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.

Copyright Modernization Act

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, when The West Wing, which was a popular TV show, was filming its last episode, it came to my home town of Stouffville. A number of local businesses were able to participate in the show; from the baker who provided the food and snacks for the actors and crew to the people at the local hardware store who supplied generators to the production. All these people benefited from having a production like this in my home town of Stouffville.

I would suggest to members opposite that when this industry decides where it is going to make such important investments that create hundreds of thousands of jobs, it will look to jurisdictions that, along with their international partners, will actually protect the work it is creating. When I talk about people, like hairdressers, seamstresses and set designers, those are the people I am talking about.

Could the member confirm for me if he was on the select committee that studied Bill C-32? I think I am correct in suggesting that there were some 7 hours of debate in committee, 32 hours of witness testimony from 76 individuals and 153 individuals and organizations who submitted written submissions. This is actually the second time the member has spoken on this bill.

I am wondering how much debate is required before we send this bill to committee and continue to hear from some of the people who have not had the opportunity to speak. I also wonder if he could explain to the NDP the concept of Hansard whereby people can go back and review some of the testimony and comments made in previous discussions on both Bill C-32 and Bill C-11.

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

Mr. Speaker, we want to take a look at the copyright modernization act in many respects.

I think there is some confusion over time allotment. I think that this question being put being means we cannot put any amendments in at this point. That is unfortunate. It is the last opportunity we get to put up amendments without running the risk of fundamentally changing the bill, its scope, and its principles because now when we vote on it, and I assume if every Conservative votes for this, then it would pass and go to committee. We are somewhat constrained as to where it can go.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage has already said that he will accept some technical amendments and some other amendments in general. However, the problem with amendments in general is that they will not be accepted at that level because we cannot fundamentally change that bill before saying yes to it in scope and principle.

So, I think that the door has been closed on that last opportunity for amendment. That is unfortunate. One of the issues that I want to talk about, and I did not have the chance to during the last part of the debate on Bill C-11 pertaining to copyright modernization, is an issue that could have been dealt with here but was not; that is, artist's resale right.

I had representation from several groups that talked about artist resale rights. The Conservatives have said time and again that they want to get on board with the times, as it were, change the Copyright Act so that it reflects the modern times. That this is what other countries are doing, which is always the refrain.

However, this is something that other nations are doing, as well: artist resale. I hope that the Conservatives will give it some consideration in the future, maybe as something stand-alone.

I will give an example just to illustrate my point.

Acclaimed Canadian artist Tony Urquhart sold a painting called The Earth Returns To Life in 1958 for $250. That may have been a fair chunk of change back then, but it certainly is not today if we are selling art. It was later resold by Heffel Fine Art auction house, in 2009, for approximately $10,000. Similarly, his mixed media piece Instrument of Torture originally sold, in 1959, for $150 and ended up receiving $4,500 in the same auction. Without an artist's right for resale, the artist would not benefit from the increased value of his work whatsoever.

So other nations have gotten on board with this, allowing the artist to receive a percentage of those sales as long as the painting exists. Of course, that is something we need to be talking about here, as well.

Nonetheless, back to the copyright here at hand. Bill C-11 mirrors what was Bill C-32 in that we expressed some great reservations and the debate has gone around TPMs, or digital locks. I will get to that in just a moment.

The reason I brought up artist resale rights, by the way, is because I received some input from people who say we are not talking about artists enough in this particular debate and a lot of it has to do with digital locks; albeit, important, but let us keep in mind here the impact on the artist.

My hon. colleague, the parliamentary secretary, talked about people involved in the movie industry, the seamstresses and the other occupations. However, my fundamental question to that would be, if these people wanted to make a better living, I do not know how digital locks are supposed to be the be all and end all for them to continue doing their trades for the rest of their lives.

Aline Côté is the chair of Association nationale des éditeurs de livres. She represents Quebec and French Canadian publishers. This is how she describes copyright, which I think is a very apt description:

In fact, nothing is simpler than copyright law: if you create something original outside an employment framework, it is yours exclusively; you can give it away, sell it, authorize a third party to sell it for you, etc. Copyright law simply acknowledges a creator’s exclusive intellectual property on his work upon its creation. Since the initial work exists as a single entity (a manuscript or print-ready for books, a master copy in the case of movies or music, etc.), this exclusive ownership right gives the creator the right to authorize the reproduction of copies (copyright).

