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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of working with my colleague on the procedure and House affairs committee, as well as the private members' subcommittee. I find him to be a very reasonable person, so I was somewhat surprised to hear him raise the issue of university notes. That throws a bit of a red herring into our argument today.

What we are trying to accomplish with this bill is to bring a balance between the rights of creators of material and the consumer. That is clear as one reads through the bill.

Just this morning I had the privilege of speaking to a university librarian who acknowledged that the changes in this iteration of the bill are strong evidence that our government listened to the concerns of people in our communities and have brought a clear balance back into the issue of balancing the rights of creators and the rights of consumers.

I am wondering if my colleague would agree that what is in the bill would help our university librarians and many others who are trying to balance that fine line. We need to be honest. We are not talking about confiscating someone's university notes. We want to bring a clearer balance to the imbalance that has existed for too long.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is true that we on this side are open to recalibrating the way that this law is being presented. There are certain things with which we agree and certain things that we do not.

When it comes to university students, we need to be careful because these people are already disadvantaged in our society. They have a lot of challenges. They are deferring remuneration today so that they can participate more fully in our economy tomorrow. We should encourage them to the best of our ability.

I beg to differ with my colleague that, when it comes to discussing these matters with university communities across this country, I do not think we have done a fair enough job. If the government were serious about recaibrating the bill, then maybe some of its members would speak in favour of it.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for so ably outlining the importance of the arts community to our communities. In Nanaimo--Cowichan, we have any number of festivals, theatre, potters and painters. In February, on Gabriola, an island in my community, we will be having an international festival of poets.

My colleague talked about the economic returns to our communities as a result of these vibrant arts and culture communities. Could he comment on the spinoffs? It is not just about payment to the artisans for the work that they do, but the spinoffs to our local communities from this activity.

Where I come from, we have many famous carvers and painters. I wonder if he could comment on the indigenous arts and the importance of balancing the need to protect their work while still looking at reasonable copyright legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to artists in our regions and their impact on the culture and the day-to-day activities of the people who live in those regions are probably even more pronounced than they are in urban areas. We can never underestimate just how much of an impact they truly have.

In the areas in which I have lived, and right now in Gaspésie--Îles-de-la-Madeleine, artists are one of the main reasons that we have such a vibrant tourist industry. People come from far and wide to see the incredible art that is being produced locally. These artists have very small margins. If we do not properly address their needs, we could imperil the economies of our regions to an extent that has not been quite properly expressed in the House at this point on the bill.

When it comes to our native communities, they are already seriously disadvantaged. We can never underestimate just how much assistance we can give them so that their communities can start to flourish after so many years of oppression.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to address Bill C-11, the Copyright Modernization Act.

I join all my colleagues in the House in stressing the fact that this bill, as worded, poses a number of problems for our artists and for society as a whole.

We all agree that copyright modernization is long overdue, considering that the technology has been modernized. In fact, because these technologies and the Internet are evolving very rapidly, it is difficult to craft a bill that can adjust to all these changes. However, we need to take our time for that very same reason, to ensure that we do things right, that we consult with experts and that we use a logical approach considering all the available options. This is why it is necessary to make a number of changes and to strike a better balance between the rights of creators, who deserve to be compensated fairly for their work, and the rights of consumers, who want to have access to this content at a reasonable cost. The bill must also promote market innovations, instead of just creating obstacles.

The problematic clauses of the bill include, of course, those that deal with digital locks; they have been mentioned repeatedly since the legislation was first introduced. These digital locks pose problems in the educational sector but, more importantly, they deprive creators of a major source of income. Under the bill in its current form, they would take precedence over all other rights, including those of journalists and students who, for obvious reasons, should have reasonable and affordable access to this material.

My colleagues have all raised specific cases where well intentioned Canadians or students—ordinary Canadians as members opposite would say—find themselves in violation of the law because they made a personal copy of the content that they bought, or because they did not destroy class material that they have had in their possession for more than 30 days.

I have difficulty thinking of my students as criminals, when they are respectful adolescents who keep their course material in order to refer to it later and to learn more. I graduated from university more than seven years ago and still keep documents because I need to refer to them to plan courses for my students. I would be liable to imprisonment because I did not destroy these documents. I would be punished more severely than someone who assaults a child. Is this not a double standard? Is it not somewhat illogical? I think it is.

