necessary for individual fulfillment and security. It is also a source of identity. Liberals believe in the inherent value of community, but neither Conservatives nor the NDP spread misinformation on this point. Liberals are communitarians. We believe in safe streets, believe it or not. We believe in social cohesion and maintaining the social fabric.

Where we differ from the Conservatives is that we put the individual first. In a court of law or in an administrative tribunal, the focus is on the individual, not the group to which he or she belongs. In matters of justice, when we have to judge, we believe that we must judge based on the individual's unique circumstances, not the circumstances of the larger and more amorphous group to which he or she may happen to belong.

As an aside, that is why we as Liberals have trouble with minimum sentencing. We believe the circumstances of the crime and the offender must be evaluated, namely by a judge with years of legal training and experience because, as Liberals, we believe in the power of reason to find as close an approximation of the truth as we can. We believe in the ability of judges to apply reason to the facts of the case and develop a sanction that is proper to the individual circumstances, including one that is just to the victims. We believe in victims' rights.

That is also why we object to judging a refugee claimant based primarily on his or her group affiliation or country of origin. We do not believe that a refugee's treatment at the hands of the Canadian government should be judged as a function of their country of origin, in other words, on the basis of their nationality essentially, anymore than on their race or ethnicity.

I will quote Audrey Maklin of the University of Toronto's Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights, and lawyer, Lorne Waldman, both in regard to Bill C-31's predecessor, Bill C-4. They state:

The legislation also gives the minister the power to decree certain countries as “safe.” This formalizes in law the presumption that a refugee claimant from one of these countries is a fraud. Many countries are safe for most people most of the time. Refugees are usually people who are marginalized and vulnerable, so designating a country as safe tells us nothing about the risks faced by the people likely--

Bill C-11

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the legislative committee on Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.