Debates of Oct. 18th, 2011

Copyright Modernization Act

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. minister's question about the number of emails. I do not know how quickly she reads but I have not had the time to read all those emails to be able to tell her what aspects of the bill each one is dealing with. However, I can say that there was massive opposition. Yesterday my office received 2,900 emails on this topic, and the vast majority of them were opposed to the bill and opposed to the government's position on the bill. It is a remarkable number but it shows the kind of interest there is in this bill.

We have had so much input on this we would have thought that a government that wanted to hear about the bill, that was open to change, open to considering ways to improve the bill would have listened to some of those comments and adopted some changes in the bill it brought forward. We do not see that.

The Conservatives claim there are good things, but virtually anything good they have done here is ruined by the fact that digital locks apply to them and people cannot get at them.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech. I have the pleasure of serving with him on the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, which, of course, studies science and technology.

I would like to know if the hon. member feels that the bill before us considers technological advances, and all the new technologies that are popping up and evolving every day. Does he feel that this bill addresses the rapid evolution of the technologies currently used to disseminate culture and all the elements covered by this bill?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member, with whom I am pleased to serve on the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

Many technological advances have had an impact on copyright; therefore, it is necessary to create a new bill and make some changes. However, what we are seeing in the bill before us today is that the government has not accepted or does not truly recognize the changes that give people a variety of ways to do things nowadays.

For example, as I have already said, a mother may want to transfer a movie from a DVD to her PlayBook or iPad so that her children can watch it during a long trip. But under this bill she cannot do that.

That example shows me that the government does not really recognize technological change or understand its implications.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Madam Speaker, it still befuddles me, 3,000 emails in one day. I would like to help the member go through them because if there are 3,000 concerned people who are not writing to the rest of us on this, I would be quite curious to see what some of the concerns are. We have done many consultations and addressed many of the issues. I have not seen petitions with that many names. I find it very difficult to believe there were 3,000 people who wrote on that particular item.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, if the member wants to come to my office we can talk about this and she can talk to my staff. I would suggest, rather than do that, she might want to talk to the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Canadian Heritage who also received most of these emails; in most cases, I was copied on the messages to them.

[An hon. member]

That is an issue of copyright.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, someone mentioned that is an issue of copyright. My hon. friend from Windsor is joking about that, of course.

The member may want to check with the offices of those ministers. If the ministers are not aware of the emails that have been received, perhaps she should talk to their staff. I think she will find there has been a huge number of emails. Perhaps they have received more than I have. It would not surprise me.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have known the member for many years and I believe the veracity of his receiving those emails. I do not understand why it is that important anyway in the sense of asking a question. However, it is important to talk about the issue of long-distance learning.

I used to work on behalf of persons with disabilities. Regarding the learning supports they require, I am very worried that people would have to burn their notes and their programs after 30 days. People with a learning disability review their work time after time to ensure that the lesson has been instilled and that they do not forget it. Even an ordinary person would do that, but for those with a special learning disability it might take extra effort. I would like my colleague to reflect on that.

I have a real problem with this. I think it is a person's right to be able to get the education and reuse it for the rest of his or her life. It is called lifelong learning. I know that the Conservatives do not really believe in that, but many people in Canada do. This is a very important issue that people with disabilities will have to deal with.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, in fact, as the hon. member will see in the motion we put forward, one of the areas we address is education. One of the things I talked about was people with disabilities.

I gave a similar example of a young person who perhaps is visually impaired. Under this law, that person would not be permitted to transfer a text into a format he or she could read because that would require the person to circumvent a digital lock. The government would fine the person for doing that. Someone could be fined $5,000 under the bill for doing that.

Does that make sense? Is that a way to go forward in education? I think not.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Madam Speaker, I just have a comment.

First of all, that is completely incorrect. There is an exception to the digital lock provisions as they relate to people with perceptual disabilities. The hon. member may want to actually read the legislation.

I want to read a quote from a senior Liberal and I would like the hon. member's feedback on it. John Manley said that overall, the “copyright modernization act reflects an appropriate balance among the needs of creators, distributors, consumers and society as a whole, and for that reason, I encourage members of Parliament to move forward with it as expeditiously as possible.”

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the quote and the point my hon. colleague has made on the question of what happens to digital locks for people with disabilities. I certainly look forward to the discussion in committee on this, if the bill gets there. My hope is that it will not. In fact, I think this bill is fundamentally flawed and I disagree with those who feel otherwise.

