This bill is from 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 has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.
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.
Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-11s:
Jay Aspin Conservative Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is i quite right. That was the intent of most of my speech. There has been delay after delay. The opposition has thrown minutia at us. We have it at 95% to 98%. There is an old saying, “You can't let perfection be the enemy of the good”.
The opposition is simply throwing delay tactic after delay tactic. Canadians have waited for this legislation for over two Parliaments. It is time to get on the job. We want to get things done.
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
Mr. Speaker, that begs the question as to why the Conservatives prorogued the House a couple of years if that were the case.
I have a question for the member that requires only a yes or no answer.
I will use the example of a classroom that has a particular piece, like a movie, to play for the sake of education and the movie is digitally locked and it is unable to play it. Let us say that it goes around that lock and plays the movie anyway. Even though it is in the classroom, would that be an infringement, yes or no?
Jay Aspin Conservative Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am not a digital technocrat but, as I have indicated to the House, the legislative committee received 140 written submissions and heard from over 70 individual organizations. It has come up with a balanced compromise that would not only fit those needs but that would fit the needs for the digital world for Canadians into the future.
As I say, it is time to move ahead and move on with the legislation.
Charmaine Borg NDP Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today about my concerns with Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act.
As the official opposition critic for digital issues, I can see that the proposed measures will have serious repercussions on the digital economy and on the Canadian public. I believe we must study these repercussions very carefully.
First, I would like to speak about the importance of changes in technology. Our society is going through great upheavals, and the constant advances—ever faster and more significant, thanks to new technology—become central to all our spheres of activity. In our professional and personal lives or in our academic careers, we are affected by this observation.
Copyright—authors' rights—is one such facet. I believe we must look closely at the rules that regulate copyright today and harmonize them with current international standards. I believe, therefore, that it is our duty to study the measures we need to adopt in order to satisfy the interests of everyone involved in this issue. Many groups of people are involved, and their demands are not necessarily the same. Sometimes, they are even quite antagonistic.
Creative, university, technological and business communities, along with consumer rights advocates, have legitimate concerns, but they do not necessarily go hand in hand.
This very complex issue deserves careful, in-depth consideration. I would like to reiterate that the NDP supports careful consideration of updated copyright rules. That is also why I would like to make the House aware of the many problems with this bill.
My first concern is about digital locks and consumers. Digital locks force consumers to pay for access to works for a limited time.
Michael Geist, a leading technology pundit, told the committee that:
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 use rights and the new rights set out in Bill C-11 will cease to apply if the copyright holder decides to place a digital lock on content or on a device.
Digital locks do not take into consideration existing rights including the fair dealing rights of students and journalists. I think that the bill's inflexibility when it comes to students is very worrying.
Indeed, I find it draconian that distance education students will be forced to destroy their course notes one month after their course has ended. When a person takes a course, he should be able to keep his notes so that he can use or consult them at a later stage. That is what learning is about: the person keeps what he has learned. It is completely unfair and inequitable, especially since the cost of education continues to rise.
Moreover, vested Charter rights—for example a change of format in the case of a visual disability—may be denied, which would jeopardize the balance between respecting the rights of artists and the right to fair access to content for all Canadians. In my opinion, this constitutes a voluntary exclusion of certain people who should have a universal right to use and discover these works.
It is therefore believe it is essential that we consider these repercussions, which divide the public by restricting access to information for some and not for others.
I am also concerned about the fact that consumers do not have access to content they have already paid for if they exceed the time limit for which they have access to these creations. This will give copyright owners unprecedented powers.
My second concern has to do with legislative measures proposed under the bill. In fact, the bill creates new anti-circumvention rights, which prevent access to copyrighted works. Individuals or organizations that are found guilty of having accessed content without paying for it will be subject to large fines.
My third concern has to do with financial matters. Digital locks enable content owners to charge a fee; however, a distinction needs to be made. These owners are not necessarily the creators or developers of the content, which means that the money collected does not necessarily end up in the hands of the artists or authors.
