Bill C-11 Committee on March 12th, 2012

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

A new one?

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Another amendment to clause 27?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

It's not one that has been presented before, so it would be a new amendment.

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

Are you accepting movement from the floor for amendments?

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

It's up to the committee.

Then, okay.

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

This is—

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

I just need it in writing at some point, Mr. Angus.

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

That is it.

Again, in terms of trying to clarify so that we're being fair, we're concerned about the 30-day provision as problematic, and what we would say is that it be amended to, “(a) destroy any publicly available fixation of the lesson within a reasonable time after the conclusion of the course to which the lesson relates”. That would allow more flexibility within the educational institution to set some of their standards—that it would be within a reasonable time as opposed to the 30-day provision.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

We will suspend for a brief second so that we can take a look at the amendment.

On the amendment, as presented, is there any further discussion on the amendment?

(Amendment negatived)

Are there any further amendments or discussion on clause 27?

(Clause 27 agreed to on division)

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Is there discussion on clause 28?

(Clause 28 agreed to on division)

(On clause 29)

On clause 29, we are opening it up for discussion.

Is there any general discussion on the clause?

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

We'll be moving a motion.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Okay, but right now, we're looking for discussion.

Seeing no discussion on clause 29, we'll move to NDP amendment 7.

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

Thank you.

We feel that once again the government is overreaching, and that will probably impact the ability of libraries, and the transfer of information and education to develop. We are concerned about the five-day limit provision because it doesn't exist in the analog world.

Let's say I send away to a small library in Red Deer, and ask for someone's memoirs that are on file so I can research them. They make me a copy and send it to me in an analog paper form. I have it for 30 or 40 days to do the work. But if they send me a digital copy, I only have it for five days. I think that's unnecessary and impractical, especially for so many people who are doing their own research now in the areas of law and medicine. If they are getting documents and have only five days to use them, it's pretty much useless.

We're also concerned about the vagueness of the phrase “take measures”, because it could put restrictions on smaller libraries. Every library has a collection of some sort, but not every library has the ability to impose the “take measures” by putting on a technological protection measure to ensure the five days will be met. If there's a technological protection measure, it will just make whatever is transmitted go “poof” after five days. It makes it very difficult to transfer this information without extra added responsibility and potential liability on those who are making the PDF, as opposed to a paper copy.

We believe the issue should be to at least clarify it, and to send a notification that you're not allowed to make extra copies. You're not allowed to make use of the work that is being transmitted, except for the personal study of the person who requested it. This is simply more reasonable and will allow libraries and education to carry on the great work they're doing.

I'll pass it on to Monsieur Nantel.

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

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.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Thank you, Monsieur Nantel.

Just a reminder that when you're presenting in either official language, take into consideration our interpreters so they can ensure they are getting the right information across.

Before I open this up for further discussion, I need to inform the committee that this amendment now has a line conflict with Liberal amendment 8. So if this amendment is adopted, we cannot proceed with LIB-8.

Is there any further discussion on NDP-7?

Mr. Regan.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chairman, in spite of that conflict you've proposed, in the unlikely event that this or the next one passes, I want to indicate my support for this amendment. It's my view and my party's view that the present section in the bill would create significant regulatory and administrative burdens for libraries.

By the way, I'm going to try to help the interpreters by speaking as slowly as I can. I normally speak at about 200 words a minute, with gusts up to 400, so I'll do my best to keep that under control.

The present provision forces you to make a mechanical copy, so it would not in fact be technologically neutral, which is something that otherwise the bill is trying to achieve, I think. The fact is you can still have one copy, but it has to be a paper copy. That makes no sense to me in this digital age.

Also, this five-day rule does not conform to any research schedule, and it would primarily be researchers who would be affected by these provisions.

It seems to me that amending this as proposed would make it better for innovation in Canada.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Thank you, Mr. Regan.

Any further discussion?

Mr. Lake.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I'll point out that the idea of this is to create an opportunity for libraries. It's about the opportunity. With that opportunity comes some balance that's needed to make sure there's no abuse of copyright through that.

That's what this provision does, so we will not be supporting the amendment.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Thank you, Mr. Lake.

Any further discussion on this amendment? I will then call the question.

(Amendment negatived)

Now moving on to amendment Liberal 8.

Mr. Regan, you will be moving this amendment?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

I move this amendment. For the same reason as I stated, it's a bit of a different way of achieving the same objective. I think it would achieve it effectively, so I therefore move it.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Thank you, Mr. Regan.

Any further discussion on this amendment?

Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you. It's similar to ours, so I will support it.

One surprise from the Conservatives is that they're saying they're offering libraries an opportunity. The libraries already have it. The digital realm is being developed. It seems what they're doing is putting a roadblock in front of them and saying that now they have to be responsible.

I don't think I would ever suggest that libraries have been irresponsible. This is about the exchange of information, and it is ongoing. We are adding an arbitrary limitation of five days. It has had no verifiable research to back up why it's five days—not seven days, not ten days, but five days. It would make it virtually useless for anybody doing course studies or real-time research.

I think this is not an opportunity; it's an unnecessary interference.

[The Chair, NDP, Glenn Thibeault]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

There are approximately four minutes for any further discussion from the New Democrats.

Seeing none, any discussion?

I will ask for a show of hands when I call the question.

(Amendment negatived)

Moving back to clause 29, is there any further discussion on the clause?

Seeing none, shall clause 29 carry?

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

On division.

(Clause 29 agreed to on division)