Of course, when someone speaks on behalf of his or her organization, I would not be surprised that the person would take a certain point of view, as Mr. Manley has done in speaking on behalf of his organization. It reminds me of what we see from the Conservative MPs generally who tend to speak only the words they are given to speak by the Prime Minister's Office and stay very close to the party line.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, here we have another bill to modernize copyright, the same bill that was introduced by the industry minister on June 2, 2010. The short title of the bill is the Copyright Modernization Act, but I do not think this is the right title; it should have been called the digital lock act or the padlock act, based on what happened in the past.

It was about time that the government introduced, in legislation, the principles contained in the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, which Canada signed on December 22, 1997. Unfortunately, the Conservative government used this as an opportunity to include several provisions that undermine the foundation of copyright. The Copyright Act is the legal foundation that ensures that creations can be reproduced, presented and communicated to the public while guaranteeing proper compensation for their creators.

The people most overlooked by this digital lock legislation—which is being passed off as copyright legislation—are the creators. To weaken copyright by creating a series of exceptions that allow people to use creations without authorization or any financial compensation is tantamount to preventing a group of workers from earning a living from their trade. I will talk later about the financial repercussions of this bill's provisions on creators.

This bill also does away with collectives, a tool that artists created for themselves to facilitate access to their creations in full compliance with their rights. It also jeopardizes cultural industries by cutting off their supply of creations and by preventing them from developing markets that meet the needs of consumers while protecting their investments.

The bill contains over 40 new exceptions, most of which mean no compensation for creators, and this flies in the face of a fundamental principle, specifically, that as soon as a creation is used, there is no reason the creator should not be paid. It is simple; it is clear. That is the basis of copyright.

A royalty is not a tax. Since the start of this debate, the Conservatives have been trying to make the link between royalties and taxes. They are not the same thing. Every industry, to varying degrees, benefits from government assistance through investment, research and development tax credits, and also direct subsidies. Just look at the aerospace, agri-food and information technology industries, to name a few.

Cultural industries are no different. All these industries fiercely protect their intellectual property under the Patent Act, the Industrial Design Act, the Copyright Act or any other intellectual property protection legislation.

What ends up happening? Everyone, as taxpayers or consumers, pays for using the creations of these companies, whether we are talking about software, drugs or iPods, since royalties are included in the price of the product or the price of the software licence, for example.

What is wrong with paying royalties for using music, images, videos and books? The creators of that material are entitled to compensation, just as teachers are entitled to their salary and the mason who repairs the school wall is entitled to his pay.

It is not a tax; it is a royalty we pay to the copyright holder, as we do for many creators in a number of different fields. With all the new technology at our disposal, we have to stop thinking of ourselves simply as consumers of the creation of others. If we write a short story or a novel, compose a song or invent something, we would obviously like to receive fair payment for our creation, our work.

Creators are inventors. They have patents on their creations and are entitled to their fair share. That is why we have to “think different”, in the words of the famous Apple slogan. Let us hope this slogan inspires us to follow through.

I will quickly go over the provisions of this bill and the various exceptions discussed—there are about 40—which will deprive creators, artists, composers, musicians and photographers of the royalties to which they are entitled. I should also mention writers.

What is the significance of broadening the concept of fair dealing for the purpose of education, parody or satire? This will obviously go before the courts. They will have to define the scope of this section. In the meantime, uncertainty will persist and users, especially teachers, as well as copyright holders, will wonder about permitted uses. I already said in another presentation that, with the arrival of the majority Conservative government, with the building of new prisons, these Conservatives will invent new crimes to fill their prisons. There are several new crimes in this bill. We did not know they were crimes, but now we have punishments. Things we do on a daily basis will be criminalized and punished.

This provision affects monies collected by the Société québécoise de gestion collective des droits de reproduction—Copibec; the Society for Reproduction Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers in Canada; and the Quebec Collective Society for the Rights of Makers of Sound and Video Recordings. All these organizations appeared before the committee, but the government did not use anything from their presentations. Instead, the government decided to borrow from provisions implemented in the United States. The Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, or SOCAN, and the Société québécoise des auteurs dramatiques are also opposed to this provision, as are the Producers' Audiovisual Collective of Canada, Audio Ciné Films and Criterion Pictures when it comes to the reproduction of literary, artistic, dramatic, musical and audiovisual works, the public performance of musical and audiovisual works, and the presentation of dramatic works in educational institutions.