In its present form, then, this bill deprives artists and content creators of millions of dollars in income, and redistributes it to the copyright owners, which are often big corporations such as record companies and movie studios.
As a result, this bill serves to secure higher incomes, not necessarily for artists and content creators, but for copyright owners. In my riding, a number of artists’ associations are concerned about this vision.
When it comes to creators’ rights, the artists—the ones who are really responsible for these works—will be faced with another problem. This bill contains provisions that would change mechanical rights for musicians, which will result in a loss of $21 million for music creators, who already have very low incomes.
We should help them to continue enriching our lives. This bill would also weaken the moral rights that provide them with some control over their creations and content.
As a result of its consultations with the industry, consumers, creators in Quebec and anglophone creators, the NDP brought forward 17 amendments in committee in order to strike a balance between the rights of creators and the rights of consumers. Unfortunately, this government is too stubborn to listen to anyone other than its Conservative friends, and it rejected all our amendments.
A number of eminent researchers and groups support our position and share our concerns. Over 80 arts and culture organizations across Quebec and nationwide argue that this bill would be “toxic to Canada’s digital economy”.
“These organizations caution that, if the government does not amend the copyright modernization act to provide for adequate compensation for the owners of Canadian content, it will lead to a decline in the production of Canadian content and the distribution of that content in Canada and abroad.”
The NDP is trying to strike a balance between all the interests of the stakeholders involved in and affected by this issue. In its present form, I do not think that this bill meets that need. It is important for creators to have the means to create and that they be compensated for their work. It is also important for consumers to have fair access that does not create inequalities.
This bill risks creating more problems than it solves, both from a legal and a financial perspective. I will be happy to continue to work with the committee members and the many witnesses.
We will work in committee to try to change this bill when we form the government in 2015.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague and I congratulate her on having been chosen as the digital affairs spokesperson for the New Democratic Party. We are the only party that actually understands the importance of having a digital spokesperson and I think she is very equipped for the job.
The issue of forward-looking copyright as opposed to backward-looking copyright or defensive copyright is crucial to the issue of developing a 21st century economic plan.
Under this provision, any long distance learning materials, the transfer of materials from library to library, which has such an incredible potential for development and for learning research, the government will make it law that after five days any of the research materials must somehow disappear. They need to have a technological protection measure to interfere with the right of people to do research.
Why does my hon. colleague think the government wants to treat researchers, academics, students and people doing medical and legal research as though they were pirates, that they are such a threat that we need to put locks on their ability to learn?
Charmaine Borg NDP Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the excellent question. As we know, this government has a tendency to treat Internet users and researchers as criminals. That seems to be the Conservative way.
To answer the question, I find it quite disturbing that the government did not consider the fact that students taking distance education courses will be forced to destroy their own notes. Or perhaps it did consider this and simply chose not to worry about it.
I think this is a huge problem, because people want to keep their notes when they are learning. Yet, people are being told they have to destroy their notes. I think this really shows how unbalanced this bill is. It shows that many amendments are needed and that this government really did not think this through when it rejected our amendments.
Kennedy Stewart NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is well versed in the large-scale implications of this unfortunate piece of legislation. I am just thinking of local bands in my community. Could she tell us how this measure would negatively impact local artists in her community?
Charmaine Borg NDP Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague.
As we have seen, a great deal of money—millions of dollars—will be lost within the artistic community. These people protect and promote our culture and our heritage, both within our borders and beyond, and this bill takes away their profits. This makes absolutely no sense.
Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders
Oak Ridges—Markham Ontario
Conservative
Paul Calandra ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member thinks it is time for us to update the copyright laws. Could she also comment specifically on the sections of the bill that deal with enabling and piracy and the notice and notice regime?
Charmaine Borg NDP Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, we agree that the law should be updated, but not in this way. We could strike a better balance between the rights of consumers and the rights of creators, something that this bill does not do. I will again ask the government: why not accept our 17 amendments? We could have helped you find that balance, but you unfortunately refused to listen.
Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker Bruce Stanton
I would like to remind hon. members to address their questions and comments to the Speaker, not directly to other members.
There is enough time left for a brief question. The hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle.
Marc-André Morin NDP Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Mr. Speaker, I will address the question to you, but I trust that my colleague will reply because she is part of the generation that understands the digital civilization.
I am interested in another aspect. If I have understood correctly, students who do not destroy their course notes after five days will be presumed guilty of copyright infringement.
It is a bit like suspecting someone of murder because they bought a bread knife. The logic is about the same. I am wondering if such regulations would bear the scrutiny of the courts.
Charmaine Borg NDP Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is disturbing to think that students who forget to destroy their notes will be penalized to that extent. When I was a student, life was very stressful.
Days go by quickly, and it is easy to forget that 29 or 30 days have passed, and that the notes have to be destroyed. The penalties are too severe and we must re-examine this matter.
Copyright Modernization ActGovernment Orders
Ajax—Pickering Ontario
Conservative
Chris Alexander ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, it really is a pleasure to rise in the House today as part of this debate on Bill C-11, the copyright modernization act. Like so much of the legislation we are discussing in this session, this legislation is long overdue and badly needed by a sector of the Canadian economy that is absolutely fundamental to our future growth and to job creation in this country in the years and decades to come.
It matters for the artists of this country who have yet to emerge, cut their first album, produce their first painting or write their first play. It also matters for the superstars we all enjoy today who want to take their creations even further. Feist, Cirque du Soleil and dozens of artists that all of us in the House admire enormously are among those who stand to benefit from versions of this act, which is above all focused on modernization in a sector where being up to date has always counted as much as anything else, because the methods by which artists transmit their works to the world have always been changing.
In my remarks, I want to review the path that we have taken in coming to the point of bringing this bill before the House and remind hon. members that copyright is at the heart of our democratic system. It is at the heart of our society and our values, in that it allows us to bring art creations before a larger audience and ensure that creators and artists benefit and are able to be part of a value chain, part of businesses that ultimately form an enormous and growing industry in this country.
It goes all the way back to the time of Queen Anne. One of the first copyright statutes was as far back as 1708. Hon. members on my side of the House will take some pride in the fact that it was a Tory government at that time in England, which is not surprising.
The first legislation in this country came at a very formative stage. In the 1830s, long before the British North America Act was passed, this country was legislating in this field. The original Copyright Act goes back to 1921 and was not updated in any thorough way for a long time, because media had not changed as dramatically, through much of the 20th century, as they have in recent decades. This measure is now urgent.
The legislation in previous Parliaments, as hon. members know, did not come through the legislative process and receive royal assent. I would like to take some time to reflect on how this bill has reached the point at which we see it today.
It is most important to emphasize that this bill built on input from literally thousands of Canadians, and many of the consultations took place in 2009. The response to them was remarkable, demonstrating not only how important copyright is to the digital economy and our global competitiveness but also that Canadians understand how important this is to their lives. If we are not up to date and modern in our legislation in this field, Canadians literally deprive themselves of self-understanding through the best art, stories and representations of the way we live in this country that are available. We are each serving our own quality of life in supporting this legislation.
Through the consultations, the government heard many views from copyright owners, artists, individual copyright users, innovative companies, teachers and students.
The teachers and students told us they need greater flexibility to make use of copyright materials to maximize the opportunities provided by new classroom technologies. That is a fair point.
Copyright owners told us Canada's copyright law needs to reflect international standards in rights and protections to allow them to sustain business models in a digital environment and a globalized context.
Consumers told us that they want to make reasonable use of content they have already bought and paid for.
Furthermore, from all the feedback we received it became abundantly clear how important it was going to be to design a copyright bill that balanced the interests and needs of the full range of interested parties. None of these constituencies was going to get everything it wanted out of this bill; each would have to strike a balance with all the other major interested parties.