That being said, I want to return to the debate regarding TPMs.

We are talking about a bill that the government says is fair and balanced, but unfortunately some of it just does not add up or make sense. In some cases it is black or white, but there is no grey matter to deal with these situations, and the digital locks regarding the education exemption is a fine example. Here is what I mean by that.

An education exemption is in place for people who want to use materials mostly in a structured classroom, but even that now has had quite a bit of debate. How do we know what a structured education forum is? Does the bill go far enough to explain that? Is it a technical amendment that we have to look at? I believe that it is. If a corporation provides some training material internally, does that corporation have to be part of a collective? Can it get away from that now because it receives that exemption? That is not a proper educational structure within a corporation. It is certainly nothing akin to a post-secondary institution like a college or a university. That needs clarification.

Let us say one is within a legitimate education area, a school, a university or a college, and providing material free of charge under that exemption. What if that material is digitally locked? A right to fair dealing, a right that one would acquire under this legislation, is there but also in this legislation there is a digital lock. The two conflict.

Many countries have gone through this already, including New Zealand, Australia and now the United States of America, which also has exemptions for education but is also very strict on the idea of digital locks.

The government, and the Minister of Canadian Heritage in particular, have talked about having to live up to their obligations under the World Intellectual Properties Organization, or WIPO. Living up to those regulations may be excessive. New Zealand, Australia and the United States of America worked on ways to provide certain exceptions to circumvent these locks for the sake of the education exemption. In other words, they found there was a problem and they fixed it by doing that.

In the copyright legislation there is also a provision that would allow someone to purchase music and share it among his or her devices, unless it is TPMed, or digitally locked. The individual has the right to use that music on personal devices, but if it is digitally locked, which would be allowed under this legislation and is being promoted, then the two conflict. Under fair dealings the individual would not have the right to that song.

My colleagues across the way look at the video gaming industry as a good example. A good example is the fact that I can understand completely, wholeheartedly, why digital locks work in that particular circumstance if they protect the business model they are in and they are correct. These digital locks will do that. The use of digital locks cannot be expanded from this one sector to all of the others.

This legislation has been done in haste. We have to look at it. I do not know that by accepting this in principle at second reading would give us the freedom to look at it even further.

Here is what we suggested in our amendment, which I think is right. It is a direct test to an exemption. There are two ways of looking at this. We could study exceptions to the rule that we have been talking about extensively. One is Canadian made from 2004, that is the CCH ruling as we normally call it. There are six steps involved there. The other step is more of an international standard which is the Berne Convention from TRIPS. That is called a three step test measure, and I will read it out, “The courts shall interpret any exceptions to copyright infringement or limitations on copyright in this act so as to restrict them to (1) certain special cases that do not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work, and (2) do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author number three”. It is pretty profound when we think about it. If this material is provided to a school or a particular individual a three step test like this must be applied so that fair and equal balance is created.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the House will remember Bill C-10, the bigger and more jails bill that the government brought in. When it did that, a number of amendments were moved that even the government members themselves wished they had recognized a bit earlier, so that they could have possibly passed them at committee stage. That was because they were in such a rush to get that bill through.

Now we have Bill C-11, and we are talking a lot about that big rush once again. The government appears, as it did with Bill C-10, to be completely close-minded to any sort of changes. The Conservatives talk about hundreds of hours of debate, which is not true, inside the chamber since the last election.

I know that within the New Democratic caucus, a number of people were just elected in May. Therefore, I ask the member to what degree he feels they have been afforded the opportunity to contribute any time at all to debate on this important piece of legislation for Canadians?

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I also rise in the House today to oppose Bill C-11, a bill the Conservatives decided to call the Copyright Modernization Act. My colleague from the Liberal Party pointed out that the bill will benefit big business at the expense of authors. Today, we are trying to get some balance into this bill. Unfortunately, once again, debate has been limited and the Conservatives do not want any amendments, so the debate in the House today will most likely be of no benefit to the bill. It is truly undemocratic to try and ram this through faster than our constituents want.

Canadians want this bill gone over with a fine-tooth comb and properly debated so that it can be amended and its major shortcomings addressed. For example, Bill C-11 creates rights for big business, for the content owners. Creators will not benefit from the bill. The big winners will certainly be the content owners, in other words, big business. This bill compensates those who already make a decent living and are well off. And yet, it is the artists that are having trouble getting by and who need our support. They are the ones in our regions and in our big cities who make Canada culturally rich. They are the ones that need the government's support. Things are going very well for big business.