What about lost royalties in Quebec because of the broadening of the concept of fair dealing? In fact, what is fair dealing? The law does not specify what is meant by fair dealing. This will result in the loss of $11 million annually for creators and copyright owners. Every year schools, CEGEPs and universities make 175 million copies of excerpts from protected works.

Let us remember that fair dealing is a loose concept that will put an end to the right to grant or deny authorization to use a work and the right to receive remuneration for the use of a work, thus affecting the rights of 23,000 authors and 1,000 publishers in Quebec.

The Conservatives are opening Pandora's box. The education sector is very large. It does not make any sense. If people can photocopy books for educational purposes without providing compensation, no one will want to write books. Furthermore, since the term “education” is not defined in the bill, this new exception could apply to any sort of educational activity and not just to activities carried out within the school system.

Another exception is reproduction for private purposes. An individual may reproduce a legally obtained work on any medium or device and provide access for private purposes. The government could have chosen, as the artists and performers have requested, to expand the existing compensation system for transferring a sound recording to blank media such as cassettes, but it chose to make it free.

We know that, right now, when we make a copy of a work on a disk, royalties are paid to the creators—29¢ on each CD, for example. Obviously, with the growth in virtual storage methods, the revenue from royalties has disappeared like snow on a warm day, dropping from $27 million to $8 million in a few years. There is nothing in this bill to compensate for these losses.

Creators are dismayed to see, in a copyright bill, that the only thing the government is concerned about recognizing is not copyright, but digital locks. The number of blank cassettes and DVDs sold is declining steadily, the amounts redistributed to creators are falling, and creators’ associations are hoping that a similar royalty will be applied to the purchase of devices like personal stereos, as was said in committee, based on the size of the hard drive or flash memory. The existing private copying regime does not affect those devices, however; only the recording media. And fewer and fewer media are being used.

The use of photographs is another exception that has been criticized by photographic artists. An individual may use for private or non-commercial purposes, or permit the use of for those purposes, a photograph or portrait that was commissioned by the individual for personal purposes and made for valuable consideration, unless the individual and the owner of the copyright in the photograph or portrait have agreed otherwise.

On the question of later viewing, an individual may reproduce a work that is being broadcast for the purpose of listening to or viewing it later. Only one copy may be made and the individual may not keep the recording any longer than is reasonably necessary in order to listen to or view it later.

To summarize, I make a copy of a recorded program that I have paid for in order to watch it later, but I would not be entitled to retain the copy any longer than is necessary for the later use. How can that be verified, and who is going to do it? Who is going to make sure that I do not keep the copy indefinitely or I do not lend it to my neighbours? If I lend it to my neighbour, is that going to be a crime liable to a $5,000 fine? If I look at the criminal provisions in the bill, that might well be the case. I would become a criminal if I lent a program to one of my friends. I think the penalty applied to this type of conduct is excessive in the circumstances.

With respect to backup copies, the owner of a work will be able to make backup copies and use them to replace an original work rendered unusable. Devices that can no longer be used will therefore have to be repurchased, but not the content.

There are some odd things in this bill. It is difficult to make head or tail of it.

With respect to communication of a work by telecommunication, educational institutions will be able to communicate lessons containing copyrighted works to students by telecommunication. The institution will have to take measures "that can reasonably be expected" to limit the distribution of the work and will also have to destroy the copy within 30 days of the date on which the students receive their final evaluations. However, no penalties are proposed if the institution fails to take the necessary measures.

This provision suffers from a somewhat split personality. It is sending the message that these works must be destroyed but there is no arrangement for verifying this. In any event, if it is not destroyed, that is no penalty. I wonder what we are talking about. I would really like to know what firm of lobbyists went to see the Conservative government and asked it to include this kind of provision in the bill. I do not understand.

For extension of the photocopy licence, institutions that have been issued a photocopying licence by Copibec will be able to make digital copies and communicate them to students by telecommunication. The photocopying licence’s provisions will apply to that type of use, and the royalties will be calculated the same way. How will fair dealing for educational purposes be reconciled with this exception?

Institutions in possession of a photocopying or reprographic licence will also be able to make digital reproductions and transmit them by telecommunication. Paid-for photocopies could thus be transmitted by way of digital reproduction, however they get somewhat lost in the maze that is the digital world.

