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

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Minister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture)]

moved that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to open debate at third reading on the copyright modernization act. This has been a long process. After 15 years, unprecedented levels of consultations, introduction in two Parliaments, reviews conducted by two legislative committees, over 30 hours of review and debate, 100 witness testimonies and thousands more submissions, and several efforts by our government, it is a great honour to rise today at third reading of the bill. I look forward to seeing this bill move toward the Senate.

I thank the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, who have put a tremendous amount of work into crafting this bill and toward consultations to get us here today.

Modernizing our copyright regime is one of the key ways to create a dynamic, growing and creative digital economy in Canada that creates jobs, not only today, but for many years to come.

I remind members of the House who are thinking of opposing this bill of what Canadian businesses, entrepreneurs, creators, artists and users have said throughout this difficult process. They have said that they need modern legislation to reflect modern times and that they could no longer wait.

Our copyright laws were last substantially amended in 1997. Compared to the fast-paced world that we live in today, where we have new smart phones every year, we can watch movies on many devices with a screen and Internet connection, and where artists and creators can get their big break through social media, 1997 was a different world.

Indeed, for those of us with young children or teenagers at home, it is fascinating to see the ease with which they interact with digital media. That which we need to learn they have already internalized as part of the world in which they are growing up.

However, our copyright laws are simply not relevant or responsive enough for today's world. Whether it is the everyday online activities of the average Canadian, saving a favourite show on a personal video recorder, updating a music playlist on smart phones or putting a mash-up online, whether it is artists or creators looking to manage the release of their works online or protect their works from online infringements or rights holders looking to ensure that their investments are protected, all need modern copyright laws. This would ensure that the digital web, with its vast database of knowledge, incredible ability to connect people, and its limitless potential to create, innovate and grow, is fully accessible to all Canadians.

Since the current round of copyright reform began, we have seen a tremendous change in the digital world. Social media is everywhere. It is now easy to access copyrighted material online and to do so using hand-held devices. Now cloud computing is looking to completely upend old service models for data transfer and storage.

Over the last few years, many different views have been expressed on how to approach copyright reform. Quite simply, to move forward we need to establish a balance between what is necessary for consumers and what is good for creators. What will support users while protecting rights holders?

This bill finds a fair balance. It gives copyright owners the tools they need to combat piracy, including new provisions enabling them to sue in case of copyright violations.

Under the legislation, consumers will be able to record their favourite televisions shows to watch them later, transfer music from a CD to a digital device, and create digital mash-ups to post on social media sites.

Until this bill is passed, these activities are technically illegal. Consumers who do ordinary activities that are commonly accepted, such as the activities I just mentioned, are now in a grey area with respect to their copyright responsibilities.

The bill updates the act's exceptions to allow for the use of copyright-protected content for the purposes of satire and parody, according to the provisions of fair dealing. It also expands the notion of fair dealing and provides exceptions for educators to better use digital resources. This will improve teaching, research methods and educational content, through the use of the most recent technologies. It specifies the roles and responsibilities of Internet service providers and search engines.

The bill also supports private sector innovation by creating exceptions for reverse engineering, security testing, encryption research and technological processes. It provides legal protection for companies that, in the context of their operational model, rely on digital locks to protect their copyrighted content.

Finally, under this bill, rights and protections in Canada will be harmonized with the World Intellectual Property Organization treaties signed by Canada in 1997. We will finally join the group of nations that have brought their copyright legislation into the digital era.

Taken together, the measures in the bill would help Canadian creators and innovators to compete and contribute to attracting foreign investment to Canada, while ensuring that consumers, educators and users would have new protections that would give them full opportunity to engage in their digital world.

As I described at the outset of my remarks, this House has debated the bill extensively, at second reading, during both legislative committees and during the report stage just two weeks ago.

Throughout this process, we have made a special effort to introduce technical amendments that preserve the balance and spirit of the bill.

At the report stage, many of my colleagues spoke eloquently about the nature and purpose of these amendments. In the minutes remaining, I would like to remind the House why we introduced these amendments. I would like to begin by discussing the three main amendments that will strengthen the anti-piracy tools available to copyright holders.

First, members will recall that the bill before us includes a provision enabling copyright holders to take legal action against individuals who knowingly violate copyright online, such as those operating websites that facilitate the illegal exchange of files. I am sure that everyone here agrees that such sites should be the first target of an anti-piracy campaign.

To ensure that this provision will be as effective as it is meant to be, we introduced an amendment clarifying that the provision will apply to online services primarily provided to violate copyright, even if they were not initially designed to do that. The idea is not to do indirectly what we cannot do directly. To sum up, regardless of the initial purpose of a site, if the site enables copyright violations, there will be consequences.

Second, copyright holders told us that they were worried about the fact that they would not be able to exact pre-established damages from these enablers. Websites that facilitate illegal file-sharing hurt copyright holders and often profit from their pirating activities. Accordingly, the bill was amended to ensure that copyright holders can protect themselves against these enablers and pre-established damages.

Lastly, the committee amended the bill to eliminate a potential loophole. We were told that the liability exemptions, which were intended to protect neutral intermediaries, could become a loophole that enablers could use to protect themselves against litigation. A technical change corrected the situation in order to ensure that enablers would not be able to use these exemptions to protect themselves against litigation.

I would now like to highlight some of the changes we made that will identify some of the exceptions included in the bill regarding innovation.

Specifically, the bill contains exceptions to support important innovative activities related to software reverse engineering, security testing and encryption research.

On that point, I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Kitchener—Waterloo, for bringing this to our attention and working to better the act.

We were told that someone could use these exceptions to engage in illegal activities. The government therefore has made a balanced change that will ensure that people engaging in such activities cannot get around copyright requirements and that our honest innovators and researchers can pursue their important work, inventing new products and marketing their innovations. In addition to those changes, we have also proposed changes that will support non-profit agencies that work in the interest of people with visual impairments.

As far as consumers are concerned, the bill indeed includes an exception that allows non-profit organizations to create and export material adapted for people with perceptual impairments, under certain conditions, including a limitation based on the nationality of the author.

However, given that the author's nationality is not always easy to determine, there was concern that an organization might have to pay damages for errors made in good faith. An amendment to the bill responds to that concern and recognizes that in many cases, people do make honest mistakes.

In order to ensure that the non-profit organizations in question are not unduly penalized as a result of mistakes made in good faith, the amendment states that, in such circumstances, an injunction is the only remedy that the owner of the copyright in the work has against the organization.

With regard to intermediaries, Internet service providers and search engines play an important role in exchanging ideas and information. They make it easier to access the online world and help us to sort through a vast quantity of information.

At committee, many intermediaries informed us of the unintended consequences that the provisions of the bill could have on them. In order to protect these groups from such unintended consequences, we proposed amendments that take their concerns into account without affecting the bill's balanced approach. For example, the bill requires Internet service providers to forward to subscribers the notifications of claimed infringement they receive from copyright owners.