Frankly, the revenue that the government derives from big business is entirely adequate. The proof is in the pudding: the government is trying to cut back on the revenue it gets from big business. That would suggest that the revenue is too high. Small businesses, creators and artists are the ones that need the help. This bill also greatly affects young people and students who would only have about 30 days to erase any copyrighted products in their possession.

There are some pretty tough clauses in this bill. For example, the fines in this bill include penalties of up to $1 million and 5 years behind bars. That is really over the top. These penalties are in keeping with the Conservatives' priority: to have a law and order society. They are bent on building prisons and sending good, upstanding Canadians there. The Conservatives think that we all want these people behind bars. Frankly, the Conservatives' position is quite over the top. Five years in prison to protect big business' copyright is over the top, just like most of the crime bills that have been introduced

It is clear that the Copyright Act should be amended and should better reflect the transformation of technology and of our methods of communication in Canada. While the title of the bill is the Copyright Modernization Act, the story we are being told is an old one. The act is not being modernized; what we are seeing is how things were done in the 1900s or even the 1800s, when big corporations made money at the expense of the workers, the creators and small businesses. They want to reward big corporations. Honestly, this is an old story. There is nothing modern about it. It is quite antiquated. The government should perhaps think about it a little more and help all our constituents and all Canadians, not just those who are well off, like big corporations.

What is being proposed today is a transformation of the print media into digital media. This has brought about profound changes in the way Canadians discuss politics, society and culture. In Canada, creativity, innovation and vision are emerging from the places where people live and identify themselves as Canadians. All works of art, whether in music, literature or the visual arts, are based on the experiences of people who live in their native regions.

They are not based on the bottom line of a big corporation making big profits; they are based on everyday life. People's everyday lives are where we should be lending a hand. We should create tax credits for artists. We should go looking for them and lend them the hand they need. Instead of that, they are being told that we will favour big corporations and maybe, eventually, if artists are lucky, they will be able to sell their products and make some money. As well, we are told that once that is done, they will have to forget about their rights to their creations, because they will belong to the big corporations, who will get 100% of the profits from them.

In my riding, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, there are large numbers of artists. Most of them are not particularly wealthy. There are a few exceptions. Kevin Parent, for example, has benefited from the cultural life in our region and relatively strong support for his work. People love his work. As a result, he has been able to move onto the international stage—not because some big corporation gave him its support, but because ordinary people gave him their support. Sylvain Rivière, a writer, also benefits from the support of the people in our region.

We want the artists in our region to be well equipped and well positioned to move onto the national and international scene. We want the festivals in our region to benefit from a rich cultural life and from our artists. To achieve that, we have to lend them a hand.

Again, this bill does not do that. It will do nothing but increase the profits of the big corporations. Frankly, I do not see why big corporations would need anyone to lend them a hand. The fact is that it is small artists and small businesses that all members of the House claim to support. Frankly, I think that it is only the people on this side of the House who support them.

Festivals and artists are essential to the cultural life of our regions, but unfortunately, Bill C-11 will take millions of dollars in revenue away from artists, and away from the people who make the festivals in my region possible. It is going to erode the market.

This bill includes a long list of exceptions that do not adequately recognize the rights of creators. That is what we should be debating today. Once again, the Conservatives do not want their bill to be amended. They want to limit debate. They do not want the House to improve the bill. Honestly, we must take the time needed to end up with a good bill.

We must try to respond to our constituents' requests. We have been asked by many people to amend this bill. Unfortunately, to date, the Conservatives have not been willing to amend the bill we are considering.

I would like to quote a well-known technology commentator, Mr. Geist from the University of Ottawa, who succinctly summarized the issue, “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 fair dealing and the new rights in the bill cannot be supported.

It is very unfortunate that our Conservative government really does not want to listen. We all know that the vast majority of businesses in Canada are small, local, family businesses. The vast majority of artists are independent. They are local people. The artists transform the culture and society and sow the seeds, but it is the multinational entertainment industry that will reap the rewards.

Canadian copyright legislation can strike a balance between copyright and providing fair compensation to artists for their work, while ensuring consumers have the right to reasonable access to content. We want to find the right balance. This bill provides a number of new privileges with regard to access to content, but it does not provide any alternative means of compensating our artists.