Teaching institutions will be able to access works available on the Internet for educational purposes. We all do this: we use Google, we consult Wikipedia, etc. This exception would not apply to works protected by a technical measure—a lock—or to works displaying not simply the copyright symbol but also a clearly visible warning prohibiting their use. Thus, the principle whereby works are protected as soon as they exist in some medium, without the need for any other formality is reversed, and rights holders who do not wish to provide free access to their works would be forced to lock them or attach a warning. This fails to take into account the millions of works already available free of charge for educational purposes on the Internet under the current licensing system.

As far as reproduction for visual presentations and examinations is concerned, the current legislation permits the reproduction of a work by hand and its presentation by means of an overhead projector. The bill will authorize the reproduction and visual presentation of a work on all platforms irrespective of the type of technology, be it a USB key, an interactive whiteboard, or a computer screen. This exception will not apply if the work is available on the Canadian market in the medium in question. The legislator has removed the possibility of obtaining a licence from a collective society in order to stop the use of this exception. This amounts to an immediate loss of half a million dollars to the copyright holders represented by Copibec.

This is another example of a provision in this bill that does not assist authors but rather deprives them of up to $500,000 in income.

We spoke earlier of provisions in the bill that apply to libraries, museums and archives. Let us see how this applies in the case of loans to institutions. Libraries, museums and archives designated as such under the act will henceforth be able to transmit digitally formatted articles from periodicals to users for private study and research purposes. These institutions must take steps to prevent the user from printing more than one copy of the article or from transmitting it to a third party.

Librarians who forward articles to users must take steps to ensure that these users are not able to transmit this information to a third party. As I cast my mind to my municipal library in St-Hippolyte, I wonder who will have to handle the directives this legislation entails. How will that person proceed?

In the culture sector, the general feeling about Bill C-11 is that, in its current form, it undermines the principles at the heart of copyright, principles that have historically provided an environment that is favourable to creators, producers, distributors and consumers of cultural property. This bill will compromise Canada's ability to compete in a global digital economy and will undermine the economic future of those creating Canadian content. Artists indicate that numerous clauses in Bill C-11 demonstrate a lack of understanding of the creative industry's structures within an evolving technological environment. Parliamentarians have a responsibility to amend the bill and keep the positive measures. In order to develop an innovative knowledge economy, Canada needs to staunchly defend intellectual property.

If Bill C-11 is passed in its current form, there will be serious financial consequences for artists, for Canada's cultural industries, with losses estimated at $126 million per year.

We should be removing all of the clauses that go against the current law and eliminate the revenue currently being generated. This includes the provisions that legalize certain kinds of copying, without providing any compensation. We must allow the educational use of copyrighted material without compensation.

It seems as though all of the attempts at copyright reform in Canada have had very little to do with creating a system that balances the rights of creators with those of the general public. That is what the NDP wants. We do not want to further criminalize the actions of individuals. We want this bill to clearly set out copyright guidelines for creators, to help them enter into a growing, evolving universe.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec's motto is, “Je me souviens” or “I remember”. Personally, I remember the election that took place in 2008 and I remember the general outcry that was sounded in Quebec to protect and defend copyright. Quebec is the cradle of the French language in this country, and in order to protect copyright, Quebeckers stepped up and raised an outcry.

With regard to digital locks, it is the distribution companies that will call the shots. In Canada, where Quebec is an enclave and where small communities of francophones live in the other provinces, is my colleague not concerned that these large corporations, these large companies, will stop distributing francophone creators who, as a result, will be removed from the information highway?

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, I cannot really predict the impact the implementation of these various measures and these digital locks would have on the distribution of works by Quebec's artists.

On the other hand, in another life, I had a few songs at the top of the charts in Quebec and I regularly received a cheque from SOCAN for my royalties. They were sometimes ridiculously tiny amounts, but they helped make ends meet nonetheless.

At present, what is known as “ephemeral recordings” are included in one of the provisions that constitute yet another exception in this bill. This provision is going to cost songwriters over $7 million in royalties they would otherwise receive from the broadcasting of their songs over the radio. I think this provision is a slap in the face to all those who dedicate their lives to creativity and helping others see the beauty in this world.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord for his speech and for the passion and enthusiasm he put into defending the creators of our culture. I would like to hear more on the previous question about how this bill does not take into account creators of culture and how culture is disseminated. Canada is a big country, but our creators are often not encouraged to disseminate Canadian and Quebec culture. How could this bill be detrimental to the dissemination of our culture?