This provision was amended to require Internet service providers to forward notifications of claimed infringement “as soon as feasible” rather than “without delay” as it said in the original version of the bill. Furthermore, it is important that the intermediaries are not held responsible when they play a neutral role. By establishing an exemption for real network intermediaries and new technologically neutral exceptions for consumers' daily activities, Bill C-11 paves the way for an increased use of digital technologies, such as cloud computing, networked personal video recording and other services that have yet to be invented.

A service that meets the conditions of the exemption will not result in liability under copyright law. Although intermediaries must assume clear responsibilities in the fight against online piracy, we also have to ensure that the requirements imposed on them are not unrealistic or too cumbersome.

The government firmly believes that the provisions of Bill C-11 strike such a balance.

I think all members would agree that this House has debated and consulted for some time now on how to strike an appropriate balance while establishing a modern, responsive copyright regime in Canada. These amendments are the latest demonstration of our government's commitment to strike the right balance between rights holders and users.

We recognize that copyright in the digital age will always evolve and that efforts to maintain balance are ongoing, whether a bill is before us or not. Such is the complexity of copyright and the many views on what is an ideal regime.

Our job as government is to ensure that the bill strikes the right balance, that it promotes innovation, investment and job growth in the Canadian digital economy while also preserving the rights of Canadians to use legally purchased copyright material in new and creative ways. For that reason, the bill has a built in five-year review so it does not fall this far behind again.

I hope hon. members will agree with me that the bill should be passed as amended and moved quickly to the Senate for debate and review.

This bill will bring Canadian copyright into the digital age. It is long overdue.

The faster it moves through Parliament, the faster it will benefit creators, the faster we can adopt measures to fight piracy, the faster search engines and Internet service providers will have clearly defined roles and responsibilities with respect to copyright, and the faster users will be able to go about their daily non-infringing activities with confidence and full knowledge of the practices permitted under the law.

We can no longer put off passing this bill. It is time to move forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have spent many years on the issue of copyright in our attempt and our willingness to work with the government to improve legislation that is fundamentally flawed. However, like everything with the Conservative government, it will not work with anybody. It sees people as perceived threats, as perceived enemies. Every amendment that we brought forward was attacked or shut down.

I would like to ask the hon. member about clause 47. Clause 47 sets out to punish people with perceptual disabilities. When my daughter, who is deaf, went through school and needed copyrighted material, she had to actually break the algorithm to access materials. That is a fundamental right for students who are so far behind in being able to access what other students take for granted. Under clause 47, the government is telling students with perceptual disabilities that they are responsible for repairing the lock.

Students who are blind have the right to access material if they need to have the print drawn up. Deaf students need the right to access material if they need something added in as a code so the subtitles can be seen. However, that can only be done if they take responsibility for repairing the lock afterward; otherwise, they are involved in a criminal activity.

Does the hon. member have any idea whatsoever about how to repair a digital lock? I know the Conservatives think of it in terms of a lock, but it is not a lock. It is a computer algorithm. Why would the Conservatives not work with us on a clear amendment that would ensure that students with perceptual disabilities are not treated as criminals for accessing material in an educational format so they can succeed?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, thousands of Canadians from all the different stakeholder groups were consulted on the bill.

We know that digital locks protect innovation. In fact, when creators want to innovate, they need protection. We also know that there is flexibility. Products can be sold and digital copies can be added to different software or other items.

It is obvious that my colleague is referring to an isolated case. In general, the spirit of the law seeks to strike the right balance. It is also for that reason that I did say to my colleague that we need to move quickly to pass the bill because, at this point, everything we are talking about is illegal. We are not in the digital age; we are still in the era of VHS and landline telephones. Therefore, it is time to pass the bill.

Furthermore, there will be a review every five years to consider technological, digital and other changes.

One thing is certain: we want to strike a balance. Extensive consultation has made it clear to us that this is the way to ensure that there is balance. There are always ways of achieving it, including the example I just gave.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the hon. minister could please comment on the area of piracy.

Canada has been criticized on many occasions for harbouring piracy when it comes to copyright. A lot of that has to do with the fact that we have been so late in getting copyright legislation passed through the House, owing to a number of reasons. This legislation takes on that issue. Canada would no longer be seen as harbouring piracy in terms of Internet protection.

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

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague mentioned, this is a great matter of concern. We signed the treaty back in 1997. We have a problem because we are not compliant and our partners are saying that we need to get through this because online copyright piracy is not punishable in the scope of the law. We need to move into the 21st century to ensure these illicit activities are punished.

The idea is to strike a balance. We have an approach that will protect the rights of the creators and innovators while, on the other hand, we have a balanced approach to ensure that the users, the consumers, know what they can and cannot do. We are providing certainty while striking that balance.

A huge group of stakeholders has been consulted everywhere around the country. There have been over 8,000. The bill has been tabled in two Parliaments. It has been the object of several hours of debate in committees. I think it is time to get into the 21st century and bring compliance to our 1997 agreement under WIPO. That is over 15 years ago. It is time to move on.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, two words I picked out of the minister's comments were punishment and consumers. Many consumers are quite concerned about what the government is doing and the impact the bill would have.

I, as do many members of Parliament, go to numerous events. Winnipeg is well-known for social events. We call them socials, fundraisers and whatnot. I attend wedding celebrations and so forth. There are a lot of entertainment events, like block parties and special events that happen in our parks, like Kildonan Park and others, in which music is played.

I am wondering if the minister could provide a comment about how this legislation would impact individuals who are wanting to play music at their event if there are 25 or more people?

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

Mr. Speaker, when I talk about punishment I have to put the emphasis on punishment for online piracy. This is the concern that was raised by my previous colleagues. Once again, what we want to do is strike a balance.

Consumers face uncertainty. They do not presently know what computer files can be shared. With this legislation they would know if they are compliant with the law or not, because there is nothing in the law presently.

What we want to do is to take a balanced approach that takes both consumer rights and creator rights into account. We must establish a clear framework for neutral Internet service providers, not those that facilitate illegal file sharing, among other things. That is what we want to do.

Obviously, this will involve punishments. My colleague mentioned the famous punishments for consumers. These will exist in the case of pre-established damages, when someone knowingly shares information or files online. That is where we have added some certainty. The digital age is moving too quickly. That is what my speech was about: the digital age. We must provide some certainty, because this sector is growing exponentially.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that is very important in my riding of Parkdale—High Park because we have so many artists and creators who live in our area.

The minister talked earlier about pressure on us to act. I am wondering why a key aide to a former industry minister urged the U.S. to put Canada on the notorious piracy watch list and why he added that pressure on Parliament.

However, the real issue is that the impact of the legislation is to create the real winners, which are huge corporations, usually American based rights holders. It does nothing for consumers who would face increased taxes on DVDs and CDs, although it fails to take any action on new media, which artists need. In fact, it takes away about $50 million in royalties from creators and does not protect them.

Why would the minister not accept very reasoned, constructive amendments to the bill that were offered in good faith? Why has he been so intransigent with this legislation?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is very contradictory. First, we want to get rid of piracy. As it is now, people exchanging illicit files online is not covered by the law or within the scope of it. Creators need to be protected, which is why we want to make online piracy illegal. If people are committing piracy, they will face the consequences.