This will seriously impact our artists' ability to survive. The Copyright Modernization Act gives with one hand and takes with the other. I hope that this bill will not pass.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the thing that concerns me about Bill C-11 is exactly the thing the member put her finger on in her statement.

Why are we still talking about digital locks when every single witness, every single expert and every single sector of the creative community that works in the field has said that this provision must be removed, that it works against the goals of modernization with respect to consumer and creator rights?

I am wondering if the member would want to expand on this concern. Why are we not seeing a willingness to amend Bill C-11 and get rid of the digital locks provision?

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-11.

As I listened to my hon. colleague across the way, I could not help but notice the irony in his remarks. Clearly we are dealing here with a piece of legislation that the government is not the least bit interested in hearing submissions on, or if it is hearing submissions, it is not hearing what is being said.

We are hearing from stakeholders who have made presentations that when they bring forward solid recommendations, changes they think need to be made and would like the government to consider, the government does not consider them. The government still says that it wants to invite more submissions. What is the point in inviting more input and more debate if the government will not take it seriously?

The government often and deliberately points out, in an effort to justify limiting debate, that this exact copyright legislation has been debated before at length, as the member just said, and was even at committee, and it was. In fact, 167 stakeholder organizations made submissions and recommendations.

The government looks back at this lengthy discussion with Canadians on copyright legislation and concludes that the necessary discussion has been had, with unmatched arrogance. Discussion has been had, but it has not been listened to.

The Conservative government declares that there will be no more debate, no more discussion and no more constructive criticism. In fact, it does not even see the input as constructive criticism; the government just sees it as criticism. Instead of accepting it for what it is intended to do, which is to perfect an imperfection in this particular legislation, government members want instead to just go full steam ahead with their way or no way. In contrast, I look at past discussion and debate with Canadians as a missed opportunity to tailor this legislation to serve Canadians best.

The government is right on one account: Canadians have voiced their opinions on copyright by making 167 separate submissions to committee, which is no small feat. Unfortunately for Canadians from coast to coast to coast, whether artists or creators, they have not been heard by the government, and that is how they feel. They sincerely believe that even though they have made submissions and presentations, and the government members have appeared to listen, they really have not been heard.

Last year Canadians appeared in droves to offer expert recommendations at committee. Clearly, during this important consultation the government just checked out. After hundreds of hours of debate and discussion in the last Parliament on Canadian copyright, the Conservative government proved that artists' and creators' legitimate concerns and recommendations fell on deaf ears by reintroducing this unchanged and unsatisfactory legislation.

The Conservatives constantly say that they have a majority mandate, when in reality only 39% of Canadians who voted actually voted Conservative. There were many Canadians who did not vote, and they were eligible to vote. In fact, only 59% of eligible voters actually voted in the last federal election, with 39% of that total voting Conservative. If we take into account all eligible voters, including those who did not vote, only 24% of possible voters voted Conservative. This is hardly a majority mandate.

It is about time that the government started to listen to Canadians when it is making legislation. It is about time it realized that while it may have gotten the majority number of votes, in fact only 39% of the Canadian population that voted cast their votes for Conservatives.

Let us be understanding and be receptive to hearing from Canadians, and from Canadians who did not vote Conservative, who, by the way, have something to offer as well. Just because there is no impending election does not mean that the Conservative Party has a mandate to stop listening to Canadians and blindly implement its rigid copyright legislation without meaningfully considering Canadians' advice.

To be clear, a meaningful consideration of the consultation process requires balanced, effective implementation of Canadians' recommendations, not just half-hearted listening and empty consultation.

While we are dealing with the Conservatives' procedural attempts to ignore the will of Canadians and skirt an open and transparent democratic process, I must also address a serious flaw in this legislation.

The Conservatives' inclusion in its current form of the digital lock provisions undermines any attempt at fairness and equality between the users and creators of copyrighted works. Canadians who legally purchase CDs, DVDs or other forms of digital content should be entitled to transfer their legally bought content from one format to the other, provided they do so for personal use and not for profit or transfer to others. They have paid for this content, and it is theirs. The right and proper thing to do is to allow them to transfer it for their own personal use, clearly not for others and clearly not for profit. Bill C-11 would allow corporations to apply digital locks that would prohibit any type of format shifting. Under Bill C-11, the Conservatives seek to criminalize a Canadian consumer who legally purchases a CD and then transfers it to his or her iPod. Shockingly, the Conservatives' attempt to modernize copyright law criminalizes the modern mainstream application of legally purchased content.

