Debates of Dec. 12th, 2011

Copyright Modernization Act

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-11.

As I listened to my hon. colleague across the way, I could not help but notice the irony in his remarks. Clearly we are dealing here with a piece of legislation that the government is not the least bit interested in hearing submissions on, or if it is hearing submissions, it is not hearing what is being said.

We are hearing from stakeholders who have made presentations that when they bring forward solid recommendations, changes they think need to be made and would like the government to consider, the government does not consider them. The government still says that it wants to invite more submissions. What is the point in inviting more input and more debate if the government will not take it seriously?

The government often and deliberately points out, in an effort to justify limiting debate, that this exact copyright legislation has been debated before at length, as the member just said, and was even at committee, and it was. In fact, 167 stakeholder organizations made submissions and recommendations.

The government looks back at this lengthy discussion with Canadians on copyright legislation and concludes that the necessary discussion has been had, with unmatched arrogance. Discussion has been had, but it has not been listened to.

The Conservative government declares that there will be no more debate, no more discussion and no more constructive criticism. In fact, it does not even see the input as constructive criticism; the government just sees it as criticism. Instead of accepting it for what it is intended to do, which is to perfect an imperfection in this particular legislation, government members want instead to just go full steam ahead with their way or no way. In contrast, I look at past discussion and debate with Canadians as a missed opportunity to tailor this legislation to serve Canadians best.

The government is right on one account: Canadians have voiced their opinions on copyright by making 167 separate submissions to committee, which is no small feat. Unfortunately for Canadians from coast to coast to coast, whether artists or creators, they have not been heard by the government, and that is how they feel. They sincerely believe that even though they have made submissions and presentations, and the government members have appeared to listen, they really have not been heard.

Last year Canadians appeared in droves to offer expert recommendations at committee. Clearly, during this important consultation the government just checked out. After hundreds of hours of debate and discussion in the last Parliament on Canadian copyright, the Conservative government proved that artists' and creators' legitimate concerns and recommendations fell on deaf ears by reintroducing this unchanged and unsatisfactory legislation.

The Conservatives constantly say that they have a majority mandate, when in reality only 39% of Canadians who voted actually voted Conservative. There were many Canadians who did not vote, and they were eligible to vote. In fact, only 59% of eligible voters actually voted in the last federal election, with 39% of that total voting Conservative. If we take into account all eligible voters, including those who did not vote, only 24% of possible voters voted Conservative. This is hardly a majority mandate.

It is about time that the government started to listen to Canadians when it is making legislation. It is about time it realized that while it may have gotten the majority number of votes, in fact only 39% of the Canadian population that voted cast their votes for Conservatives.

Let us be understanding and be receptive to hearing from Canadians, and from Canadians who did not vote Conservative, who, by the way, have something to offer as well. Just because there is no impending election does not mean that the Conservative Party has a mandate to stop listening to Canadians and blindly implement its rigid copyright legislation without meaningfully considering Canadians' advice.

To be clear, a meaningful consideration of the consultation process requires balanced, effective implementation of Canadians' recommendations, not just half-hearted listening and empty consultation.

While we are dealing with the Conservatives' procedural attempts to ignore the will of Canadians and skirt an open and transparent democratic process, I must also address a serious flaw in this legislation.

The Conservatives' inclusion in its current form of the digital lock provisions undermines any attempt at fairness and equality between the users and creators of copyrighted works. Canadians who legally purchase CDs, DVDs or other forms of digital content should be entitled to transfer their legally bought content from one format to the other, provided they do so for personal use and not for profit or transfer to others. They have paid for this content, and it is theirs. The right and proper thing to do is to allow them to transfer it for their own personal use, clearly not for others and clearly not for profit. Bill C-11 would allow corporations to apply digital locks that would prohibit any type of format shifting. Under Bill C-11, the Conservatives seek to criminalize a Canadian consumer who legally purchases a CD and then transfers it to his or her iPod. Shockingly, the Conservatives' attempt to modernize copyright law criminalizes the modern mainstream application of legally purchased content.