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have been waiting for over 15 years for reforms to bring the Copyright Act in line with the digital age. What we have here is a bill that will cut the legs out from under many creators, and as a result, fewer people will be interested in creating works.

Eventually, we will have a harder time disseminating these works abroad. If copyrights are waived so that works can be reproduced in schools for the purpose of education or fair dealing, as we heard earlier, a whole bunch of authors will no longer want to write books. What motivation is there to write if anyone can reproduce excerpts from books without providing any compensation?

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech. What does he believe are the most negative aspects of this bill? Can he summarize them?

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the bill has some positive aspects, such as digital locks, which we do understand. We understand that companies that have invested in developing video games or movies want to protect their products by using this type of lock.

At the same time, what concerns me about this bill, is the nature of the fines that will be imposed on those who try to find the keys to these digital locks. I am convinced that young people, with their creativity and imagination, will succeed in bypassing the digital locks that are put on any products that they use.

More emphasis has been placed on the protection of industries than on a true copyright reform that would allow creators to receive financial compensation each time their works are used.

It is somewhere between these two visions. On one hand, there is legislation that takes a repressive approach to this issue and, on the other hand, there are creators who would have liked to use a legislative lever to allow for true thought on the definitions of a creator—the nature of a creator; copyright; and how to protect authors and artists and encourage them to create.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, no one can deny that Steve Jobs was an innovative thinker in the world of business. He gave innovation and business sophistication a face. He became an icon of the new economy. We have lost him but the innovations of his company, namely the universal digital machine, the personal computer, which members on both sides of the House depend upon for their daily work, remains with us. I doubt any member would argue that deep changes occurred in our society through the introduction of the personal computer in our daily lives.

My first introduction to computing was through my dad. He worked for a company called Control Data as a truck driver and he delivered the cardboard cards that kept the information on the federal government's computers in Ottawa. I used to draw on the backs of the cards that were thrown away, so maybe it was one of the first mash-ups or culture jamming that I did.

Then my dad brought home a tape recorder. We recorded our own stories on it and taped over bits that we did not like. It provided hours of humour listening to our own squeaky voices. Then we realized that maybe we could record stuff we heard on the radio and we listened to songs instead of waiting for them to come on the radio. We could sing to those songs and record at the same time. Our minds were thinking of all the possibilities that we could do with the technology that was put before us.

Around the same time that we were doing these goofy things, Mr. Jobs brought his Apple computers to the world. There was also at this time a lawsuit going on that my hon. colleague mentioned and it was the Betamax case.

We were not early adopters in my family so we did not have a VCR when it first came out. Apparently when the Betamax came out in 1976, the television industry was up in arms. When the VCR came out there were no video stores, no rentals, nothing, so, all we could really do with a VCR was record television shows. In effect it became the first time shifting device. Instead of sitting down when broadcasters dictated, we could choose our own time to watch things; that is, if we could program the device, which many people had difficulty doing, so it became the task of members of my generation to do it because our elders could not figure out how to do it.

Television broadcasters did not like this additional consumer control because they did not want consumers to have control. Their greatest fear was the loss of revenue due to people fast forwarding commercials and watching movies and television shows from their personal libraries instead of tuning in to the broadcaster's schedule. The VCR dictated the time that people could watch shows.

The theory of copyright laws is that they limit control over the use of content to the copyright owner. They leverage the right of copyright into revenue. People cannot use what the copyright owner owns unless they pay. The theory is that revenue creates incentive for the creation of new works.

Broadcasters were worried about their revenue. Movie studios were incensed that consumers could record their movies. The sky would fall they said. They did not want VCR technology. They wanted a ban on it, so they filed a lawsuit against Sony, the maker of the Betamax. The studios wanted control over the design of the VCR. TV broadcasters and movie studios wanted certain recording features on the machine, like the recording button or the fast forward button, eliminated. I ask hon. members to imagine the VCR without a fast forward button or a record button, or let us consider for a second a world where the VCR was banned, which was the original intent of this lawsuit.

The reason why I mention all of this is because technology has evolved. People have to be active in the programming of their family lives. We need a more active population, a wider field of choice and possibilities. They have to have the idea that anything is possible because that is the foundation of innovation. I should remind members that innovation is precisely one of the greatest challenges and one of the greatest weaknesses in our Canadian economy right now.

