Evidence of meeting #10 for Bill C-11 (41st Parliament, 1st Session) in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Glenn Thibeault
Is there any further discussion on the amendment G-1? Once, twice. Sold.
I'll then call the question.
Just one second, please. I'm just making sure I have clarification on the speaking times.
I'm calling the question now.
Shall clause 12 carry as amended?
3:45 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Glenn Thibeault
On the amendment first, my apologies.
So the amendment is carried on division.
(Amendment agreed to on division)
Now, we will open it up.
Is there any discussion on clause 12 as amended?
Seeing none, I will then ask, shall clause 12 carry as amended?
3:50 p.m.
NDP
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Mr. Chair, I move that we pass clauses 13 through 17.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Glenn Thibeault
I would need consent from the committee to move forward on clauses 13 through 17.
All in favour?
3:50 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Glenn Thibeault
On division. Thank you.
(Clauses 13 to 17 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 18)
Clause 18 is now open for discussion.
Mr. Lake.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
I will move government amendment 2. Again, I'll go to the officials for an exclamation.... Exclamation, I'm having a tough time—
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
—with the word “explanation”. I'd ask them for an explanation of the effect of this amendment on the bill.
3:50 p.m.
Senior Policy Analyst, Copyright and International Intellectual Property Policy Directorate, Department of Industry
This amendment would amend the new liability provision in relation to enablers of copyright infringement. It would amend the current wording so that it removes the terminology around “designed” and would focus on providing a service primarily for the purposes of enabling acts of copyright infringement.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Could you maybe elaborate a little bit on testimony from the committee that this amendment seeks to address?
3:50 p.m.
Senior Policy Analyst, Copyright and International Intellectual Property Policy Directorate, Department of Industry
There have been concerns raised in relation to the use of the term “designed”. In order to ensure that there are no misinterpretations of what the policy intent was in relation to use of the term “designed”, alternate wording is being used that focuses on the providing of this service primarily for the purpose.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Mr. Chairman, the difficulty I have with this is that the word “provide” here—it says “to provide a service primarily for the purpose of enabling acts of copyright infringement”, suggests intent. It's a question of how it's offered, as opposed to how it's being used.
Don't you see a possible problem there if, in fact, a site is primarily used for a purpose that is infringing?
3:50 p.m.
Senior Policy Analyst, Copyright and International Intellectual Property Policy Directorate, Department of Industry
The way the provision is intended to function is that there would be an intent, in relation to providing the service. That the provision of that service would be primarily for the purpose of enabling acts of infringement.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
The problem with that, it seems to me, would be if the intent in providing it is not that, but its use ends up being that. Isn't that also what you're trying to avoid here?
3:50 p.m.
Senior Policy Analyst, Copyright and International Intellectual Property Policy Directorate, Department of Industry
I think, as well, that it's important to keep in mind—as you can see in the factors listed under proposed subsection 2.4 in the same provision—that there is a need, as well, to ensure that entities not targeted by the provision are not caught by the provision. I think that's probably....
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Okay, but isn't an entity that is primarily used for the purpose of infringing...? Why would you not want such an entity to be caught by this provision?
March 12th, 2012 / 3:50 p.m.
Gerard Peets Acting Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Strategic Policy Sector, Department of Industry
It's difficult for us to comment on these kinds of “why” questions, as they aim at what the government's policy intent was with this....