We have to be compliant with WIPO. We are far behind our partners. This is a balanced Canadian approach. When my colleague referred to the approach of the United States, we decided to concentrate on Internet service providers instead of having a notice to take down. Nobody wanted it in Canada, so we decided to go with a balanced and typical Canadian approach, which is notice to notice. This bill strikes a balance. There are also special provisions in terms of fair dealing and education. On the other hand, my colleague pleaded with her party in the past for an iPod tax and consumers do not want it. It was rejected by consumers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise on this issue, which is vitally important for Canada. The need to update Canada's copyright legislation is something that the New Democrats have been pushing the current government and the previous Liberal government on for the better part of the last decade.

The problem is that this bill fails. It fails the rights of artists. It is an attack on the royalty regimes that it created, not just an incredible worldwide industry but also a sense of identity of culture that has created the importance of ensuring we have a voice. That voice is actually created within the marketplace of copyright, which I will get to in a moment. It attacks education, students and people with perceptual disabilities.

The government did not need to go down this road. We could have worked with the government. We were more than willing to work with it and we said it again and again. There are elements in the bill that are much better than the previous Conservative bill, which looked like a dog's breakfast when we considered how badly it was constructed, but this bill could have been fixed.

At the outset, we said that this did not need to be an ideological fight. We all have a stake in improving copyright. Unfortunately, the government does not know how to do to anything except in an ideological way. The government's idea of balance is that it is its way or the highway. Its idea of balance is that anybody who does not agree with it is a threat, which is why it had to go to such extreme measures as threatening Parks Canada employees, telling them that if they embarrassed the hapless parks minister their jobs would be on the line. It seems that the public servants of Canada, whose job it is to be public servants to Canadians, are to be the loyal soldiers of the Conservative Party or they are threatened.

We have seen how the government destroyed the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. We know now why. It is because it had—

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. History shows that the member for Timmins—James Bay tends to wander off on a dozen or more tangents during his speeches, but we are talking about a particular bill. If I am going to sit and listen to him, I would like to have his thoughts on the specific bill because that is what is important. I wish the hon. member would stick to his discussions about the bill. I am sure he feels he has some valid points to make about the bill and I would like him to make them.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member is making a point about relevance and I will remind the member for Timmins—James Bay that while members may touch on other aspects of policy when making their points, we are at third reading and the rules of relevance are a little tighter at third reading.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will stay on the issue of what we are dealing with, which is the government's defensiveness. The member is telling me that he will get up and walk out if he has to listen to things he does not want to hear. That, unfortunately, has been the problem with this bill.

We came forward with numerous amendments. We told the minister that if we could sit down and discuss it, this bill would pass quickly. We were willing to do that. The government has to go to time allocation again and again because it will not work with anybody. It sees amendments as a threat, just as it sees a threat when the issue is raised about how it stripped Fisheries and Oceans and the Kyoto provisions. It tries to shut down debate or—

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, now the member is carrying on about a point of order and is not talking about debate. In that point of order, or in the last parts of his conversation during debate, he has talked about things the member said during his own point of order which are completely inaccurate. The member is trying to distract the House from the topic of the debate. I think all hon. members would like to hear him debate the topic and not carry on as he is doing.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I am not going to get into a debate about the points of order. I have reminded the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay that we are at third reading on a bill about copyright legislation. While members when making their point may talk about other points, I will ask him to keep his remarks as closely as possible to the bill before the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for that.

This is the Westminster parliamentary tradition. If the member, who is brand new here, does not want to hear a word that he finds offensive, an attempt can be made to shut down this debate. The government can do it on points of order all day, but this is germane to the issue.

The issue here is that the willingness to work with the government is continually pushed back and the government has to stand on points of order to shut things down.

When we are talking about copyright, we are talking about a pattern which has been established, as we have seen in the recent bills and the attacks on the environment. If I mention the environment, I am sure that is going to set people off, but this is what we are talking about. We are talking about the government's attempt to use this House to shut down the parliamentary rights of people who have been here, who represent their regions, who came in good faith. This is the threat, which is why, when we talk about this bill, we see a government that does not understand actually how to do proper copyright legislation because it refuses to listen. Let us go through some of the amendments.

I asked the industry minister about clause 47, but he seemed to be confused. That is why I thought I would not get technical, because whenever I get technical, the government seems to be confused.

I will get technical on this. Let us talk about clause 22, which is the obligation of broadcasters on backup. That clause is tied to clause 34. The government actually created a loophole so that artists could be denied their right to be paid $28 million a year, which is what the music industry relies on. The government created a loophole. When we accused the government of creating a loophole, government members said that of course they were creating a loophole because they do not believe that the big giant radio stations should have to pay. This is their intervention in the market.

The government's idea of bounds is to take $28 million out of the hands of artists by creating a loophole. The government did not have the guts to do it face up, so it created this 30-day loophole. Then the industry said that the loophole is not fair because it would actually have to work using this loophole to deny artists.

I do not know if my hon. colleagues have had the experience of actually being in the industry, but these are agreements, rules and fees that were set by a semi-judicial body. They were adjudicated at the Copyright Board. However, the government decided that big corporate interests should not have to pay artists, so it created a loophole.

That loophole could have been fixed. I have a feeling the government will find itself in court over this. I sure hope the government is not going to try to shut down the courts next, but we do not know. However, the government will find itself in court because the testimony of government members again and again was that they felt they had to bring this in because they thought it was unfair that artists were being paid.

Let us talk about the book-burning provisions. Students have been told that after 30 days they have to destroy their online notes. One of the Conservative members said that it is not just notes, that it is videos. This was at committee. He said, “Imagine, if someone made a video”. I do not think video exists any more; that is an analog tape. The member said, “Imagine what would happen if a student had a copy of a class lesson and he gave it to his friends. What would happen?” Oh, my God, education might break out.

We have such an enormous opportunity and potential through digital education to reach all across Canada. Again, I represent the James Bay region, which is larger than Great Britain. The opportunities of digital education are amazing. What we need to work out are the copyright royalties, how we ensure that the creators who create the books and lessons and the help are paid, and then the students should be able to use it. However, the government's idea is that this somehow has to be limited.

It gets even more bizarre. Clause 29 is an attack on libraries. This is how it works in the analog paper world. If, for example, I am doing a research paper or a family history and I contact the library, the library will send me a paper copy in the mail. I have 30 days or 60 days to study it, because it takes time to go through a document. In the digital culture, the library could send a copy to me immediately. We would think that is a real benefit and a forward act, but the Conservatives said that the library is obligated to put a digital lock on it.

The Conservatives think a lock has chains and so on, but it is actually an algorithm. They said that the library is obligated to put on a digital lock and after five days the paper has to disappear, otherwise that is somehow a threat. A threat to whom? It is a threat to education, I would think, if five days is how long a person is allowed to have access, otherwise the person would be breaking the law.

The Conservatives obviously did not talk to the libraries in Canada. They talked to supposedly millions, but I think what they meant to say is that they spoke to people who have millions. They just shortened it and said that they spoke to millions. No, they spoke to the people with the millions. They did not speak to the libraries, because the libraries said that was not how to develop education. This is an issue for the small libraries.