Recently I received an email expressing concerns around Bill C-11 from a passionate and informed constituent of mine from Burin, in the riding of Random—Burin—St. George's. Shawn Rose hit the nail on the head when he wrote:

As a Canadian, I am both concerned and disheartened by how easily my rights are trumped by the overriding and all encompassing protection for digital locks contained in the legislation.

While the legislation provides many legitimate and justifiable rights for users, with one swipe the digital lock provision strips them all away.

Bill C-11 would enable Canadians to make copies of copyright works for personal use such as format shifting, in which consumers shift their legally bought CD on their iPod, or time shifting, in which content is recorded or backed up for later use--unless a corporation puts a digital lock on the content. Then the consumer is out of luck. If there is a digital lock on legally purchased content, consumers have no rights whatsoever. In a bizarre contradiction, the government gives rights to consumers while providing corporations with the tools to cancel all consumer rights.

Another constituent of mine from Kippens, Russell Porter, accurately describes the contradiction in this bill by writing:

The anti-circumvention provisions included in Bill C-11, unduly equip corporate copyright owners and distributors in the music, movie and video game industries with a powerful set of tools that can be utilized to exercise absolute control over Canadians' interaction with media and technology....

I continue to get mail from many of my constituents. Another consumer and constituent writing from Random—Burin—St. George's, Ross Conrad from Stephenville, writes with regard to his legitimate concerns over the digital lock provisions' banning of tools to transfer formats:

I strongly believe that in addition to linking the prohibition of circumvention to the act of infringement, it is also paramount for consumers to have commercial access to the tools required to facilitate such lawful acts. It is imperative that the ban on the distribution and marketing of devices or tools that can be used to lawfully circumvent be eliminated by removing paragraph 41.1(c) and any associated references to it or any paragraphs in the Bill that would be rendered irrelevant by this change.

This goes to show that Canadian consumers are watching. They know exactly what this piece of legislation contains, they know exactly what is wrong with it, and they are calling on the government to acknowledge that there are flaws with this piece of legislation. There is nothing wrong with listening to what Canadians have to say. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have refused to listen to thousands of Canadians like Shawn, Russell and Ross, who have eloquently explained their issues with respect to the imbalance between corporations and consumers in Bill C-11.

After all, it is clear that this bill was not written to protect the creator but the corporations.

Instead of Bill C-11, the Liberal Party supports true copyright modernization to protect the works and intellectual property of Canadians while achieving a delicate balance between consumers and creators.

While we will again be bringing forward a number of amendments at committee, this bill, unchanged after 167 submissions to committee and an outpouring of important and informed opinions from Canadians from coast to cost to coast, is an insult.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her very interesting remarks.

Unfortunately, in our House the time set aside for debate is extremely limited. Limits are constantly being imposed on us—and that is truly very disappointing—especially when it comes to the bill before us today, which may very well affect many artists in Quebec and across Canada. She mentioned that the bill seemed to favour big business and not creators. I would like her to talk a little more about how a bill like the one we have before us could help creators. How could this bill be improved?

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, clearly we always have to take into account the creations of our artists. It is really important that we do whatever we can to ensure that their creativity is protected.

There are ways of doing this. We need to modernize this legislation so that it takes into account the hard work of our artists, the hard work of our writers and the hard work of our musicians, while at the same time bearing the mind that consumers have rights as well.

What we are saying is that consumers should never be allowed to abuse the works of our artists by only buying one of anything and then making multiple copies to distribute elsewhere. What we are saying, and what we think the government should agree to, is that consumers should be allowed to make one copy for their own personal use, not for distribution elsewhere. We really do need to protect our artists and at the same time be fair to our consumers.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the thing that concerns me about Bill C-11 is exactly the thing the member put her finger on in her statement.

Why are we still talking about digital locks when every single witness, every single expert and every single sector of the creative community that works in the field has said that this provision must be removed, that it works against the goals of modernization with respect to consumer and creator rights?

I am wondering if the member would want to expand on this concern. Why are we not seeing a willingness to amend Bill C-11 and get rid of the digital locks provision?

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is an excellent example of what is wrong with this legislation.

