Ms. Levy, do you know why the Copyright Act is complicated? It's because we don't clearly see the underlying principles or the orientation the current Minister of Canadian Heritage wants to take with his new copyright bill, which we have in front of us and which will be introduced in a few weeks or months.
And yet it's simple for the Bloc québécois. We have three principles. The first is that artists, creators and crafts people must be compensated for their work. In our minds, that's fundamental. Creators must also be able to create rather than sue people who violate their copyright. The second principle is to promote dissemination, in all possible ways, while bearing in mind that music and works of art are not free of charge. Lastly, we must discourage professional pirates and little crooks who consider these works free of charge. If we created a new Copyright Act by taking these three principles into consideration, I believe that creators, artists and crafts people would be well served.
You also talked about fair use and fair dealing. I'm pleased to have the opportunity to talk about them. I find this complicated. I've asked people to explain the difference between those terms to me. I've been told the following: fair dealing corresponds to the Canadian act as we know it. The French translation of that is “utilisation équitable”. The list of exemptions would be closed. Fair use apparently corresponds to the American system as we currently know it. The translation of that is “usage équitable”. The list of exemptions would be open. There is the use of the expression “such as”, which is translated in French as “notamment”. In Canada, some people have said that England, Australia and New Zealand studied it and then rejected it.
I would like to know whether my interpretation of those two definitions and my explanation are correct.