There is a wonderful little library in my town, Cobalt, which has been voted the most historic town in Ontario. We have a little archives there. Historians want that, but the little town of Cobalt's library will be obligated to put in a computer code to prevent someone from making an extra copy of old Granny McGuire's memoirs of the early days after the fire. Oh, my God, what would happen then?

The Conservatives' idea of the marketplace is to lock up the market. They are the supposed free marketeers, but no, they will lock up the market and that will create a market.

That is not how a market is made in music and in education and in learning. A market is made by establishing the fees that are paid. In a digital age it is about the ability of people to access works. It is all around us. The Conservatives think they are like King Canute, that they will stand down and tell those digital waves to recede. It is not going to happen. We have access, a multiplicity of access.

What we need to find out are the methods of remuneration for our artists. It is no surprise that every single arts group in Quebec said the bill was a direct attack. We said we should find the common ground and fix it.

Let us continue on to the other areas where the Conservatives have completely failed, such as clause 47, in particular the WIPO provisions, and the linking of criminality to the circumvention of technological protection measures. The New Democratic Party has made it clear from the beginning that we support the ability for new business models. Whether it be on streaming of music or in the gaming industry, there is a role and a right for corporate creators to have technological protection measures that are not going to be broken so that works cannot be stolen. That is a good provision. We support that. It would make us in compliance.

Our friends over there keep talking about WIPO. We have been pushing the Conservatives to implement the WIPO treaty since the day they came into power. They did not want to touch WIPO. We kept saying that WIPO is essential and that we have to ratify WIPO because it is part of our international obligations.

The Conservatives do not seem to understand that under the WIPO treaty, it is very clear that there are exceptions where the technological protection measure is not a right in itself. It is an adjunct to a right. It enables a right. The right is the right of creators on the one hand to protect their work. The technological protection measure is an adjunct to the basic right that protects the work, but in the balance of copyright, there are other rights as well. There are the rights of people to access that work, and the right to access something that is under a technological protection measure for research and innovation. That is a reasonable goal.

The technological protection measure should not be there to interfere with research and innovation. We have a right as consumers to access a product. The Conservatives keep talking about legalization so that people know their legal certainties. The government will give us all the rights that we should have, but when we go to exercise them, it will say to talk to Sony Corporation and Sony will decide whether we have that right or not.

There cannot be a two-tiered set of rights. This is what Parliament is about. There are rights that Canadian citizens have and those rights are defined by Parliament. There are rights within the Copyright Act that go back hundreds of years. That is the balance. The creator's right is not absolute. It is not the creator's house that he or she lives in and nobody gets to come in. It is a public good. Creation is changed. People come in and they get ideas. It is not a walled garden. We accept the right of the creator to have certain rights to his or her work, but we also accept the rights of the public to access that work and create new works. That has been in the parliamentary tradition of France, Britain, the United States and Canada for hundreds of years.

The Conservatives are introducing something new, which is that these rights exist until a corporation decides that one does not have that right. By putting in the absolute protection for technological protection measures, they are saying that people have that right, but when they try to access it, they are breaking the law. If there is a computer code to stop people from doing research and innovation, they are the same as criminals.

The Conservatives somehow think that is being compliant with international treaties. It is not. The WIPO treaty is very clear. The exceptions for accessing works that exist in the analog paper world have a right to exist within the digital realm. How do we do that?

If the government were not so defensive and paranoid and sometimes just downright weird about suggestions, it would have worked with our amendments. We had a number of amendments on the linking of criminality to circumvention of technological protection measures which made it clear that university institutions that need to access work that is under technological protection measures are not breaking the law if it is being done for research and innovation. The university or the student or the person with a perceptual disability is not a criminal. They are not in the same class as the pirates.

However, the Conservatives only see a black and white world. They cannot see anything in between. As they said, “You are either with us or the child pornographers.” The government does not see any middle ground between extremes. That is not how copyright works.

That gets us back to clause 47, which I thought was not given much attention, because people with perceptual disabilities, the blind, the hard of hearing, are not a big corporate lobby. They do not get to meet with the minister. They do not have large lobby organizations. Their interests were completely ignored by the government.

All they were asking for was a very straightforward provision, that for the creation of works for the blind, and we have found that this is of particular importance within Quebec because of the much smaller book market, there is an audience for books created in Braille, but it can only be within the limited Canadian market. What about France, where there are other groups that are making their products available to the blind there? We could have that exchange. We are not trading pirated works. There is no commercial market for taking Braille. This is something that is a service.

It is the same with the issue of the breaking of a technological lock. Again, the government thinks that the lock is like a door lock that is picked. It will only allow the students with a perceptual disability to tamper with the lock. It sounds criminal. It sounds as though they are sneaking around wearing a mask and breaking in through a window.

This is about when a student is in a classroom and cannot see the board. That student should not be denied that right because someone says there is a technological protection measure, and unless that student with a perceptual disability can guarantee that he or she is going to repair the lock after damaging it, the student cannot access it.

It is a ridiculous provision within the bill. It is ridiculous. There is no way that one repairs that lock after it is broken. It is a computer algorithm. It is about extracting information.

A practical example is that my daughter was in human rights law and there were lessons she could not hear because of her deafness. We needed to access the visual works so that she could get subtitles. For the university to do that, it had to actually break the digital lock. It is a fairly straightforward thing. Then the university could create a work that the student could access. Under the human rights code, a student has the right to access it. That is a guaranteed right. That is a right recognized by Parliament, but it is a right that is being denied under this bill, because only if those students can guarantee they can somehow fix the lock, that they can somehow stuff all the information back into the CD, put the cover back on the CD, and put the CD back on the shelf, then it will be okay. It is ridiculous.

We had straightforward amendments which the government refused at every step of the way. Then the Conservatives whine and complain that they actually had to sit and debate the bill. If they had worked on those straightforward amendments, this bill would have been through the House months ago.

It is going to be like this with every single bill, unless the government starts to realize that with a little compromise and a little goodwill, we can create legislation that is in the interests of all Canadians, not just in the interests of the Conservative Party and its friends who have millions.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, good morning, after a long and difficult 48 hours here in the House.

I would like to pick up on some of the comments my colleague made, first of all to suggest that the Liberal Party is interested in efforts to modernize and update our Copyright Act in a fair and balanced manner. We are also deeply concerned about the digital lock provisions in this legislation.

I will ask my colleague the question this way, and I know he is capable of giving a good, fair and objective answer. This really deals with the question of recent disclosures of diplomatic cables from the United States showing that the Conservative copyright plan appears to have been drafted very much to satisfy industry concerns in the United States. I know we will not get into a U.S.-type bashing commentary. We do not need that. We have good friends and neighbours in the United States who have their own interests.

However, perhaps in the interests of Canadians watching or following this debate, can the member help us understand where the differences lie between the Canadian and the American interests in this regard? Can he give us some insight, because he is so close to the file, as to why the Conservative Party would allow itself to be perhaps influenced too greatly by American interests as opposed to Canadian interests?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question because, of course, the United States is our biggest trading partner. There is a huge corporate lobby in the United States because of the immense power of the entertainment industry, and I love American culture as much as anybody. The problem is that the American digital millennium copyright act has targeted citizens and attempted to use legislation to shut down any form of cultural development in many areas.