Recently I received an email expressing concerns around Bill C-11 from a passionate and informed constituent of mine from Burin, in the riding of Random—Burin—St. George's. Shawn Rose hit the nail on the head when he wrote:

As a Canadian, I am both concerned and disheartened by how easily my rights are trumped by the overriding and all encompassing protection for digital locks contained in the legislation.

While the legislation provides many legitimate and justifiable rights for users, with one swipe the digital lock provision strips them all away.

Bill C-11 would enable Canadians to make copies of copyright works for personal use such as format shifting, in which consumers shift their legally bought CD on their iPod, or time shifting, in which content is recorded or backed up for later use--unless a corporation puts a digital lock on the content. Then the consumer is out of luck. If there is a digital lock on legally purchased content, consumers have no rights whatsoever. In a bizarre contradiction, the government gives rights to consumers while providing corporations with the tools to cancel all consumer rights.

Another constituent of mine from Kippens, Russell Porter, accurately describes the contradiction in this bill by writing:

The anti-circumvention provisions included in Bill C-11, unduly equip corporate copyright owners and distributors in the music, movie and video game industries with a powerful set of tools that can be utilized to exercise absolute control over Canadians' interaction with media and technology....

I continue to get mail from many of my constituents. Another consumer and constituent writing from Random—Burin—St. George's, Ross Conrad from Stephenville, writes with regard to his legitimate concerns over the digital lock provisions' banning of tools to transfer formats:

I strongly believe that in addition to linking the prohibition of circumvention to the act of infringement, it is also paramount for consumers to have commercial access to the tools required to facilitate such lawful acts. It is imperative that the ban on the distribution and marketing of devices or tools that can be used to lawfully circumvent be eliminated by removing paragraph 41.1(c) and any associated references to it or any paragraphs in the Bill that would be rendered irrelevant by this change.

This goes to show that Canadian consumers are watching. They know exactly what this piece of legislation contains, they know exactly what is wrong with it, and they are calling on the government to acknowledge that there are flaws with this piece of legislation. There is nothing wrong with listening to what Canadians have to say. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have refused to listen to thousands of Canadians like Shawn, Russell and Ross, who have eloquently explained their issues with respect to the imbalance between corporations and consumers in Bill C-11.

After all, it is clear that this bill was not written to protect the creator but the corporations.

Instead of Bill C-11, the Liberal Party supports true copyright modernization to protect the works and intellectual property of Canadians while achieving a delicate balance between consumers and creators.

While we will again be bringing forward a number of amendments at committee, this bill, unchanged after 167 submissions to committee and an outpouring of important and informed opinions from Canadians from coast to cost to coast, is an insult.

The House resumed from November 28 consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, one of the most important things we are looking forward to in the next week or so is the passage of the major priority pieces of legislation we have been advancing this fall, for which we have been seeking to set timetables to ensure they could pass to be in effect for next year. They are our budget implementation act to ensure that important tax measures are in place like a tax credit for job creation and accelerated capital cost allowance to create jobs; our bill to ensure fair representation, to have that in place in time for the redistribution that is going to unfold next year; and in addition to that another bill which again is a time priority, the crime bill, and I do not think we are going to be able to make that objective.

However, we are looking to get those in place and, having done that, we look forward to, in the next 10 days or so, the very first of those bills we have been working on all fall to actually becoming law. That will be a very exciting time for us when we finally achieve Royal Assent, having spent that time.

I should advise members that next week will be free trade and jobs week. We will begin Monday morning with second reading of Bill C-24, the Canada–Panama free trade act. This free trade agreement was signed on May 14, 2010. It is now time for Parliament to put it into effect, so that Canadians can benefit from the jobs and economic growth it will deliver.

It being free trade and jobs week, we will begin second reading debate on Wednesday of another bill to implement a job-creating free trade agreement. In this case, we will discuss Bill C-23, the Canada-Jordan Free Trade Act, which will implement Canada's first free trade agreement with an Arab country.

This will be the last week before the House adjourns for the holidays. And it is with the Christmas spirit in mind that we hope to have the co-operation of all members in making great progress on a number of important bills with a focus on job creation and economic growth.

