Yes, the New Democratic Party hopes that libraries and their users can benefit from the advantages the digital world offers to students. The fact that the members opposite want to control the flow of digital information might instead punish them by forcing libraries to make an impossible choice between a huge increase in risk and a huge increase in cost.
Once again, we are painting a bleak picture of a paranoid government that does not trust its people. We see that a number of provisions in this bill, including those requiring teachers and students to destroy documents, as well as the all-too-ambitious control objectives for inter-library loans, are part of a bigger picture that encompasses all the mistrust that we have seen with this bill designed to spy on Internet users.
The provisions on inter-library loans are inconsistent with the role of libraries, just like the people from the Canadian Association of Law Libraries said last week. They said that “libraries are not responsible for ensuring how people use materials”.
The proposed clause 29 will force libraries to take on a major responsibility in terms of preventing borrowers from using copyright protected materials fraudulently. The wording of the bill suggests that libraries will have to take measures to prevent borrowers from reproducing or sharing works with someone else. It also says that libraries have to make sure that borrowers cannot use a digital copy for more than five days.
It seems to me that the Conservatives' response to any type of knowledge exchange is to impose digital locks. Libraries should not be forced to develop digital locks and to put them on the works they lend out. This measure is particularly unjust, given that many of them are facing considerable spending reductions and that they might be forced to redirect resources from other areas to managing digital locks specifically. As a result, libraries could be in breach of the Copyright Act because of violations committed by borrowers. The NDP amendment changes the responsibility of libraries from taking action to “prevent” to taking action to “advise” users of unauthorized uses.
As a result, the responsibility to respect copyright is back where it should be, in the hands of individuals. This amendment removes a responsibility that could be dangerous for libraries. Finally, it eliminates the five-day limit on borrowing digital materials. This arbitrary measure is prohibitive and goes against the needs of students and researchers.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.