This bill was last introduced in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session, which ended in September 2013.
Christian Paradis Conservative
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now 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.
Laurin Liu NDP Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Mr. Speaker, we believe that copyright laws in Canada can balance the rights of creators so they can be compensated fairly for their work, while respecting the right of consumers to have reasonable access to content.
My hon. colleague cited the case of a student who would have to destroy documents 30 days after a course ends. On our side, we do not believe this gives students reasonable rights to access content.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on my hon. colleague's last comment.
In this bill students who take long-distance learning courses are forced to destroy their class notes after 30 days. Does that not create a two-tier set of rights? If students go to a school in a city, they will have a certain set of rights, but if they are in a rural or isolated area trying to do long-distance education, they will be told that they have to destroy their class notes.
What does the member think the impact is on students across Canada who are trying to make the most of learning in a digital environment?
Laurin Liu NDP Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Mr. Speaker, I do not think we have reached a balance within Bill C-11 between compensating creators for the work they have done and giving consumers rights to access the content that they have paid for and that they have the right to use.
I would also add that we have a lot of support for our position, notably from Michael Geist who is a renowned technology commentator. He stated:
The foundational principle of the new bill remains that anytime a digital lock is used--whether on books, movies, music, or electronic devices--the lock trumps virtually all other rights.
This means that both the existing fair dealing rights and Bill C-11's new rights all cease to function effectively so long as the rights holder places a digital lock on the—
Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders
November 14th, 2011 / 5:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Acting Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton
Order, please. We have exhausted the time allowed.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Montcalm.
Manon Perreault NDP Montcalm, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to try and understand an ill-conceived bill that does not really fix the problems in the current law. The Canadian government wants to reintroduce former Bill C-32 in the hopes of modernizing the Copyright Act. After listening to many expert witnesses speak on this topic in 2009 and after consultations, this government chose to table a catch-all bill.
It is true that Canada needs new copyright legislation, but this one is confusing. It contains too many major problems and, in certain cases, creates problems where there were none before. The government has managed to alienate intellectual property expert Michael Geist, the cultural industries, the Writers Guild of Canada and SOCAN, the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, to name just a few.
Reforming copyright law in Canada is not simple. It is quite complex. I greatly fear that the government's proposal is not the right solution. On one hand, the government is allowing for fair use for educational purposes, but on the other hand, it is imposing strict rules with regard to digital locks, allowing them to supersede all other rights guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Writers Guild of Canada has been very clear about digital locks: adding a digital lock effectively blocks the creators' current source of income and denies consumers the same rights they are guaranteed in other clauses of the bill.
The United States adopted similar legislation 10 years ago, and we have already seen the major shortcomings of such legislation in recent years. Their bill has reduced fair access to electronic resources, limited individual freedom of expression, legislated contradictory terms, resulted in unending and expensive legal battles against the public and has hindered innovation. Why is this government proposing a bill based on that same model? Canada should be a leader in copyright law instead of repeating the mistakes of its neighbours. Canada has to move forward and show leadership in this area, especially given the astonishing number of artists here who are brimming with talent.
The Minister of Industry and Minister of State for Agriculture announced that Canadians would soon have modern copyright laws that protect and help create jobs, promote innovation and attract new investment. However, quite the opposite seems to be true. Over 80 arts and culture organizations believe that Bill C-11 will be bad for Canada's digital economy. Howard Knopf, a lawyer who specializes in copyright, raises an important question. He says that this bill does not encourage innovation and that, in fact, it inhibits it. He wonders how making it illegal to bypass a regional code in order to watch a legally imported Bollywood DVD that is not available in Canada is going to encourage innovation.
The bill could seriously affect artists' incomes, even though they are already underpaid. A Conference Board of Canada report found that the cultural sector generated approximately $25 billion in tax revenue in 2007. That is more than three times higher than the $7.9 billion that was invested in culture by all levels of government in 2007. We must also consider that the average salary of an artist in Canada is $12,900 a year, which is a pittance. This bill will deprive artists of million of dollars in revenue and jeopardize their market share.
Canada can be proud of its artists and creators. Why does this government want to penalize them? Does the government think that, with this bill, it can download additional costs onto artists, who are already underpaid? How does the government expect to create new jobs like this? It would definitely be more effective to examine the issue of job creation separately rather than trying to pass this incoherent bill off as a job creation strategy.
The Canadian Association of University Teachers was clear: this bill needs to be amended. The NDP is proposing that we delete the clauses that criminalize the removal of digital locks for personal, non-commercial purposes. This would easily allow people who have a print disability to change the format of electronic resources so they can access them.
What worries me is the impact that this bill would have on people with a print disability, which includes those with learning disabilities and those who are visually impaired. The accessibility of resources is clearly not a priority for this government. It is important to remember that, last year, the Federal Court ordered the government to make its websites accessible to people with visual impairments. The court gave them 15 months to fix the problem and we note that the government has only three months left. This is an example of the lack of consideration that this government has shown with respect to the accessibility of resources. The hon. members will understand my concern about the plans for digital locks.