On Monday, if we are able to pass Bill C-24, the Canada–Panama free trade bill, we would call Bill C-11, the copyright modernization act. Bill C-11 is another bill that would lead to more jobs in Canada, and our world-leading digital and cultural sectors. Earlier this week, the Liberal motion to block further debate on this important bill was defeated in this House. That means we can get back to second reading debate and I would hope that after being debated for over one sitting week, the opposition will finally allow this bill to get to committee.

If we continue to make the progress I am hoping for, we will then call Bill C-14, the Improving Trade Within Canada Act, for further second reading debate. This is a fairly straightforward bill that will benefit the economy by implementing amendments to the Agreement on Internal Trade agreed by the provinces. I expect all parties will allow it to move swiftly to committee.

In addition to passing these job creating bills, on Monday, ideally, we would then call C-26, the citizen's arrest and self-defence act for further debate.

For the balance of free trade and jobs week, we will continue to debate any of those bills which have not yet been referred to committee. We would also look to begin second reading debate on Bill C-28, the financial literacy leader act. This bill will create a new position in the government dedicated to encouraging financial literacy for Canadians.

As for the balance of this week, which is democratic reform week, Bill C-20, the fair representation act, will be debated tomorrow at report stage, further to the motion adopted yesterday. Third reading in the House on this bill will be Tuesday. This will be followed by a vote Tuesday night, a vote that will give all members in this place an opportunity to vote on the important democratic principle of representation by population.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

It is in the main estimates.

Can you just maybe comment briefly on Bill C-11, then, which is going to have some impact on spending related to intellectual property related to copyright?

The House resumed from November 24 consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Copyright Modernization Act

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did say a few words about it earlier in my speech.

As a former student and teaching assistant at university, I find it very disturbing that Bill C-11 creates problems for students. Again, I do not think the government is using the right approach and targeting the right people. Several changes are required in this regard. Whether it is students in remote regions or students in large urban centres, the important thing is the same: access to Internet and loans between universities.

In order to produce intellectual material, master's students must, as the hon. member pointed out, have access to information and to documents, and for more than a few days or weeks. They also need that access to produce new material and new documents on their research. It is very important to support them in their endeavour and to ensure that the authors get their due, but also that students have access to the information.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that everyone has been waiting a long time for a modernized copyright act that would reflect the new technologies and the new realities facing consumers, artists, producers and booksellers. At last, we have this opportunity to debate a new and modern copyright bill.

However, the debate on this issue has been going on for many hours and it is obvious that we are disappointed by what the government is proposing with Bill C-11.

Why are we disappointed? First, it is because both consumers and artists were consulted on many occasions but, unfortunately, most of the proposals put forward were ignored. Once again, people may be frustrated by the government's lack of consideration, even arrogance, regarding the views of those who have to live with the restrictions and the benefits of the laws that we pass.

Of course, this unwillingness to listen generates a lot of frustration, and we heard many vent that frustration. Allow me to address, among other issues, the government's lack of consideration for consumers' rights and also for artists' income and respect.

Generally speaking, there are several small things that have us worried about this bill. There are things which suggest that implementation problems could surface, because certain rights may not be respected and because the government may not have thought about everything when it drafted this legislation. I hope the government will be open to some changes, even just basic ones, to ensure that this bill is appropriate and that it respects people's rights.

I am not going to mention them all, but there is, for example, the difficulty that visually impaired people may have with the new lock standards on the content that they buy. Then there are the problems that distance learning could experience with the new standards and the new restrictions imposed by the locks. These are small issues which make us wonder and which also make us hope that the necessary adjustments will be made. I met with members of the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations and their position on this bill is very clear. They say:

The legislation misses an opportunity to take on the personal contributions made by students to publishers abroad, under the Book Importation Regulations. If these contributions were abolished, students could save $30 million annually.

We are hearing a lot of talk these days about rising tuition fees and about students who have a hard time making ends meet, who are worried about adding more costs to their education expenses and about their studies becoming much more difficult because of copyright restrictions. I will mention some of the concerns I have heard. There are three main ones.