As I said in my earlier remarks, the government just will not listen, even though it has had so much in the way of representation about the problem with digital locks. It is not listening.

There were 167 submissions at committee. Clearly, while the government may have heard, it did not listen and it did not act. Other people have credible input. Other people can make good recommendations. The government does not have all the answers.

The only reason I can think of as to why it is not taking what it is hearing into account is that it does not want to have input from anyone else. It thinks it has all the answers, and that is the problem with the government.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, we know we have had hundreds of hours of debate in this place. We know we have had it in the previous Parliament. We know we have had it at committee. The member cited in her remarks how much input we have had on this bill.

I wonder if the member might cite for me a jurisdiction, any jurisdiction, where digital locks have been used and the actual availability of content has been reduced.

The member mentioned purchasing a CD with a digital lock; I am not aware of any that have been created with digital locks for many years. I wonder if the member could tell me what CD that was, and when she purchased it.

What would the member say to the over 14,000 people in the video gaming industry who depend on digital locks to be successful in the industry? This is about jobs and the economy. What would the member say to the thousands of people whose jobs are at risk if we do not pass updated legislation?

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent example of the government fear-mongering, where it is coming out with straw horses and trying to put out ideas that will not float. People know that what they are suggesting is not right.

We know that creators have a right and that consumers have a right. However, the Conservatives are failing to acknowledge that there needs to be equality between the two. Consumers need access. If they buy it, it belongs to them but it is not for anything other than personal use.

Digital locks actually give preference to the large corporations. The history of the current government is that it is always coming down on the side of large corporations versus the independent consumer and small business.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I also rise in the House today to oppose Bill C-11, a bill the Conservatives decided to call the Copyright Modernization Act. My colleague from the Liberal Party pointed out that the bill will benefit big business at the expense of authors. Today, we are trying to get some balance into this bill. Unfortunately, once again, debate has been limited and the Conservatives do not want any amendments, so the debate in the House today will most likely be of no benefit to the bill. It is truly undemocratic to try and ram this through faster than our constituents want.

Canadians want this bill gone over with a fine-tooth comb and properly debated so that it can be amended and its major shortcomings addressed. For example, Bill C-11 creates rights for big business, for the content owners. Creators will not benefit from the bill. The big winners will certainly be the content owners, in other words, big business. This bill compensates those who already make a decent living and are well off. And yet, it is the artists that are having trouble getting by and who need our support. They are the ones in our regions and in our big cities who make Canada culturally rich. They are the ones that need the government's support. Things are going very well for big business.

Frankly, the revenue that the government derives from big business is entirely adequate. The proof is in the pudding: the government is trying to cut back on the revenue it gets from big business. That would suggest that the revenue is too high. Small businesses, creators and artists are the ones that need the help. This bill also greatly affects young people and students who would only have about 30 days to erase any copyrighted products in their possession.

There are some pretty tough clauses in this bill. For example, the fines in this bill include penalties of up to $1 million and 5 years behind bars. That is really over the top. These penalties are in keeping with the Conservatives' priority: to have a law and order society. They are bent on building prisons and sending good, upstanding Canadians there. The Conservatives think that we all want these people behind bars. Frankly, the Conservatives' position is quite over the top. Five years in prison to protect big business' copyright is over the top, just like most of the crime bills that have been introduced

It is clear that the Copyright Act should be amended and should better reflect the transformation of technology and of our methods of communication in Canada. While the title of the bill is the Copyright Modernization Act, the story we are being told is an old one. The act is not being modernized; what we are seeing is how things were done in the 1900s or even the 1800s, when big corporations made money at the expense of the workers, the creators and small businesses. They want to reward big corporations. Honestly, this is an old story. There is nothing modern about it. It is quite antiquated. The government should perhaps think about it a little more and help all our constituents and all Canadians, not just those who are well off, like big corporations.

What is being proposed today is a transformation of the print media into digital media. This has brought about profound changes in the way Canadians discuss politics, society and culture. In Canada, creativity, innovation and vision are emerging from the places where people live and identify themselves as Canadians. All works of art, whether in music, literature or the visual arts, are based on the experiences of people who live in their native regions.

