Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) Committee on Nov. 25th, 2010

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Also, I would add, just very briefly, Mr. Chairman, that yes,

Internet service providers do have responsibilities, under this bill, and as part of our system. There is no doubt about that.

Service providers also have a responsibility to participate and must participate in the “notice and notice” regime that is part of this legislation as well, to help engage in the enforcement of intellectual property rights. This is an obligation that this legislation imposes on them to join with us, with all Canadians, in stepping up and confronting those who are doing the infringing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gord Brown]

Thank you, Minister.

We'll move to Mr. Lake for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm interested that all three opposition parties are continuing to talk about the iPod tax, and I'm going to start on that again. It's interesting to hear Mr. Rodriguez point to a levy as somehow not being the same as a tax. If we talk to our constituents and tell them that in addition to paying what they pay now for an iPod or a BlackBerry, they're going to pay some additional amount—$10, $20, $50, whatever it might be, even $75—my constituents are going to call it a tax and they're not going to be happy about it. I think we need to encourage Canadians to adopt new technology and to be able to purchase new technology, so they can consume the creative works they want to consume and can go out and purchase those creative works. That is what's going to further the interests of the industry, in my view anyway. It also seems to me to be something that's not covered in this bill. There are lots of great things that are covered in this legislation, and those are the things that we need to talk about.

At some point, Mr. Angus' private member's bill is going to come forward, and we can vote as we agree or don't agree with his legislation. Personally, I oppose that private member's bill, but certainly we can have a good debate on that when the time comes.

In terms of this bill and what it does, I just want to talk a little bit about the digital economy, particularly as it relates to students and the ability to flourish in an increasingly digital environment.

To Minister Clement, could you maybe highlight for us how Bill C-32 expands the ability of teachers and students to make use of digital technologies and copyrighted materials for the purpose of education?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Thank you.

I did describe already that education would obviously be included in fair dealing. This has been welcomed. I have a quote from the

Council of Ministers of Education, Canada, which says that this bill will allow students and teachers in schools and universities to have reasonable and fair access to resources available over the Internet.

That's the whole point, to expand the horizons of our education and scholarly pursuits to the 21st century. As I said, this will be a limited right, not an unfettered right, giving our educational institutions the ability to take in other means of collecting material for the specific uses demarcated in the legislation. I think that's a good thing for our ability to compete; it's a good thing for our students as well as our scholars.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mike, if I might, I would just add a little more momentum to that, especially on the education side. I say so because I think I didn't address Marc Garneau's comments. He raised the issue of education and that the Liberals are considering an amendment to this. Obviously, we'll wait to see the language of what's proposed, but we think this strikes an appropriate balance.

I had meetings this past week in my office with book publishers and those who are concerned about what the fair dealing provisions in the legislation might mean for them. Again, I know this is technical and complicated, and that's why copyright and intellectual property law is so difficult, in trying to imagine the unintended consequences going forward. That's why I'll bridge back to what I said in my opening comments about the five-year renewal of this legislation, that we'll learn some things as we go forward. This is not a case of our sitting here in the last week of November 2010 and saying we know for sure what the world will look like. We want to have an ongoing engagement on this.

But on the education provisions you mentioned, Mike, I just want to make sure that the committee knows that the Council of Ministers of Education, the ministers of education from across the country, came together and endorsed this legislation, Bill C-32, because they said this legislation “allows students and educators in elementary and secondary schools, colleges, and universities to have fair and reasonable access to...materials” that they need. And the Canadian Association of Research Libraries said they applaud the government because we have “respond[ed] to the copyright reform concerns expressed by the library and education community”. Students' organizations have also come out in support of this legislation because they think it helps students.

Now again, counterbalancing that with the needs of those who are providing and creating the educational materials is something that we've done our best to do in this legislation, but we think so far it strikes the right chord from what we've heard in our consultations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gord Brown]

Thank you very much, Minister.

We'll move to

Mr. Cardin, from the Bloc Québécois, who has five minutes.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

Mr. Clement, Mr. Moore, I listened to your presentation and, from the very beginning, I've had the sense that we are talking, not so much about the Copyright Act, but about a bill on technological developments which is intended to help business.

We basically were asking whether you had done an extensive impact study in order to determine what creators would be losing, permanently, if Bill C-32 were to pass. There are income losses for artists here, but nothing is being offered in the way of assistance. There are net losses.

Also, Mr. Lake is comparing renumeration for artists and creators. They talk about a tax. Of course consumers will have to pay, but they are always the ones who pay. The users are always the ones who pay. They pay us and they pay you.