First, there are interlibrary loans. I was studying to be a teacher not very long ago, and I can say that interlibrary loans offer a wealth of information to students. Today, library books are still available in paper format, of course, but many are available online. Whether we are talking about scientific articles or complete volumes housed in libraries, students, regardless of where in the country they live, have access to an impressive amount of information thanks to a high number of interlibrary loans and loans of digital articles. These students are worried about their rights because this is a matter of access to information; it is a tool to help educate oneself, learn and produce new material. We must not forget that there are students at the bachelor, master's and doctoral level who produce very interesting material because they have access to information. This is one of the first concerns raised by the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations.

The other concern—and we have already talked about it a lot—has to do with the requirement that course notes be destroyed within 30 days.

I am greatly simplifying this. We already explained this measure. Students are also concerned about this. Students are recommending, among other things, that the clause in Bill C-11 about destroying information after 30 days be eliminated so that educational institutions can offer more effective and high-quality education, which will encourage lifelong learning and innovation.

I was a student but I was also a lecturer at a university. I know that there are things that need to be adapted. We agree that the Copyright Act needs to be adapted. Students often get together to purchase one copy of the class notes and then photocopy it. There are also professors who do not respect copyright. They photocopy entire chapters of books and give them to their students. A change must be made in this regard to ensure that copyright is respected in universities, but I do not think that the solution is to pass the bill on to students or to limit their access to information. I do not think that we are targeting the real problem or the people who should be paying for these documents. Changes also have to be made in this regard.

I am now going to speak about the new problems that Bill C-11 could cause because of the many exceptions it contains. Unfortunately, these exceptions cast a net that is a bit too wide and certain problems may arise as a result. I am speaking once again about the use of texts and materials in schools.

It was not so long ago that teachers were required to contribute, by buying course material, to an organization that collected funds and redistributed them. It was a sort of large communal piggy bank, where the money that was put in was redistributed to authors, artists and writers to ensure a certain degree of respect for copyright.

Elementary school, high school and college teachers make a lot of photocopies. They use materials and give them to their students. In order for it to be worthwhile for authors to continue to produce educational materials adapted to our Canadian and Quebec reality and in order for it to be worthwhile for authors of educational material to produce topical material and to be up-to-date on new information and technology and the new interests of our young people, they have to be compensated. No one is going to produce educational material for the sheer fun of it or for little or no compensation. That is ridiculous. These people need to be motivated to produce material so that our children, our teenagers and our young adults are motivated to learn and have the benefit of educational material that is adapted and interesting. This is an issue that causes considerable concern as well.

Similarly, every time anyone purchased a blank CD, which was used to store music, for instance, a certain amount from each CD was sent to a big, central piggy bank, and the money was then distributed to music producers. Why not adapt that principle—which worked very well and allowed for the distribution of millions of dollars to music producers—to new materials like iTunes and new tools that are used to copy music? Why not allow authors, musicians and artists to receive a royalty on what they produce? There are many such examples that demonstrate how out of touch this bill is.

In closing, I would like to say that, of course, we will vote against Bill C-11. I am sure we will hear the familiar refrain that the NDP is against artists. There is an important distinction to be made. We are in favour of protecting artists and the rights of consumers, and in favour of adapting the Copyright Act, but not to replace it with just about anything, and not just haphazardly.

What we have before us needs some serious reworking, which I hope will take into account the concerns of the people working in the field and all the amendments and suggestions made by other parties.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my dear colleague for his comments.

As I have already said, I agree that this bill does not help creators. This lock will help neither creators nor consumers. For all the reasons I have just listed, we will work on amending this inadequate Bill C-11 because it is very important for Canadians. Canadians have spent $1.4 billion on attending live artistic performances, or more than twice as much as on attending sporting events, spending $0.65 billion on those.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to begin with, I would like to stress how important this issue is to all creators, and particularly those in my riding, whether they be in Sutton, Magog, Bromont, Cowansville, Knowlton, or elsewhere. Moreover, I salute all those creators who are very active across all forms of art, which improves people's quality of life, whether it be through the medium of cinema, theatre, improvisation, television, writing, painting, and so on. Artists are entitled to be fairly compensated for their work. This bill will deprive artists of millions of dollars in revenue and erode their market. The long and complex list of exceptions does not adequately recognize the rights of creators.

In fact, these exceptions create new ways for consumers to access protected content without concurrently creating new avenues through which to compensate creators for the fair use of their work. Bill C-11 does not adequately protect the ability of people to post content submitted or produced by users themselves, even if it were easy to collectively authorize this. Moreover, Bill C–11 creates an artificial distinction between copying for private use and reproducing for private use in Part 8, section 80 of the Copyright Act, and section 29, paragraph 22)(1)(e) of the copyright modernization bill.