They are not based on the bottom line of a big corporation making big profits; they are based on everyday life. People's everyday lives are where we should be lending a hand. We should create tax credits for artists. We should go looking for them and lend them the hand they need. Instead of that, they are being told that we will favour big corporations and maybe, eventually, if artists are lucky, they will be able to sell their products and make some money. As well, we are told that once that is done, they will have to forget about their rights to their creations, because they will belong to the big corporations, who will get 100% of the profits from them.

In my riding, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, there are large numbers of artists. Most of them are not particularly wealthy. There are a few exceptions. Kevin Parent, for example, has benefited from the cultural life in our region and relatively strong support for his work. People love his work. As a result, he has been able to move onto the international stage—not because some big corporation gave him its support, but because ordinary people gave him their support. Sylvain Rivière, a writer, also benefits from the support of the people in our region.

We want the artists in our region to be well equipped and well positioned to move onto the national and international scene. We want the festivals in our region to benefit from a rich cultural life and from our artists. To achieve that, we have to lend them a hand.

Again, this bill does not do that. It will do nothing but increase the profits of the big corporations. Frankly, I do not see why big corporations would need anyone to lend them a hand. The fact is that it is small artists and small businesses that all members of the House claim to support. Frankly, I think that it is only the people on this side of the House who support them.

Festivals and artists are essential to the cultural life of our regions, but unfortunately, Bill C-11 will take millions of dollars in revenue away from artists, and away from the people who make the festivals in my region possible. It is going to erode the market.

This bill includes a long list of exceptions that do not adequately recognize the rights of creators. That is what we should be debating today. Once again, the Conservatives do not want their bill to be amended. They want to limit debate. They do not want the House to improve the bill. Honestly, we must take the time needed to end up with a good bill.

We must try to respond to our constituents' requests. We have been asked by many people to amend this bill. Unfortunately, to date, the Conservatives have not been willing to amend the bill we are considering.

I would like to quote a well-known technology commentator, Mr. Geist from the University of Ottawa, who succinctly summarized the issue, “The foundational principle of the new bill remains that anytime a digital lock is used—whether on books, movies, music, or electronic devices—the lock trumps virtually all other rights.” This means that fair dealing and the new rights in the bill cannot be supported.

It is very unfortunate that our Conservative government really does not want to listen. We all know that the vast majority of businesses in Canada are small, local, family businesses. The vast majority of artists are independent. They are local people. The artists transform the culture and society and sow the seeds, but it is the multinational entertainment industry that will reap the rewards.

Canadian copyright legislation can strike a balance between copyright and providing fair compensation to artists for their work, while ensuring consumers have the right to reasonable access to content. We want to find the right balance. This bill provides a number of new privileges with regard to access to content, but it does not provide any alternative means of compensating our artists.

This will seriously impact our artists' ability to survive. The Copyright Modernization Act gives with one hand and takes with the other. I hope that this bill will not pass.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the House will remember Bill C-10, the bigger and more jails bill that the government brought in. When it did that, a number of amendments were moved that even the government members themselves wished they had recognized a bit earlier, so that they could have possibly passed them at committee stage. That was because they were in such a rush to get that bill through.

Now we have Bill C-11, and we are talking a lot about that big rush once again. The government appears, as it did with Bill C-10, to be completely close-minded to any sort of changes. The Conservatives talk about hundreds of hours of debate, which is not true, inside the chamber since the last election.

I know that within the New Democratic caucus, a number of people were just elected in May. Therefore, I ask the member to what degree he feels they have been afforded the opportunity to contribute any time at all to debate on this important piece of legislation for Canadians?

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was recently elected, as was my colleague, the member for Winnipeg North. A great number of MPs on both sides of the House in fact were recently elected. I would challenge a great number of them to say how much time they have actually had to speak to just about any bill that has been presented in the House since we started sitting in June.

Frankly, the government seems to be in a huge hurry to pass bills without the due reflection that is required. We need to seek the comments of our electors, the people who live in our ridings, to ensure that the bills before us are properly conceived and will be properly delivered. I do not think that we are given nearly enough time to do so.