A survey was done in January, 2010, and not by just anyone; it was carried out by the Praxicus Public Strategies firm founded in 1999 by the Conservative pollster Dimitri Pantazopoulos. The results are pretty clear: 67% of Canadians support the idea of paying musical creators for private copies; 71% of Canadians feel that the current 29¢ levy on blank compact discs is fair to consumers; 71% of Canadians support royalties of between $10 and $20 for MP3s and iPods. You say that you're trying to defend consumers, but the fact is that they are willing to compensate artists and creators who create works for them.

Have you really assessed the economic repercussions of this bill for creators and the artistic community?

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Yes, but it's difficult to calculate that fully. We are talking about technologies that change on a daily basis. You would like to identify the financial consequences for each and every artist since the advent of MP3 players, but it is absolutely impossible.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to raise a point of order, if I may, because the fact is we are here to talk about Bill C-32. What you are talking about is not included in this bill. We are not blind, but when we held our consultations, we listened to what people had to say.

As I was pointing out to Ms. Lavallée, no group brought forward balanced proposals reflecting the interests of both consumers and creators. When the bill was tabled on June 2, we forwarded it to all Bloc Québécois MPs and every member of Parliament in the House of Commons. So, if you have comments on the bill, we are interested in hearing them.

We know that Mr. Angus has presented his own views and that he would like there to be royalties paid through the creation of a new tax on iPods and other technologies. We do not agree with him.

If you have any ideas, we would like to hear them. However, what you are referring to has nothing to do with the bill, because we have not included that in this policy. In fact, it's impossible to--

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

How can my question be out of order? We're talking about the Copyright Act. Yes, there are new technologies, but we're talking about the Copyright Act and we also have to protect copyright, which is a form of remuneration for artists and creators who want to disseminate their work, but also want to be paid.

However, why not try to address the technology issue by considering the technical aspect of this, which is the need to protect the remuneration of authors and creators and the dissemination of their work. How can a question about wanting to protect copyright and remunerate our artists be out of order?

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Let me put it this way. Let me give you a specific example that I think the vast majority of Canadians can understand.

You're saying that artists are losing income because of the advancement of new technologies, so therefore new technologies should have a new fee imposed on them. Did you know that in Canada one of the largest sources of distribution of music right now, electronically, with the consent of the creator is Facebook? What kind of tax or new levy would you put on Facebook to compensate artists who are circulating their music on Facebook? How does that work?

Pandora and Stitcher, these new digital apps that are on iPods and iPhones--how do you propose to do that?

I am trying to be as objective and empathetic as I can to the stated goal and concern, but how do you attach a solution to that?

When artists come forward with an idea and they say they want to have as many people buy tickets to their concert as possible, so they are going to put their music online, and somebody takes that music and puts links to it on Facebook.... People are losing income because a song is being circulated to people's friends list on Facebook. How do you put a fee or a levy on Facebook? How do you actually do that? If you wanted to, how do you do that? This is the question that we asked during consultations. How do you actually achieve the goal? You're identifying a problem and that's great. Identifying a problem...that and 50¢ will get you a cup of coffee. We can do that all day. But our job as legislators is.... If you're going to identify a problem and say the government has to act—well, you're a legislator as well. If you have an idea about how we do this, we're open to your proposal. I don't know how to put it.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Well, Minister, this is only our first meeting, and you--

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Fair enough. But you've had the bill for five months. It's our first meeting, but you've had the bill for five months. I don't know how you propose to put a levy on Facebook and think that's good for consumers or artists.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gord Brown]

That's going to have to be it.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank Minister Clement and Minister Moore for appearing today.

We will suspend for a few moments while the table is cleared, and then we are going to hear from departmental officials.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gord Brown]

We're going to call back to order this third meeting of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-32.

We have before us now departmental officials from both Canadian Heritage and the Department of Industry. We have Jean-Pierre Blais, Barbara Motzney, John Connell, and Colette Downie.

To our officials, you have the floor.

[John Connell, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Sector, Department of Industry]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Pierre and I would like to present a short overview deck on Bill C-32, and I'd like to begin with three messages.

The first is one of thanks to you, the members of the special committee that's been established to review the bill. We know you've made a significant commitment, given the strong interest in the bill among Canadians. Your scrutiny, your time, and your effort are invaluable to us in the public service.

The second is, as officials, we'd be pleased to meet the committee at any time for technical briefings or bilaterally with any member of the committee to answer questions you might have. I find the field of copyright is both wide and complex, and as public servants our interest and duty are to help you understand the need for legislative amendments and all the issues that arise.