It is important to raise here the issue of the diplomatic cables that have been released. We hear the Conservatives talking about the bad guys and the pirates, and we, in our caucus, strongly believe in being able to take the fight to piracy because it is damaging. However, the image that one of our Conservative members claimed, of Canada being a pirate haven as though it were Yemen or North Korea, comes from the diplomatic cables of the former industry minister, the famous Muskoka minister, who, when staff were meeting in Washington, said to put us on the piracy watch list because it would help us.

Imagine a government whose idea of trade is to have this made up and have Canada treated as an international outlaw in order to help the government pass its legislation. It is an outrageous attack on our reputation.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his precise overview of this bill and the clear, progressive, smart ideas and propositions to change it. We just went through a couple of days of putting forward propositions that the Conservative government turned down, so it is no surprise when it turns them down.

The member just touched on something that is important for Canadians to know, because we have debated the issue for a long time. It is the notion that somehow Canada is on the wrong side of the tracks, that we are a haven for piracy, and that if we do not do this right away, we are going to threaten the whole industry and Canada will be be on a pirate list forever, I guess, with the Conservative government.

Can the member help us understand why the government insists that this is just an issue about piracy when it is actually an issue that is much more detailed and nuanced? Why does the member think the Conservatives reject our propositions and only want to look at this in a black and white frame?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are suddenly interested in the international community when it comes to depriving artists of getting paid. They say that otherwise we would be international outcasts. Of course, they trash the Kyoto accord or stand up in this House, talk about the crisis in Europe and ridicule what they call failed European welfare states at a time when the eurozone is in need of international solidarity of some sort.

The Conservatives create a false dichotomy that their idea is to re-establish Canada's international reputation. Canada's international reputation has been created through the arts. Our international artists bring in more than the oil, gas and mining sectors will bring in, yet the arts are not treated with the same level of importance.

The fundamental base of copyright is the trade that is established through the Copyright Board, the right of authors in French or in English to be paid for their work. The Conservatives have decided that authors being paid for our right to make a copy is somehow a tax on the consumer. By taking away that market for artists, they are destroying what is one of the greatest entertainment industries in the world.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Timmins—James Bay for his excellent speech. My colleague has been working in the industry for many years. He spoke with a number of stakeholders about what would be acceptable for the industry.

One of the points raised by my colleague and the Minister of Industry has to do with the scope of online piracy, but there is another type of piracy that is quite extensive, and that is copying or counterfeiting. When I was younger and played around with a small, independent production group, we would make one or two copies on tape to give to our friends, so they could discover new artists. Now, this is being done on a much larger scale. Hundreds and thousands of copies are being made of both major artists and up-and-coming artists.

Nothing in the current bill prevents small business owners from illegally copying artists' products and works.

What does my colleague think about that?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. Certainly, piracy is undermining the rights of artists. However, we are in a world where there is the potential to make millions of copies and artists are not paid for any of it.

We have said again and again, rather than creating this war between the consumer and the creator, and people make copies because they love the music of their artists, we need to find the remuneration systems that would actually ensure people are paid. It can be done. That is forward-looking copyright. The government has backward-looking copyright.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, be read the third time and passed.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Madam Speaker, discussions have taken place among the whips. I think if you seek it you will find unanimous consent of the House for me to split my time with my friend and colleague, the member for Ottawa South.

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Does the member have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased that my colleague and friend from Halifax West asked me to stand and speak. He serves as the industry critic and is certainly much more involved in this topic and piece of legislation than I am, but I have been able to form an opinion after following the debate, after having an opportunity to speak with a number of persons whose lives and livelihoods are impacted by the passing of this legislation, and after having read some of the testimony given in committee hearings. I am very comfortable with my party's position on this particular piece of legislation.

This is not the first time we have seen this type of legislation. For the most part, Bill C-11 is a carbon copy of what we saw in the previous Parliament, which was Bill C-32. The Canadian economy is in the midst of a transition to a digital economy. We know that cultural institutions are going to be impacted through this transition. The music, cinema and education sectors are going to be profoundly impacted by this piece of legislation.

From what I have been able to read through the development of the legislation and the testimony in committee, there is some support for the legislation. There are some solid principles in the legislation and the direction of the legislation was embraced by the vast majority, but there are a number of specific aspects of this bill that are very contentious and are going to pose harm to a great number of Canadians. Amendments that were brought forward that seemed to be logical and reasonable were totally dismissed, and I am going to talk about that a little later on.

We know that things have changed. Let me take the music sector, as an example, and talk about how that has changed over the last number of years. My caucus colleagues and I would have grown up in an era in which our first experience with music probably would have on vinyl. I do not think it would have gone back to the time of 78s, but certainly 45s and long-playing albums.

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Yours was vaudeville.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

I am being heckled that mine was vaudeville. That is a good heckle, but it is not true.

At that juncture, artists would go into a studio, record an album and receive benefits from the sale of that album. Regardless of the format, that template had been set and pretty much followed through the age of cassette players and CDs. There was a revenue stream realized by the creators of the music. They would go out on tour, and their concerts were opportunities to promote the music and hopefully sell some of their product at merchandise tables afterward or hope that people would be motivated to buy their music in various stores.

At one time there was a great Canadian institution like Sam the Record Man and today we have seen the downscale of HMV. Many independent record stores have closed their doors because the industry has changed so much. There were companies that invested in artists over the years. Sony Music used to have branches in the country. It would work with and invest in up-and-coming artists so they could hone their skills and bring their music to a broader audience. There is no longer that type of investment, because the industry has changed so much.

I have a young fellow who is fairly musically inclined. He is studying music at Mount Allison University in Sackville, New Brunswick, but he also plays in a little rock band, Back Pocket Material.

Number one, a person can go into a studio now, and the digital technology is there. A group can go to a friend's house and record absolutely excellent-quality sound. At one time, only professionals could create that kind of sound, but with the digital technology now, it is really at everybody's disposal.

Rather than laying down tracks and creating an album, the band wants to get music recorded so they can put it on the Internet and get it into the hands of potential fans so that they can hear the music and get it for nothing. Hopefully, if fans get it for nothing, they'll get excited about the band's music and will come out to the shows and pay admission. That will continue to come back to the band; the band will continue to grow and improve, and hopefully it will pursue a career in music. However, it is just a completely different approach to developing this craft than we would have seen even 10 years ago, and certainly 15 years ago.

As I said, there has been some contrary opinion. Just reading through the testimony from committee, we have seen contrary opinion being shared by a host of individuals and groups. The Canadian Research Chair, Michael Geist; the Retail Council of Canada; the Canadian Council of Archives; and the Documentary Organization of Canada strongly oppose this legislation.

The main aspect of the legislation is the digital locks provisions. They find it overly restrictive. They believe that similar restrictions that have been placed in the United States have proved detrimental to the development of artists, so they are very concerned about that. The critics would have liked some amendments brought forward.