Thankfully, in 1983 the U.S. supreme court decided that the VCR was a legal device. Years later the movie industry hailed the VCR as something great. The industry received huge profits from the sale of videos. The industry that had previously feared and misunderstood the VCR realized that it could get money from this new machine. It wanted to lock the march of progress at that time but realized that the VCR provided a monetized stream for it and it was no longer fearful of it.

When I was 20, I managed to get my hands on a video camera. I taped some of my surroundings, took my favourite REM CD, clipped some stuff from the TV, and put them all together using the VCR. It was not very good, admittedly. It was kind of clunky. However I had created something new, something that allowed my interpretation of the music. That action was something that has gone on for ages.

Troubadours in medieval times would take words of songs and change them. Tellers of oral tales would change elements of the story to suit their local cultures. In our times we have groups like Negativland and DJ Danger Mouse, amongst others that do essentially the same thing.

This legislation would try to make this activity illegal. Unlocking the digital lock, something that a young Norwegian did to DVD encryption in the last decade would become a crime.

The 1998 law that the U.S.A. brought in, the DMCA, was found to be unenforceable. Basically this could not be enforced. It is too hard.

The greater problem here is that we have a digital age and a universal digital machine. All the information that we have nowadays, music, movies, text, is all in digital form now. When it is brought into a digital machine, it all gets translated into the same form of information. There is an innovation that happens there when people interact with that.

All the information is digital, so to be truly effective, to protect the copyright owner as this bill tries to do, one would effectively have to control computers. It is this idea that the U.S. tried to do. It tried to develop this idea of the Fritz chip. Every digital device would have this chip that would lock certain activities on that device. However, computer scientists have said this is impossible, that they would not be able to invent something like that.

Basically, a universal machine, a personal computer, would have to be turned into a somewhat limited machine. The effect of that, of course, would be to limit the innovation that we use these machines for.

There are also questions in legal circles about the provisions in this legislation that say that perhaps these are not measures that would fall under a copyright act, they would fall under ideas of property or civil rights, which are a provincial jurisdiction.

To finish off my discourse, I would like to state 12 reasons why our copyright laws are already strong enough and do not require any renewing to protect the copyright owners.

Number one, Canada has about 36 copyright collectives, many of which have received substantial direct and indirect government subsidies. The U.S. has only about half a dozen with no government support. The U.S. is asking us to impose this legislation, and yet we already have stronger copyright legislation than the U.S. does.

Number two, Canada has a full-time Copyright Board which has normally had four full-time members plus a sitting or retired judge as chairman, currently about a dozen full-time professional and administrative staff. The board has enormous policy and effective law-making powers. No other country of which we are aware comes close to having such a large, permanent, powerful and full-time copyright tribunal.

Number three, broadcasters pay far more for copyright loyalties than their counterparts in the U.S., much of it for rights that do not even exist in the U.S., for example, the ephemeral right. The U.S. provides an outright exemption in 17 U.S.C.112 for the ephemeral right.

About $50 million a year more, over and above, is being demanded by a collective dominated by the American dominated record labels for this right, in addition to amounts now collected by composers, authors and publishers. Canada's Copyright Board heard a major case on commercial radio where this and other issues will be decided in December 2008 and January 2009. However, it will probably be at least 18 months to 2 years after the hearing before a decision is announced, based on the timing of some recent major decisions from the board.

Number four, the Canadian Copyright Board values each right under the Copyright Act brought before it separately with little regard to layering and multiplicity of the tariffs which result in effect for the same transaction. Whether this is an error in approach by the board and/or in policy and/or in legislative drafting is subject to fair debate. The fact is that the U.S. law goes to great lengths to avoid such a result as recent court decisions have confirmed.

Number five, educators pay far more for copyright clearance than their American counterparts pay. There is simply no mechanism in place in the U.S.A. analogous to the excessive $5.16 per K-12 student or the excessive per student and course pack rates payable to access copyright for post-secondary students. There is a similar mechanism for Quebec. Canada's Copyright Board has pushed back on what it considers to be fair dealing in the classroom for what the Supreme Court of Canada arguably requires and American law clearly permits. The Copyright Board's controversial decision is currently under judicial review.