Again, we have a situation where the government is trying to steamroll legislation through the House. I am frankly quite appalled that the lack of democracy in the House is tolerated by members on the opposite side.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to the member's speech. He talked about the well-heeled people who will benefit from this.

When he is talking about the well-heeled people, is he talking about the 500,000 people in the television and film industry across the country who need updated copyright legislation, the people who actually work behind the scenes, the hairdressers, the seamstresses, the electricians and the people who create the sets for these productions? I am wondering if they are the well-heeled people he is talking about. Perhaps it is the 14,000 people in the video game industry. Is that who he is talking about, the people who work hard every single day, and after having done something very special in their offices, go home at night to feed their families and pay their taxes? All they want is a little protection for the work that they have done. I am wondering if they are the well-heeled people that he is talking about.

As nobody yet has been able to do this on that side, can the member point out a jurisdiction which has used technical protection measures to protect creators' works, where those measures have resulted in less content for consumers?

Why does he not believe that creators have the right to protect the works they have created?

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member is referring in his first question to what is called the trickle-down theory, where people who are super rich will eventually perhaps spend money and allow the less privileged, the workers who work in those institutions, to benefit from the wealth that has been created.

I think it is about time that the people who actually create the wealth in this country actually benefit directly from that wealth. I do not think the Viacoms of the world should be the biggest beneficiaries of bills like the ones before us today. We need to ensure that everybody has a shake of the stick. Frankly, I think that this bill is entirely biased toward those who do not need our help.

I will remind the members opposite that, yet again, they are talking about tax cuts for the wealthiest corporations. If that is the case, then clearly they do not need the money. It is the people at the bottom of the heap who probably need it a lot more.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the bill, although I am not so pleased to rise to speak to the motion for time allocation. I find it hard to believe that this is what we are doing here today. We are actually shutting down debate on copyright legislation.

As far as the bill goes, I want to communicate some things to the House while I have the floor. Copyright legislation and copyright reform is really important to people in the riding of Halifax. This is because it is home to many creators and many consumers.

In the three short years since I was elected, I have attended several different workshops and panel discussions in my community on copyright. I attended a discussion held by Dalhousie Law School, a round table to talk about the key issues that we need to look at here. There were law professors, law students and lawyers who deal with copyright.

I also attended a panel discussion put on by students at NSCAD, the Nova Scotia College of Art and Design. They are creators who want to understand the key issues and how copyright legislation should be reformed when it comes to our rights as creators.

I was delighted to moderate a panel discussion during the Halifax Pop Explosion. During this great music festival, there were opportunities to learn about different issues facing artists. Copyright was the big panel discussion that folks wanted to have and it was very well attended. I actually learned quite a bit during that panel discussion.

As I said, it is important to the folks in my riding. I look at the number of people who have contacted my office about copyright via email, Facebook and Twitter. Lots of people have contacted me, the majority of whom are creators and, of course, consumers. In this day and age, almost all of us are consumers. They are trying to present to me the perspective of a consumer, the perspective of a creator.

I have heard the Conservatives in this House stand up and talk about why we need copyright reform, and they are right, we absolutely do. This is a very much out-of-date piece of legislation. Yet, in changing it, when I listen to the arguments that have been brought forward, I see arguments that will really stand up for the owners of copyright, which is different from the creators and consumers of copyright. Being owners of copyright is not the same as being consumers or creators.

I am sad because we did see a version of the bill in the last Parliament. That bill was brought forward. It went to committee. We heard from people in the community. We heard from experts and academics. We heard from owners, creators and consumers, and it did not change.

The bill is being brought forward now and there is nothing different about it. That is really disappointing. If we are to be good legislators, if we are to bring forward sound public policy, which I hope is the point, we should be relying on the people with the expertise, people who are actually working day to day with these issues. Not all of us have that expertise.

We are members of the House of Commons. We represent the common people and we are here as their representatives. It does not mean we are experts on copyright.

I have colleagues in the House who handwrite their emails and give them to their staff to then type up and send. Obviously there are folks in this House who have no expertise when it comes to what should happen when we download a video, if they are handwriting their emails.