On the other side of that, large business groups, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Entertainment Software Association of Canada, and the Canadian Council of Chief Executives have expressed support for the bill, which doesn't surprise me. We have seen a tendency on the part of the government that when the Canadian Chamber of Commerce sort of barks, then these Conservatives tend to jump, whether that is on the skills development agenda, EI reform, or whatever it might be, and that seems to be the path the government follows.

Still, big players in the industry: Google, Bell and Rogers have all expressed support for the bill, in principle, but again, concerns around the digital provisions and the digital lock-out provisions.

Really, with the digital lock-out provisions, there is potential to make criminals out of ordinary Canadians. If a mom buys a DVD and has a movie for the kids, and she wants to put that on her iPad or she wants to put that on her computer and play it in the van, and many of the new vans are now equipped with that type of technology, she compromises herself and puts herself at risk for being charged for making a copy of that. Taking any kind of recording and having it burned onto a CD, after paying for the music, but just taking it and putting it in a different format now places an individual at risk of being charged criminally.

There was a chance to step back from those measures. Amendments were put forward at committee that would have averted that, but those amendments were totally disregarded.

I should not be surprised. I have been here long enough now and nothing about this should surprise me. The fact is that we were here for 23 hours, voting on amendments to a 450-page budget bill, a bill that impacted on the environment, on fisheries and oceans, on natural resources, and on many different sectors with changes in 70 different pieces of legislation, which went through. Not as much as a comma changed during the course of that debate. There were 800 amendments put forward. They were grouped into 150-odd groups for voting purposes, but there were 800 amendments and the government found none of them worthy.

When the government brought forward the omnibus bill on crime, my colleague from Mount Royal put forward a number of amendments in particular areas. There was one aspect of the bill that he was in total support of, and he offered the amendments only to enhance and improve that aspect of the legislation. They were totally dismissed by the government.

When the bill came back here for report stage, we know that the Minister of Justice tried to enter those exact same amendments at report stage and was ruled out of order by the Speaker. We know that when the bill went to the Senate, those amendments were put in at the Senate. Those changes were made, I believe, because they were in contravention of the charter. They did improve the legislation.

Therefore, the government used the back door. It used the Senate—

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Perhaps the hon. member can wind up through questions and comments.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's speech and some of the important aspects he is trying to get across. We have to realize that this is a very important piece of legislation that has to address an entire industry. We can only do that by trying to find a balance. That is what this legislation has effectively done, provide a balance with flexibility built in, so that when individual concerns come up, we are able to address them.

With respect to the legislation, we want to strengthen our ability to compete in the global digital economy. This is important for Canada because it is a global digital economy.

I hope the member understands that while the aspects he is bringing up are important, as the minister stated earlier, there is flexibility within the bill to deal with situations as they may arise, as the bill goes forward, and it attempts to provide the protection that is required by both the consumers and the industry to make us competitive globally.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the intervention and the comment from my colleague. These issues have been brought up and addressed, and amendments have been proposed at committee.

I will read into the record a quote from U.K. Professor Ian Hargreaves. He is the author of a 2011 report to the British government on intellectual property. In his presentation he states:

I don't think there is any doubt at all that there is a substantial online infringement problem. My own view is that a substantial online infringement problem will not be satisfactorily addressed until the law makes reasonable sense to reasonable people. Therefore, in the UK case for example, the continued unlawfulness of copying a song from a laptop to an MP3 player is something which has not been tenable for really quite some time. The law needs to be sensible.

That is what we are talking about here when we see a mom taking something off her laptop and burning it onto a DVD so that the kids can watch it in the van. She puts herself at risk of being charged criminally, and that is the reasonableness that I think we were hoping to attain.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague touched on something that is very important. We have to strike a balance. We have to protect creators. We have to ensure that they will get paid for their works.

I remember doing a press conference with Billy Bragg here in Ottawa. He was saying that as an artist he wanted to ensure that his fans would not be locked up and that they should be able to share music. However, we have to find a way to find that balance.

The government has put digital locks forward as a means of protection when we know the locks will not do so. They will actually interrupt that exchange that should be there.

Therefore, I would like to ask the member, could he share with me what he thinks would be a good balance? I think the government has it wrong. It is locking up that relationship between the artists and those who want to use the information. What is the balance, how do we get there, and how would he ensure that there is an equal playing field?

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Madam Speaker, my colleague cites the essence of the problem. It is in the balance. I am certainly no expert on this, but I have had an opportunity to speak to artists as well.

Rex Goudie, a fine upstanding young singer-songwriter from Newfoundland, a Canadian Idol runner-up, is driving a truck to supplement his income and develop as an artist. Artists are very concerned about the provisions in this legislation. Bruce Guthro, who has his own career, is concerned about it for other up-and-coming artists.

Certainly from the testimony I read, I do not believe the balance has been struck. I am comfortable where our party stands now, that we will not be supporting this legislation because there is an absence of balance in the legislation.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Madam Speaker, good morning, after a marathon of debate and voting in the last 30 hours.

I would like to focus on some of the practical everyday aspects and impacts of this bill, legislation which the Liberal Party of Canada will not be supporting.

There are a few things that viewers and people reading Hansard might want to know. This bill is a carbon copy of a previous copyright bill, old Bill C-32, which had been brought before the House. The government has refused to amend the bill in any way, shape, or form, either through legislative amendments put by parties, or based on the sound evidence and testimony given by folks who deal with this sector day in and day out.

Let us look at some of the testimony we heard at the industry committee just in the last seven days.

It deals with the question of digital locks. As my colleague said, it would say to families, housewives, fathers and single moms or dads that when taking their kids to a soccer tournament, for example, they would not be able to copy a film to play in the car during the eight-hour ride to Windsor. If they did make a copy, they would be subject to prosecution.

There are a couple of other elements.

We heard from the CEO of UBM TechInsights, which is an Ottawa-based world-class company. Its job is to protect intellectual property for creators and owners. It is sort of like a CSI crime lab. It helps inventors and owners in the intellectual property area.

Mr. Harry Page, the CEO of the company, explained to the committee that his company employs some very extensive reverse engineering technologies, so-called forensic techniques. They are used to help people identify instances where there is an infringement. It helps them prove that to enforce their intellectual property rights.

The problem, of course, is that the digital lock measures in the bill would prevent that company from breaking a digital lock even if it is placed on a device by someone who is pirating another company's hardware or software.

Why would the government want to make it illegal for a company like UBM TechInsights to break a digital lock to prove a theft, for example, on behalf of a client? It makes no sense. Why would the government aid and abet software pirates? Why is the government not protecting companies like UBM TechInsights that have hundreds of employees and carry out this work on a global basis?

There is another practical example of the impact this legislation would have.

Campus Stores Canada testified at committee. It is a major supplier of books in the academic settings across the country, in colleges, CEGEPs and universities. Its representative said that the bill would have a negative impact on more than 100 vendor and supplier associates. The Campus Stores Canada representative testified that the new copyright act would increase the cost of Canadian textbooks by as much as 15%.

I am blessed with four kids at home, three of whom are in college and university, and I can attest to my own kids' struggles with the cost of textbooks. They work at part-time jobs and search long and hard for used textbooks, which are often not available. They have to buy new textbooks every year. That is the way the teaching system works. It is hard for young people.