Number six, Access Copyright is trying to collect $24 a year for each full-time employee in Canadian provincial and territorial governments, not including Quebec. This potentially would be a cost of $6.5 million a year for Canadian taxpayers, which seems absurd in view of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, since most, if not all, copying of protected material would likely be for research purposes. Nonetheless, a very expensive proceeding would slowly unfold before the Copyright Board and probably beyond into the courts. Even with an unusual push by the Copyright Board to get this moving, it would likely drag on for years.

Such a tariff or equivalent mechanism would never get off the ground in the U.S.A. for many reasons, including that state sovereign immunity is well established by the U.S. Supreme Court. There may very well be provincial crown immunity in Canada but to what extent it would be invoked is currently unclear. At any rate, this new attempted tariff by Access Copyright has no counterpart in the U.S. and is yet another situation in which U.S. copyright owners could prove to be better off in Canada than in their own country.

Number seven, Canadian law requires payment for certain educational uses that are explicitly exempted in the U.S.A., such as the performance of films in a classroom.

Number eight, Canada has no explicit statutory exception for the performance of music for the purpose of selling sound recordings or audiovisual equipment as is found in section 110(7) of the U.S. copyright law.

Number nine, Canadians pay large amounts to SOCAN and NRCC for performances in countless bars, restaurants, retail stores and other small business establishments. The U.S. notoriously exempts these establishments, contrary to a WTO section 110 ruling which the U.S. continues to flout. The U.S. is by far the leading adjudicated current violator of international copyright law.

I could cite more examples which I found online in a blog. I have shared the author's thoughts with the House on why our copyright laws are already stronger than those of the U.S. and yet we are getting pressure from multinationals to impose this law on Canadians when our law is already sufficiently strong.

With that I will conclude.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the new member for his speech. As a history lesson, this is the fourth time we have gone through this process as it relates to a copyright bill. Last time around we had 39 hours of testimony at committee during which time the NDP member on the committee repeatedly lobbied for a tax on iPods.

The Copyright Board in 2007 published a statement filed by the Canadian Private Copying Collective for levies it proposed to collect effective January 1, 2008. The proposal stated different rates, but the rate was $75 for each recorder with more than 30 gigs of memory. That is where the $75 iPod tax we often refer to comes from.

In the spring of 2010, the heritage committee, which was dominated by members of the opposition, passed a report that would extend the definition of audio recording medium to devices with internal memory so that the levy on copying music would apply to digital music recorders as well. On April 14 last year we had a vote in the House on that motion. Every member of the NDP, the Liberals and the Bloc supported the motion and every member of the Conservative Party opposed it.

I would like some clarity on where the member stands on the $75 tax on iPods proposed by the Copyright Board but supported by the members of the opposition parties.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member stated, I was not here at that time so I do not know all the details of what went on at committee. However, I have been informed by other members that the Conservative chair of that committee actually supported the legislation. I cannot speak to the details of that because I am not informed on that.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising that the parliamentary secretary is trying to resurrect an old myth with regard to an iPod tax. We actually proposed that the Copyright Board would set a rate that would be good for the artist and fair for the consumer and to have that independent assessment done. We know the Conservatives have concerns over that. We have seen what they have done with other appointed officials in different departments. However, there certainly was no $75 tax. The parliamentary secretary knows that.

It is unfortunate because we have been trying to have a good debate about this issue in the House today and we have been participating in that. I know the parliamentary secretary was excluded from some of the unfortunate things that took place in the House, but we have been trying to press on having some compromise here.

Again, there was no suggestion of a $75 tax.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleagues for providing some of the history on this issue. As I said, I was not a member of the House so I was not privy to all the details. I have not looked at it in depth. I thank both members for informing me on the history of this legislation.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke about Steve Jobs. We could also talk about Facebook. What has made Facebook so popular is its democratic access; it is free and open to everyone. If there were no users, there would be no industry putting products on the market. I predict certain death for the cultural industry if we put locks on it. There is a limit to what our families are able to pay. They are already paying for Internet, telephone services, the information highway, television and anything they want to download, whether they are selling or purchasing cultural products.

Does the hon. member believe that using digital locks will be harmful to the cultural industry and the public's use of it?

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it will negatively affect people's participation in culture. The hon. member said that when technological locks are applied, new items have to be purchased every time the technology changes. In 1989, I bought a Bob Dylan record and, in the 1990s, I had to buy the same album on tape and then on CD. Buying something three times and never owning it affects cultural participation in a negative way.