Having said that, based on what the government has been saying for a few weeks, I am convinced that it would not bring forward a bill that would make criminals of ordinary Canadians. I hope that the government will take a logical, consistent, thoughtful and critical approach to this bill. The NDP is prepared to work with our Conservative colleagues in making amendments to improve this bill.

Many of my colleagues have discussed the problems related to education and course material and therefore I will address the consequences of this bill and the digital locks, which affects the income of creators.

Canada's cultural heritage is very rich. As my colleague mentioned earlier, artists and creators teach us, inspire us and pass on values, especially among our youth, important values such as tolerance, open-mindedness, social engagement, a sense of community and many other values. In addition, Canadian culture helps us to develop our cultural identity and pride.

In addition to this social contribution, creators make an important economic contribution. Despite modest investments of $7.9 billion in culture by all levels of government, the cultural sector generated more than $25 billion in tax revenue in 2007-08. The Canadian Arts Coalition, which met with several MPs, says that every dollar invested in culture generates more than three dollars in the arts. It is really a profitable investment for our economy.

In addition, this sector is directly responsible for the creation of many quality jobs. There are the people in box offices, radio and television hosts, journalists, computer specialists, people who work on sets and backstage and the artists themselves, just to name a few. There are also all those who publish, who build musical instruments and so on. One does not need to be a genius to understand that investments in the cultural sector help our economy. Artists also contribute in the health sector through art therapy.

Any legislation that modernizes the Copyright Act absolutely must emphasize and even encourage these contributions. Unfortunately, for most people, a career as an artist is not a high-quality job since the average salary of artists in Canada is approximately $12,900 a year. I have several friends who are artists and even a brother who is a musician and who is currently travelling around the world. He is an ambassador for Canada on the international stage. Committed and passionate Canadians who work hard to promote their creations and who want to inspire and teach people are important in our society. They are role models for young people and ambassadors for Canada. However, they live from paycheque to paycheque and can barely make ends meet. Often, they cannot even cultivate their art because they have to work full time so that they can explore their passion and improve. Rather than remedying this situation and celebrating the considerable contribution of the cultural sector, this bill will once again take millions of dollars away from artists and creators and benefit large corporations.

Instead, we should be seeking to create new ways for artists to receive fair compensation. Adding digital locks will actually have the opposite effect. It limits the market. That is not necessary since the provisions on digital locks proposed in this bill will be among the strictest in the world. As we have said many times, this is creating all kinds of problems in the United States. Why not learn from our neighbours' experience and try to do something different and better?

With a little bit of thought, we could make this clause less strict and more reasonable so that the approach is more balanced and our creators would receive more support. It is important to protect the income sources of the creators who work hard and do not receive the recognition and encouragement they deserve, because of this type of bill and all the cuts they have experienced.

Clearly, this is a complex bill. We must find a way to manage the interests of consumers on the one hand, while protecting and supporting Canada's cultural sector on the other hand. This bill also needs to be able to respond to the rapidly evolving nature of technology and the Internet. It is very difficult to anticipate all of that. In its current version, the bill does not even meet today's needs. As my colleagues have pointed out, representatives of the cultural sector and experts are criticizing the bill. Experts appeared before the committee, but the Conservatives chose to ignore their recommendations and suggestions. Why bother calling in experts if what they have to say is completely ignored?

In light of the recent limits on debate in this House and this government's systematic refusal to listen to experts, I am very worried. I think the complexity of this bill warrants a careful review and reasoned amendments. I therefore call on the Conservatives to listen to the experts and work with the NDP so that we can make constructive amendments to this bill, which will have an impact on an entire generation and many more to come.

What message does this bill send to society, to the next generation of artists in the making, to those in our ridings, in our regions, to the people who are trying to support the local and national economy, to those whose work is showcased internationally? Many groups from Montreal, for instance, travel internationally and have boosted Canada's reputation. What will happen to those entrepreneurs?