Why, as the Campus Stores Canada representative testified, would it want to bring in a 15% increase on the over one million students that it serves? Of course, the company does not want to do this, but this is another practical impact of what the government is pursuing.

There is a third example, and it was picked up on by my colleague a moment ago when he read into the record some testimony from Professor Ian Hargreaves. Professor Ian Hargreaves is not just another professor in the area of intellectual property. He was the person who conducted the definitive study in Britain last year on intellectual property. It is the number one study in the United Kingdom.

It is important for Canada to look to other jurisdictions to determine how they have done it comparatively. They are struggling with the same thing.

I want to re-emphasize what Professor Hargreaves said in committee in the last several days. It was basically that the notion that informs this legislation, which is something that the conservative movement has seized upon now in its present form for many years, is about tougher enforcement. The government is going to be tougher about enforcement. We often hear that, and we often ask why the government would not want to be as tough on the causes of crime, for example, as the government says it is on the crime itself.

Professor Hargreaves said that the United Kingdom has a law in place making it unlawful to copy a song from a laptop to an MP3 player. He basically said that this was a big mistake. It has not worked in the United Kingdom. He went on to say, “The continued unlawfulness of copying a song from a laptop to an MP3 player is something which has not been tenable for really quite some time. The law needs to be sensible.” The law he referred to as making “reasonable sense to reasonable people”.

We have a situation where the government, with full knowledge of other experiences in other jurisdictions, is simply saying it does not want to change or improve this bill. Perhaps the Conservatives are motivated by such partisanship that they cannot accept good amendments from other parties. It is very unfortunate if that is the case. Perhaps they are under inordinate pressure and undue influence from the United States, which has a very powerful entertainment industry. Perhaps they are under pressure from forces in Los Angeles and Hollywood that are very worried about the growth of Canada's film industry, of the success in Toronto and Vancouver and even in cities like my city, Ottawa, where increasing numbers of films and recordings are being pursued.

I do not know what the motivation is, but it is unfortunate that the government does not see fit to work with Parliament. That is why we come to work here every day. We come to work to improve things. We have here a case where the definitive author of the biggest study in the United Kingdom in years testified that it just does not work, so why do we not actually pursue another way?

That is why we put forward a number of amendments to try to overcome these difficulties. We ask again, why will the government not amend Bill C-11 to allow consumers to break a digital lock for personal use, for what we call non-infringing purposes? Why would the government want to send a signal to the millions of Canadians who occasionally copy this kind of material for personal use that they had better watch out because they are going to be hunted down? It sort of portrays, and I am not sure if it is ignorance or just an unwillingness to see where society is on these issues.

I have four teenage kids who spend a lot of time doing creative work, listening to creative work, participating in creative work. It is now part and parcel of what they do in school. It is part and parcel of what they do in society.

Seniors are increasingly turning to online solutions. Very many seniors in my riding of Ottawa South are now doing online banking. They are pursuing online entertainment searches. Some of them have mobility problems, or perhaps are disabled.

I do not understand why the government has this pig-headedness, this hard-headedness about not wanting to improve the bill based on these practical issues that have been raised and practical solutions that have been proffered by both the U.K. experience and by parliamentarians here on the floor.

I would like to close by saying that, yes, it is important to improve and modernize our Copyright Act, but it is not a serious venture when the government carbon copies the previous facsimile of it, brings it to the floor of the House, and says, “Here, do it again. We are not interested in improving this,” when there is goodwill and good faith to do so.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question.

Does he agree that this copyright reform has a lot in common with the policies of our neighbours to the south, and that it is basically a cut-and-paste job? Is the government essentially copying the American vision, adding nothing more than a “Royal Canadian” sticker?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Madam Speaker, first, we have to be very careful. Our American neighbours have their own interests at heart, and we have to respect that. In this case, it is clear that the Americans have had a major influence on the Conservative government.

Diplomatic cables recently revealed information showing that some parts of the Conservative bill were drafted to address concerns expressed by the American industry rather than issues of interest to Canadians. That is what is going on.

We have responsibilities here as Canadian lawmakers. We have to protect our own creative sector. Quebec, for example, has world-famous producers, filmmakers and writers.

We have to protect our own interests. I am not here to criticize American society, which has to protect its own interests. Still, it is outrageous that this bill has been influenced by so much pressure from the United States.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, one issue in the bill is of direct concern to people in my riding and across Alberta. We have a wonderful university called Athabasca University where everybody learns online. Students need to access materials online. The bill would digitally lock material, which would self-destruct within five days, and the course materials would have to be destroyed after no more than 30 days.

Could the hon. member speak to that? Does he think there should be accommodation? We want to protect creators. I have been an academic. We value the work of writers, but at the same time we want to try to encourage the people, particularly in aboriginal communities and isolated rural communities, to beef up their skills.

Surely there should be greater provisions to support those people who make an effort to further their education. They should be able to access that information for a longer time period.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Madam Speaker, when I first read these provisions in the bill, I was reminded of the beginning of the famous Mission Impossible series of films, in which the Mission Impossible person is asked to take on a mission, if he agrees to do so, at the end of which, once he agrees, the tape self-destructs in 30 seconds.

As a former university teacher, that is just not how learning works. Young people today use information of this kind that is available online and elsewhere and they learn in learning blocks. They often have to return to foundational learning blocks to build on them to make progress, particularly in our trade sector.

Information, when it comes to trade skills, learning skills that build one on the other to provide a good workforce for our Canadian economy, it is just not realistic to ask them to destroy material in that kind of timeline.

Again, it is not steeped in reality and perhaps not even steeped in the real interests of Canadians.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Madam Speaker, if there is time left, I will split my time with the hon. member for Brampton—Springdale.

I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-11, the copyright modernization act. I am proud to say that our government is moving ahead with copyright modernization legislation that addresses the challenges and opportunities of the Internet and other digital technologies, and will bring Canada's copyright laws up to international standards.

I would like to thank the hon. members of the legislative committee. We all sat together and worked hard in studying the bill. The amendments we adopted at the committee have strongly enhanced this bill.

Before I discuss the copyright modernization act, I would like to emphasize that until we pass this legislation, we will be stuck with a copyright law and regimen that are long overdue for reform.

The last time Canada's Copyright Act was substantively updated was in 1997. That was 15 years ago. Back then, VCRs and CDs were the norm. Words like “blog”, “tweet”, “iPad”, “WiFi” and “app” were not part of Canada's everyday vocabulary.

Since then, the Internet has radically transformed the way in which Canadians produce and access copyrighted material. Apps for mobile devices continually improve our access to content. Tablet devices allow readers to access e-books, e-magazines and other content. It seems like every day there is something newer, faster or better out there for creators and consumers.

We need to catch up and keep up with the rapid pace of technological change that touches upon all of our lives. The fact is that while Canadian businesses and consumers are making use of all kinds of new and innovative technologies, our copyright laws have simply not kept pace. An update is drastically needed. That is why we are modernizing the Copyright Act to bring Canada's copyright laws into the digital age.