The third is that it's time for Canada to modernize its copyright law. There is a variety of reasons to do so, ranging from lining up with best practices and obligations that Canada has internationally, to reflecting advances in new digital technologies. We think this Parliament has a historic opportunity to update the Copyright Act and the Departments of Canadian Heritage, Industry, and other interested departments will spare no effort in assisting you in this task.

Turning to page 2 of the deck, in the last Speech from the Throne, the government committed to strengthening the laws that govern intellectual property and copyright “to encourage new ideas and protect the rights of Canadians whose research, development and artistic creativity contribute to Canada's prosperity”.

This bill will modernize the Copyright Act. It will provide clear copyright rules to support creativity and innovation, as well as contribute to economic growth and job creation. The bill offers a balanced approach between the rights and interests of users and the creative community to grow and prosper in the growing digital economy in response to a wide array of views and issues that were raised by Canadians in 2009.

I'd like to emphasize that Bill C-32 strives toward a common sense middle ground. It will be impossible to accommodate all known interests and proposals, and victory on this bill will be very much defined by where Parliament finds the centres on the issues before you.

Again, we look forward to assisting you with that task.

[Jean-Pierre Blais, Assistant Deputy Minister, Cultural Affairs, Department of Canadian Heritage]

Thank you, Mr. Connell.

I would just like to echo the comments of my colleague and say that we are here to support the committee with its work.

We will be sharing the presentation this morning. I am on page 3 now, but before I begin, I would also like to mention that we have an additional presentation, which has been given to the clerk, regarding the current Copyright Act. So, if members would like to know how the act is structured now, before any amendments, we are ready to take any questions dealing with that.

I know, however, there are a lot of committee members who are very familiar with copyright in general, but should you want a briefing on copyright as it stood before the proposals, we're more than willing to do that.

To continue, on page 3 of the presentation, one of the key objectives of the bill is to, obviously, modernize the act. As others have mentioned, the last major reform of the act dates back to 1997, and there has been widespread change to the technology since then.

There is a genuine attempt to try to address the interests of Canadians, and Canadians, in this, have a variety of perspectives. Many Canadians are artists and creators. Others are consumers or users of content. So there are a variety of perspectives from Canadians.

We've also attempted to ensure the law is forward-looking and flexible, because it does have a broader impact. Yes, copyright is important to creation and culture, but as we move forward towards a knowledge economy, the economy of tomorrow, it's also important as a framework legislation, whether it's in the area of manufacturing or natural resources, more traditional areas of economic growth. Even those sectors rely on copyright in one way or another.

As well, we've attempted, to the extent possible, to make the legislation technologically neutral so that the law is more adaptable to future developments. Needless to say, the law is itself driven by change in technologies. So it is a response, as many of the previous changes to copyright legislation have been in the past, to technological change.

On page 4 you can see that much of the content of the new bill is driven by the two Internet treaties of the late 1990s. One dealt with copyrighted works, and the other one dealt with neighbouring rights, which are very similar to copyrighted works but are dealt with in a separate treaty.

The whole approach to international copyright has two purposes. One is to give nationals from foreign jurisdictions national treatment in Canada. But it's also a movement, over a number of years, to create certain norms as to what each country that is a signatory of the treaties should protect over time. So as part of that normative process, the bill introduces a number of rights.

In particular, it will institute new rights, including the distribution right, to control the unauthorized distribution of copyright material. Amendments relating to this change are found in clauses 4, 9 and 11.

It adds the making available right, which grants the exclusive right to offer copyrighted material over the Internet—clause 9. Moral rights are added, along with a clear reproduction right for performers, through clause 10.

Furthermore, it adds new protections, notably in clause 47, which are quite considerable: provisions that prohibit the circumvention of digital locks, with public interest and competition exceptions and a specific carve-out for cell phones.

It also prohibits the removal of rights management information, such as digital watermarks—clause 47.

It increases the term of protection for performers and producers—clause 17—and harmonizes the rights of photographers with other creators, with an exception for private use of commissioned photographs—clauses 6, 7 and 38.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Do we have this deck?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Which one are you presenting?

[Jean-Pierre Blais]

It's an overview entitled “Copyright Modernization Act”.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Unfortunately, we don't have that deck.

Could we get a copy of the deck being presented? Is it available in both official languages?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gord Brown]

One moment.

[Jean-Pierre Blais]

Yes, that's the one.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

I'm trying to figure out where you are, but I'm having trouble. Because it's not the same format.

[Jean-Pierre Blais]

My apologies. I was on page 4. It's not paginated.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Oh, I see.