We need to educate people, but this government has a double standard. It is not setting a very good example. This bill needs to be amended in order to move forward. We need to take the time to sit down, discuss this again and think about it very carefully.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke at one point about the importance of copyright to the economy and getting it right. Many members have spoken about the amount of consultation needed. The hon. member is new in the House so she has not been around for the last decade, when we have been discussing copyright for the four different iterations of copyright legislation that have come before the House. She was not here for the thousands of hours of consultation that went into this particular bill, or the hours and hours of debate in the House and 39 hours of testimony before committee that we have already heard. Those are numbers unheard of in my time in the House. This is about the most consulted bill that I have seen.

Most of the witnesses at committee talked about the balance in the bill and the importance of passing it quickly. I am wondering if we can count on the NDP members to actually pass the bill through the House so that we can send the bill to committee, listen to some more witnesses and hear the amendments that I imagine the NDP will put forward.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member opposite. Yes, we are new, but we have experience and we interact with artists. I am a teacher and I have used material created by artists. I know how important it is, in terms of economic balance, for creation to continue and for the work of the artists to be recognized for what it is worth. They have to be given more funding, not less funding, with a larger share going to corporations, as the bill currently provides.

It is complex and a number of people are feeling trampled on because of this bill. There is something not quite right. Consultations were indeed held on the matter of the digital locks, but the technology has advanced quite a bit since then. Like the Internet, technology has become more digitized in the past few years. There are more and more new technologies. The proposals also have to be new and take into account these new developments.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of items that this Parliament and previous Parliaments have dealt with. One that comes to my mind is an end to child poverty. We debated that in this country for a long time, but I do not see a bill before us to say we are going to take action on it right now.

Even though some of the concepts in this bill might have been discussed earlier, this is a new bill before a new Parliament. Therefore, how does my colleague see the impact of the bill not only on artists, but also on students?

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for raising this very important point for students. They are getting an education and do not yet have steady, well-paid employment. It is outrageous to have digital locks on the work they access digitally and for them to have to pay to continue benefiting from that material after 30 days. They do not have the means to keep paying for 30 more days. They need affordable, permanent access to the material because their schooling lasts more than 30 days. We have to balance all these complex aspects with respect for the work of the artist, who should be paid fairly.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Resuming debate. We have about three minutes left in government orders.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise in the House as the digital affairs critic for the New Democratic Party on the issue of copyright.

I have been involved in the issue of copyright in this House for seven years and I have seen somewhat of a transformation in terms of the understanding of Parliament when it comes to copyright. Unfortunately, with the bill, we still see that on key elements the government does not get it.

If we go back to 2004, the idea of a digital culture that was being told to us by the lobbyists was that of a great cultural tsunami that would wipe out everything that was special about Canadian culture. They tried to constrain the digital environment as it somehow was a threat. However, we saw it in the New Democratic Party as probably the greatest platform for the distribution of ideas and culture since Gutenberg got his Bible.

I want to be fair to all parties. We have moved down the road in terms of understanding that the digital culture is not, as the recording industry used to say, the toothpaste they were going to put back in the tube or the genie to be put back in the bottle. We were going to have to find a way to adapt, as we have done time and time again with copyright. However, what is missing in the bill are two key elements that make copyright work.

One element is the understanding of remuneration of artists. We have to be able to monetize how artists' materials are being transmitted. That is the fundamental principle of copyright, yet we see within the bill time and again the traditional royalty payments to artists being erased. That is not a balance. That is creating an incredible disequilibrium in the artistic and creative community.

The other element is access, the ability of people to access works. The Conservatives' position is to put a digital lock on products and let the market decide. That would create a two-tier set of rights where Parliament would establish which rights citizens can have. For example, a blind student could access work in an analog format, but if there were a digital lock on it, that right would disappear. In a parliamentary system, we cannot create a two-tier set of rights. The digital locks cannot override the rights of Canadians.

The obsession of the Conservatives that digital locks would somehow create a better market does not stand up to the test. Our WIPO competitors around the world have adopted standards on digital locks. Under the WIPO treaty, specifically in articles 10 and 11, countries are given the right to establish digital locks to protect property from being stolen, but the exceptions that are created in a parliamentary system are a citizen's right.

Most of our competitors have adopted that model. The Conservative government is actually going backwards and would put artists and consumers in a worse position.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay. He will have seven minutes remaining when this matter returns before the House.

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.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay has seven minutes to conclude his remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise yet again today on Bill C-11, an act to amend the copyright act.