We are taking a common sense approach to this modernization. We are taking a balanced approach that considers how Canadians create and use content, an approach that gives Canadians and Canadian creators, the innovators the tools they need to protect their investments. It is an approach that is responsive to the ever-evolving technological environment, I would like to stress, it is an approach that protects and helps create jobs, promotes innovation and attracts new investment to Canada. In short, we are taking an approach to copyright modernization that is going to help us succeed in a digital economy.

The challenge in modernizing any copyright law is striking just the right balance between the needs and interests of the various users, creators and intermediaries. We believe we have this balance just right.

Bill C-11 would give Canadian creators the tools they need to remain creative, innovative and competitive internationally. It contains a number of important provisions that would help Canada's creators reach new markets. It would also help them roll out new business models.

One way we will do this is by allowing creators to benefit from the full range of rights and protections that are established in the World Intellectual Property Organization Internet treaties, better known as WIPO. These treaties represent an international consensus on the standard of copyright protection, which is needed to respond to the challenges and opportunities of the Internet and other digital technologies. Implementing these rights will bring Canada in line with its G8 partners and most of the economies for the OECD. In short, implementing these rights will allow Canada's creators to compete on the global stage.

Beyond implementing the rights of the WIPO treaties, Bill C-11 would continue a number of measures that would help legitimate online businesses flourish and challenge illegitimate ones. For example, Bill C-11 introduces a new civil liability for those who enable online piracy. It does this by supplementing the existing provisions of the Copyright Act with new tools that make liability for enabling online piracy even clearer. I would note that this measure has been enhanced by the amendments that were adopted by the legislative committee studying Bill C-11. Thanks to the work of this committee, the bill clearly targets those who enable online copyright infringement.

Bill C-11 also ensures that Canadian Internet service providers will play a key role in curtailing online infringement. Canadian Internet service providers have developed a practice in which they forward a notice to their subscriber when a rights holder notifies the ISP that one of their subscribers has allegedly infringed upon their copyright. This practice is known as “notice and notice”. It is a Canadian solution to a worldwide problem.

Bill C-11 would formalize this notice and notice practice into law. Again, the committee that was studying Bill C-11 adopted an amendment that would improve the clarity of this provision. I would like to thank my colleagues on the committee for their hard work to ensure the effectiveness of the bill.

Let me emphasize that all of these measures, along with many others in the bill, would give creators the rights and protections they need to flourish in the digital economy of today and tomorrow.

Because Bill C-11 is about balance, it also includes a number of copyright exceptions. These exceptions allow Canadian consumers to legally benefit from digital technology. They serve the public interest and are responsive to the challenges and opportunities of the digital age.

There are a couple of exceptions in the bill. In particular, there are the exceptions that recognize the incredible potential that technology offers to Canadian educational institutions and students.

As an 18-year experienced educator, I can say that this copyright legislation will make massive improvements in the ability of teachers to instruct their students. It would allow teachers to connect with students in remote communities across the country through technology and enhanced learning opportunities. This would open the door for digital learning. It would enable students in rural and remote communities to access the same lessons as those in metropolitan centres. Furthermore, Bill C-11 would allow educators to make use of publicly available material from the Internet in their teaching activities and it would allow teachers to enjoy the flexibility to use copyrighted materials, together with innovative new classroom technologies such as smart boards.

Let me emphasize that these exceptions would contribute to an enriched educational experience for our students. Let me also emphasize that these educational exceptions are complemented by a number of other exceptions that legitimize many everyday activities for Canadian consumers in the digital age. For instance, the bill would give consumers the flexibility to copy legitimately acquired content, such as songs, to devices such as smart phones and MP3 players.

These exceptions are a key part of the government's approach to copyright modernization, an approach that is fair, balanced and relevant to today's technological world. In today's global economy, Canada must keep pace with the world as it races forward. Bill C-11 would help put us in the winning position in this global economy. It would contribute to an environment that fosters creativity, innovation and economic growth.

However, Let us not forget that we will have none of this until we pass this legislation.

The committee studying the bill has now completed its work. It has listened to Canadians, has reviewed the bill, has amended the bill and now we need to pass the bill. We need to complete our work on copyright modernization. I invite my colleagues to contribute to the swift passage of this legislation so we can bring Canada's copyright laws into the digital age.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, a great number of Canadians would be offended with the government's legislation and what it proposes to do. It is interesting how the government wants to make criminals out of so many members of our population.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Like the long gun registry.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

This is much more severe than that.

The government is proposing, through this legislation, to make it illegal for people to take a music disc and transfer it to their personal iPads or MP3 players, even though they purchased that disc from a music store. Many advocates have said this is the case. The government is telling 15- or 16-year-old students that they are not allowed to do this and if they do, they are committing a crime.

Why has the government neglected the consumer in advancing this bill?

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Madam Speaker, what the hon. member across the way is talking about is digital locks because his party does not support digital locks. Anyone who has ever downloaded a movie or video from iTunes, or a song, knows that we need digital locks to enable the companies to sell and get profits from their goods. That is how—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I would like to ask for some order while the hon. member has the floor to allow him to speak.

The hon. member for Cumberland.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate your intervention.

We are talking about digital locks, and that is how companies are going to make money and how creators get money for the objects they create. For example, when we download a movie from iTunes we have options. One option may be to purchase the movie and another may be to rent it. To do that, the company has to have a digital lock so it can have us either purchase it for $20 or rent it for $6. We have to be able to control the technology so the companies that are producing this, hiring people and creating jobs, can make a profit. That is also how creators of content make money. All we would do is set up a legal process so that companies can make money and creators can get paid.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to get into this digital lock issue a bit more. Granted there is the case, as my colleague pointed out, where we do have options of renting or buying, but there is an issue around sharing, and people believe there should be an ability to share.

However, my question about digital locks regards education. My colleague brought forward the idea of having an amendment so that people in education, particularly those with certain disabilities, would be able to access content. Right now in the bill, there would be a limit on that and the digital lock, as was explained by my colleague, is not a lock in itself but an algorithm. So after the content is used once, the student would have to get rid of it and could be charged. It is the same with libraries.

Does the member not think it would be a reasonable amendment to accommodate those who need to use this for education, particularly those who need it because of a disability?

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Madam Speaker, we have to make sure that those in our society who have disabilities have access to content the same as people who are hearing, seeing, who are not disabled. That is why we have some of these exceptions in the bill to support them. What we are asking is, if people break a digital lock in order to get content, particularly if they are disabled, that the provision would be that they repair that lock, so they could not just share it with other people, and the creator or the company would not get paid.

This legislation has gotten a lot of support from the education community. Paul Davidson, the president of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada says:

This bill reflects a fair balance between the interests of creators and users of copyrighted works and is a positive step forward for university communities across Canada. It clarifies the important questions and will help ensure students and learners have access to the content they need, including digital material.

It modernizes the educational industry so that we have the ability for creators and companies to make money, but also the students have the ability to get digital material.

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

It being 1:15, pursuant to an order made Tuesday, May 15, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the deferred recorded division shall be deferred to Monday, June 18, 2012, at the ordinary time of daily adjournment.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I ask that you see the clock at 1:30.

[The Deputy Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Is there unanimous consent to see the clock at 1:30?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from June 15 consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, be read the third time and passed.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-11.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #446

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)