There are also direct implications for consumers. The rigid provisions assign unprecedented powers to rights holders, which trump all other rights. If passed, Bill C–11 could mean that an individual would no longer have access to the content for which he has paid, and which he has every right to use. For example, if someone is enrolled in long distance education courses, it is draconian and unacceptable to ask him to destroy his course notes within 30 days of the course concluding, as proposed under this bill.

For all these reasons, it is felt that powerful, new anti-circumvention rights must be created for content owners, as opposed to content creators and content developers. In addition to preventing access to copyrighted works, these new provisions are strengthened by fines of over $1 million and sentences of five years detention. A further provision prohibits access to protected information by way of a digital lock, such as a digital watermark.

This would lead to a situation whereby digital locks would take precedence over virtually all other rights, including the fair dealing rights of students and journalists. This is problematic for several reasons. In particular, there is a very tangible danger of consumers, in some circumstances, not being authorized to use content for which they have paid. Moreover, the digital locks trump all other rights guaranteed by the Charter, including change of format in the case of a visual disability.

Secondly, the new provisions would require, where a digital lock has been used, that copies made for educational purposes be automatically erased after five days and that course notes be destroyed within 30 days of the course concluding. That would lead to serious problems for students enrolled in long distance education courses. It is not an appropriate use of the copyright rules.

Thirdly, it would create new limited exceptions to the fair dealing provision of the Copyright Act, including the exceptions for educators, and exceptions for parody and satire. The exceptions do not adequately recognize the rights of creators. In fact, the exceptions facilitate consumers' access to copyright protected content without the provision of new methods for creators to be compensated for their work.

With this bill, the Conservatives have intentionally avoided dealing with the question of the possibility of extending the exception for private copying, a measure that has been proposed by the NDP and also by a number of experts.

The private copying exception has been very effective in the past for cassettes, CDs and DVDs. The government has tried to put a populist face on its opposition to extending the exception.

The NDP believes it is high time to modernize copyright rules, but there are too many major problems with this bill. In some cases, it even creates problems were there were none before.

We are going to try to amend the bill so that it better reflects the interests of Quebec and the Canadian public. The NDP believes that copyright rules in Canada could balance the right of creators to receive fair remuneration for their work and the right of consumers to have access to content at reasonable prices. We are also going to study any potential amendment that could be made to the bill to create a fair system of royalties for artists. As it stands at present, the bill eliminates several million dollars in income for our artists.

For all these reasons, it seems that the efforts Canadians have put into reform of the Copyright Act in recent years have had very little to do with the creation of a system that strikes a balance between the rights of creators and the rights of the public. Those efforts have instead been attempts to meet the demands of the big owners of American content, the film industry, record companies, video game developers and others. When will Canadians finally have legislation that meets their needs?

In the NDP, we believe that Canadian copyright legislation can achieve a balance between creators’ right to receive fair compensation for their work and consumers’ right to have reasonable access to content. We are going to assess all of the amendments that might be made to the bill to create a system of fair royalties for artists. As it stands at present, the bill eliminates income worth several million dollars.

As a result, the copyright modernization bill gives with one hand and takes back with the other. Although the bill contains some concessions to benefit consumers, they are undermined by the government’s refusal to adopt a compromise position on the most controversial issue: copyright in Canada.

We are also proposing that the clauses that criminalize the elimination of digital locks for personal, non-commercial purposes be removed from the copyright modernization bill. We support reducing the penalties for people convicted of violating the Copyright Act, since that would prevent excessive prosecution of the public, a problem that often exists in the United States.

The Conservatives have ignored the opinion of the experts who were heard by the committee and the conclusions of their own copyright consultations in 2009. As a result, they have introduced a bill that could cause more harm than good.

The NDP believes it is high time for a modernization that will eliminate these blatant problems and we are going to work to amend the bill so that it better reflects the interests of Canadians.

In conclusion, a number of groups have stated their ideas and supported what we are calling for through their statements, such as the cultural industries and the Writers Guild of Canada. The Guild says that the only option Bill C-11 offers creators is the addition of a digital lock, the effect of which would be to block existing sources of income for creators and create a loophole in the bill by taking away from consumers the same rights as are guaranteed to them in other clauses of the bill.