What also concerns me is that the government held consultations on the accessibility of library resources. For three years, the government consulted experts on the issue and listened to people with print disabilities describe their experience in trying to access resources.
I have the clear impression that the government did not listen to anything they said. This bill may actually create obstacles for people with a print disability in accessing resources. We have to protect artists' and authors' creations but we also have to be careful not to create problems for people with visual impairments. We must strike a balance; such a thing is possible. Unfortunately, the government did not do the research it should have when drafting this bill. It would be preferable to consider any amendments that could improve the legislation and make it better reflect what is at stake for Canadians.
Right now, Bill C-11 could have a number of unintended consequences, which is why it is important to consider amendments to improve the Copyright Act. One possible effect of the bill would be to increase the current levies on cassettes, DVDs and CDs, for example.
The bill could also create grey areas that would be difficult to manage and would require an endless, complex and inefficient list of exceptions. For example, the bill allows users to record television shows to watch them later but does not allow them to create a library of recorded content. What is the difference? How do we know whether two or three recorded episodes of a television show constitute a library or not?
Furthermore, is it illegal to transfer the music that we listen to on a CD player to a computer in order to listen to it on an MP3 player? According to this bill, the answer seems to be yes. However, according to the Conservatives, we do not have to worry because it is highly unlikely that the artist will sue us.
This bill creates all manner of difficult situations where judges will have a very hard time giving a ruling. This bill does not tackle the real problems faced by today's artists and consumers. In fact, it runs the risk of making things even more complicated.
I am asking this government to take our objections to this bill very seriously. I am asking the government to work with copyright experts who have identified serious problems with the law and to improve their proposals for modernizing the Copyright Act by taking into consideration users, artists and persons with a print disability.
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Madam Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on her speech. She is perhaps aware that Conservative members shared their comments in a letter to their constituents stating that it would be acceptable to break the new law in order to circumvent digital locks.
Government members have apparently been saying that it would be okay to break the new law and to circumvent digital locks. The member for Calgary Centre wrote:
If a digital lock is broken for personal use, it is not realistic that the creator would choose to file a lawsuit against the consumer, due to legal fees and time involved.
In other words, he is suggesting not to worry about this, that the law can be broken and nothing would happen, that really we are encouraging consumers to break the law.
What does that say about the Conservatives' position, that they are telling Canadians to break this law that they have not passed yet?
Manon Perreault NDP Montcalm, QC
Madam Speaker, I think I will quote Michael Geist, who said that 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 virtually all other rights.
This means that fair dealing rights and the new rights set out in Bill C-11 are no longer in effect once the copyright holder places a digital lock on the content or the device.
Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders
November 14th, 2011 / 5:50 p.m.
Oak Ridges—Markham Ontario
Conservative
Paul Calandra ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage
Madam Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's comments.
I note that there are some countries around the world where TPMs are protected. We have not seen an actual decline in the availability of visual material in all of those countries, but we have seen an increase in it. I wonder if my colleague could cite one example for me of one country where there has been a decline in the availability of creative works because of TPMs.
Many opposition members have been focusing on the destruction of course notes for students. That is not actually in the bill. Students are not going to be required to burn their notes at the conclusion of their course work. That is simply not true.
I wonder if--
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would not want the member to mislead the folks back home, but it is in the bill. If he were to read the bill, he would understand that. It is on page 23 of the bill. If he were to read the bill--
The Deputy Speaker NDP Denise Savoie
Order, please. The hon. member knows that this is debate. I would ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to conclude as there is little time left for a response.
Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders
November 14th, 2011 / 5:55 p.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
I would like to respond to the point of order, Madam Speaker. One of the--
The Deputy Speaker NDP Denise Savoie
Order. The matter is settled. This was not a point of order. Could the hon. parliamentary secretary conclude his response?
Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders
November 14th, 2011 / 5:55 p.m.
Conservative
Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
You are quite correct, Madam Speaker. It was not a point of order because the opposition is wrong on most facets of Bill C-11.
Could the hon. member cite one instance out of those 80 countries, where TPMs are available, where they have seen less creative work? Could she cite for me specifically where--
The Deputy Speaker NDP Denise Savoie
The hon. member for Montcalm. There is one minute left to respond to the question.
Manon Perreault NDP Montcalm, QC
Madam Speaker, the NDP's position is clear. The NDP believes that Canadian copyright laws can balance the right of creators to fair compensation for their work and the right of consumers to reasonable access to content.
In other words, the NDP wants to examine all the amendments that could be made to the bill in order to create a fair royalty system for artists, as we have now. This bill would wipe out millions of dollars in revenues for artists. That is what we are talking about.