As someone who has spent many years involved in the artistic and publishing business, I understand the vital importance of copyright for artists. There is an enormous amount of effort for an artist to create a work. As well, there is a great intellectual effort.

Copyright is a public construct. I love the way it comes down to us in French law, le droit d'auteur, the right of the author. This is a principle that has been fought over for hundreds of years.

As has been defined in parliamentary tradition, when an artist creates a work, it is not a piece of property. This is sometimes misunderstood by some creators. It is not a piece of property, something one can put a fence around, because we do not want to create fences around ideas; when we create a piece of artistic work, we want to open it up to the public. We want the public to be able to access that work. The problem occurs when artists are unable to receive rightful recompense for their work.

In 18th century England there were the so-called book wars. People would make copies of works, and then the book owners would keep out new competition.

We need to have a balance, and this has always been the issue with copyright. There is a need to ensure that a work can be put into the public realm and become part of our consciousness, our literature, our identity, so that new authors or new artists can build on that work and create more. We do not want to lock that content down so that it is inaccessible. However, in order for the creative process to continue, the artist must be paid.

Let us see how that relates to Bill C-11.

Unfortunately, in Bill C-11 we see a number of areas in which content is being locked down. It is being locked down as a so-called market solution. We hear the government say that we should let the market decide what copyright is or what rights the author and consumer have. That is not good enough. That is not forward-looking copyright. That is not copyright that would bring us into the 21st century.

We need to establish the principle that Parliament, not the marketplace, decides what the balance is. The marketplace has its role, but a corporate entity in the United States, such as Sony Music or another massive entertainment industry, does not have the right to trump the rights that have been established under Canadian parliamentary tradition.

Let us examine what those rights are.

Under the bill there would be the right to do parody and satire, which is a fundamental of art. All artists have done parody and satire of other artists. Today's great artist was yesterday's thief. Parody and satire are important. The documentary film community wants to be able to access work so that they can comment on it and create new works, but if a digital lock is put on it, those rights disappear.

With one hand we are offering rights to the Canadian public, meaning the right to make backup copies and the right to do parody and satire, but with the other hand we are taking those rights away if a digital lock is imposed, because a digital lock supersedes all other rights. That is not consistent with what many of our trading partners have decided.

There is a possibility to have a balance on digital locks, so let us examine their role.

A digital lock in a modern age is an electronic code to keep a product from being unfairly taken, and a corporate entity has a right to put a lock on their product. For example, in the gaming industry, codes were being broken on video games. People were taking the games without paying. The New Democratic Party has always supported the right of an entity that has invested in its creative work to put a digital lock on it.

However, in most of our WIPO-compliant countries, there is a right for exceptions. For example, someone may have to break a digital lock if that person is partially blind and needs to access a work to read it in larger print. That person is not the same as a criminal. In fact, it is a perfectly okay thing to do.

Another example is that because of digital locks, television networks will no longer be allowed to excerpt footage of films. They will only be able to show a screen. That does not do anyone any good.

There are legitimate reasons to be able to break a lock in order to access something someone has a right to. However, we do not support breaking digital locks just so product can be taken without paying.

On the issue of education, there are a number of areas where we have grave concerns. We support the idea of updating copyright into the 21st century, but we have concerns on the issue of fair dealing for education.

Fair dealing has been defined by right under the Supreme Court CCH decision, which established the six principles of what constitutes fair dealing. Fair dealing should not be seen as an open season to make it fair to take a textbook and just make endless copies to avoid buying more textbooks. That is not considered fair. The Supreme Court established the six principles of fair dealing so that we could have some clarity. We do not have that clarity in this bill, and it is important that we ensure clarity on education.

We also do not even define what education is. I can imagine many private businesses saying they are doing company training and saying it is education. That is not necessarily the same thing as education through an educational institution.

One of our great concerns in terms of education is the digital book-burning provision. If someone is learning through a distance education college, and many of my communities take education by long distance, students will be forced to destroy their class notes 30 days after the end of the semester, and teachers will be ordered to destroy their entire class notes. That would create a two-tier system of education, one in the classroom and one by distance. That makes no sense, and it would undermine the incredible ability of distance education.

To conclude, we are opposed to this bill because we do not see the government willing to work with us on the key amendments needed to make this bill into proper and positive copyright legislation for the 21st century.