Following the consultations in spring of 2010, during the 40th Parliament the government introduced Bill C-32, also a copyright modernization act, and after second reading the bill was referred to a legislative committee. That committee heard Canadians' views over the course of 17 days of witness hearings. In that time, 70 individuals and organizations appeared and 150 written submissions were received, and two key messages emerged: first, the bill struck the right balance between various stakeholders, in the view of the vast majority of those taking part; second, Canada urgently needed to pass an updated copyright legislation to bring ourselves up to date.
Unfortunately, the 40th Parliament was dissolved. Members opposite will know more about the reasons for that than we do on our side. It was an unnecessary election, and it had a cost in terms of the timeliness of legislation and a further delay in the passing of this bill. Therefore, to facilitate swift passage in this Parliament, the government introduced a bill without changes in order to reiterate its support for balanced legislation and to facilitate the modernization of the act.
Then a second legislative committee went to work studying the bill, and it has reported back. That committee held seven more days of witness hearings and heard from 40 additional witnesses.
During clause-by-clause review, the committee adopted several technical amendments. I call these amendments “technical” because they address specific legal and drafting issues in the bill, while preserving the overall balance. They have improved the clarity of several important provisions of the bill. Obviously this world is changing; as a result, the technical background to many of this bill's provisions is changing, and we had to ensure that the bill now before this House matched the intent of the bill and the reality in this sector.
Some of the technical amendments tighten up the language of new measures to fight online piracy. For example, the provisions that create a new civil liability for so-called enablers—services that enable online piracy—have been strengthened. It has also been clarified that an enabler would not be able to benefit from any of the safe harbours in the bill that are intended to apply to legitimate Internet intermediaries when they are playing a neutral role.
We have also cleaned up and corrected ambiguous wording in some aspects of the bill, fully in line with the government's stated intent. For example, it is now specified that new exceptions for copying for private purposes apply only for the private purposes of the person who makes the copy, not for some other person's private purpose. Other technical amendments would reassure Canada's information and communication technology sector that exceptions designed to foster innovation through activities such as security testing, interoperability and encryption research would not provide inadvertent loopholes for malicious activities. The last thing we wanted to do is allow those engaged in piracy to enter, as it were, back into this game through the back door.
Finally, the safe harbours provided to Internet intermediaries have been amended to ensure that the conditions that must be met to receive shelter are aligned with industry best practices. These are just some of the examples of improvements made.
This June will mark the two-year point since the predecessor of this bill was first introduced. That is a long time. It is clear we owe it to all those who participated in the consultations in committee hearings to move forward with this important legislation. Time does not stand still on these issues, and this Parliament will no doubt return to this issue with subsequent amendments and with subsequent legislative measures in this field. However, it is vital to Canada's competitiveness and to the well-being and prosperity of our artists and our cultural industries that this bill now move ahead. Without this legislation, everyday Canadians will not be certain that they are on the right side of the law when they do something as simple as recording a television program for later viewing. Without this legislation, copyright owners will not have legal protection for the digital locks they use to protect their investments in a digital marketplace.
With these modernizations, an already vast industry in Canada will stand every chance of growing, of achieving record levels of growth and taking the richness and all of the diversity of Canada's cultural industries to a much larger audience inside this country and well beyond our borders.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague.
The issue facing us at committee was that very clear and realistic amendments needed to be made in order to ensure balance, but the government continued to attack that idea. I finally understood where the Conservatives were coming from when the member said that they did not want any back doors for these pirates to get in, because we could not understand why they did not want to work with us to clarify the provisions for people with perceptual disabilities.
Blind students trying to access a work on their Kindle should not be criminalized, yet the Conservatives put provisions in there that said they could only access a work as long as they did not unduly impair the technological protection measure, as though they actually thought it was a digital lock that people were picking. I was wondering why they were so adamant. Does the member really believe that blind students, deaf students and people with perceptual disabilities are somehow opening a back door to piracy? Why would the Conservatives not accept those reasonable amendments to protect the rights of people with perceptual disabilities to get the kind of education they have a right to? Why does he think that they are in league with pirates?