We need to rely on the people we have at committee, rely on their expertise and heed their advice. We also need to rely on our constituents. I am relying on Carrie Forbes, Jessica McCarvell and Mike Wade, George Edwards and Ricky Tang, and Ryan Clancey. These are folks who have written my office as consumers or creators to say, “Wait a minute, here is my stake in this. As someone in your community, here is what I want you to know”. Sarah Wilkin, Jake Parker, Will Hopkins are all people who have contacted my office. We should be taking their advice and hearing what they have to say.

One of those folks, Evan Walsh, a member of the Halifax community with Stitch Media, wrote to my office. I want to read his letter into the record because I think there is some good advice in it. He wrote:

I would like to take this opportunity to convey my concerns and suggestions for points of revision and amendment in regards to Bill C-11, The Copyright Modernization Act. Although Bill C-11 appears to be more flexible than the previous attempts at copyright reform, this Bill is flawed to its core by the inclusion of strict, anti-circumvention provisions. As a Canadian, I am both concerned and disheartened by how easily my rights are trumped by the overriding and all encompassing protection for digital locks contained in the legislation.

The anti-circumvention provisions included in Bill C-11, unduly equip corporate copyright owners and distributors in the music, movie and video game industries with a powerful set of tools that can be utilized to exercise absolute control over Canadians' interaction with media and technology, and may even undermine Canadians' constitutional rights.

A solution to Bill C-11's contentious core problem and the means to avoid the unintended consequences generated by the broad protection for digital locks is to amend the Bill to permit circumvention for lawful purposes. Not only is this approach compliant with the WIPO Internet Treaties, but it also provides legal protection for digital locks while maintaining the crucial copyright balance. I urge this Government to either add an infringing purpose requirement to the prohibition of circumvention or add an exception to the legislation to address circumvention for lawful purposes.

I strongly believe that in addition to linking the prohibition of circumvention to the act of infringement, it is also paramount for consumers to have commercial access to the tools required to facilitate such lawful acts. It is imperative that the ban on the distribution and marketing of devices or tools that can be used to lawfully circumvent be eliminated by removing--

--and here is a very good suggestion:

--paragraph 41.1(c) and any associated references to it or any paragraphs in the Bill that would be rendered irrelevant by this change.

Some have suggested that market forces will decide the fate of digital locks in Canada and that codifying strong protection for such measures in Canadian law is simply good interim policy. I disagree. Rather than handing control of Canadians' digital rights over to corporations, the Government must consider regulating how digital locks are implemented to ensure they are not simply used to deny user rights. I put forward to this Government that adding a labelling requirement to disclose the use of digital locks on consumer goods be considered. A requirement as such, would permit Canadian consumers to make informed decisions about the products they purchase and the access and usage rights, or lack thereof, they can expect with the ownership of a given product.

In review, I believe it is in the best interest of Canadian consumers and creators alike to amend Bill C-11 to clearly link the act of circumvention to infringement, removing the all-encompassing ban on circumvention tools, and to establish a new TPM labelling provision.

I think that is fairly reasonable.

As I said, we rely on experts. We rely on academics and folks who actually work on these issues day to day. We rely on our communities to give us good advice. Many of those people are experts.

Recently, I had the pleasure of meeting with the Girl Guides in Halifax. I asked them how many did classes online at school. They all put up their hands. I said “What if I told you that, after a certain number of days, you would not be able to access that information you were given by your teacher anymore?”

These girls, who were 12 to 18 years of age, said that that was not right, as it was class information that their teacher gave them. They accessed it and used it to keep learning. Maybe they would want to use it a year later, in their next class.

We have the experts, and we have out of the mouths of babes. It is clear that there is a lot of concern about this bill and we need to listen to the concerns and make amendments at committee. I am hopeful that will happen this time around.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today, a Conservative MP said the concerns about digital locks and jail time were theoretical and exaggerated. He asked for examples. There are many, but one off the top of my head is Norah Jones, the talented Canadian jazz singer, who has a CD called Come Away With Me. Under this proposed legislation, it sure looks like if we were to copy that onto our iPad, we could be risking five years in jail or a $1 million fine. Is the member aware of draconian possibilities on real CD digital locks that are already happening?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right to point that out. We have seen cases in the U.S. where this has happened. Music companies have cracked down on people, who unsuspectingly break the law by transferring from one format to another. When we see those kinds of examples, one would think that we would turn the other way, that we would try to avoid that happening. His example was Norah Jones. She may not even own that song. It may not even be the artist who is upset about this. Maybe the artist thinks someone is doing something really interesting with a work or the artist wants people to be able to listen to it, whether it is on an iPod or CD, and it is fine with the artist, but it is not the artists who are cracking down.

My colleague across the way talked about the well-healed folks who are the beneficiaries of this and that is who we are talking about. It is the music companies, not the artists, that are necessarily pursuing this kind of litigation.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, Norah Jones, of course, sings like a Canadian, but we know that she is not a Canadian, as a matter of fact. I wanted to correct the hon. gentleman.

In the member's speech, she referenced an email she received, that talked about modifying the TPM measures and specifically mentioned the video gaming industry. As I have said over and over in the House, there are some 14,000 jobs in that industry alone that rely on strong, effective copyright legislation to continue the great work in that industry. Is the member suggesting that these jobs be put at risk with insufficient TPMs?

When she talks about the rich who are part of these industries, is she talking about the people who work throughout the industry? As I said in my previous question, she talked about hairdressers, seamstresses, set designers, electricians, all of the people who support the film, video and TV industries. Are those the well-healed people she is talking about hurting Canadians?

On this side of the House, those are the people we want to protect with updated copyright legislation, as well as the industry and thousands of jobs. I wonder if the member and her party opposite are talking about putting an end to the video gaming industry in this country with weak TPM measures.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest it is the hairdressers and set designers, et cetera, that my colleague is talking about who are the ones to end up with charges. Of course, we need to modernize copyright legislation for various industries, like the film and television industries that he talked about. Of course we do, but the way to do it is not at the expense of heavy fines and possible jail time for ordinary Canadians.

I know the author of the letter that I read and that he is part of a working group in Nova Scotia, where there is a very strong video gaming industry, which may be surprising. He is a member of a working group in the community that includes video gamers, who I know, as members of my community, want fair and balanced copyright legislation.

I would invite the parliamentary secretary to come to Halifax any time and I would be pleased to introduce him to these people, who are actually part of the backbone of the Nova Scotian economy. Maybe he could listen first-hand to their advice on how to make this bill better.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, we want to take a look at the copyright modernization act in many respects.

I think there is some confusion over time allotment. I think that this question being put being means we cannot put any amendments in at this point. That is unfortunate. It is the last opportunity we get to put up amendments without running the risk of fundamentally changing the bill, its scope, and its principles because now when we vote on it, and I assume if every Conservative votes for this, then it would pass and go to committee. We are somewhat constrained as to where it can go.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage has already said that he will accept some technical amendments and some other amendments in general. However, the problem with amendments in general is that they will not be accepted at that level because we cannot fundamentally change that bill before saying yes to it in scope and principle.

So, I think that the door has been closed on that last opportunity for amendment. That is unfortunate. One of the issues that I want to talk about, and I did not have the chance to during the last part of the debate on Bill C-11 pertaining to copyright modernization, is an issue that could have been dealt with here but was not; that is, artist's resale right.

I had representation from several groups that talked about artist resale rights. The Conservatives have said time and again that they want to get on board with the times, as it were, change the Copyright Act so that it reflects the modern times. That this is what other countries are doing, which is always the refrain.

However, this is something that other nations are doing, as well: artist resale. I hope that the Conservatives will give it some consideration in the future, maybe as something stand-alone.

I will give an example just to illustrate my point.

Acclaimed Canadian artist Tony Urquhart sold a painting called The Earth Returns To Life in 1958 for $250. That may have been a fair chunk of change back then, but it certainly is not today if we are selling art. It was later resold by Heffel Fine Art auction house, in 2009, for approximately $10,000. Similarly, his mixed media piece Instrument of Torture originally sold, in 1959, for $150 and ended up receiving $4,500 in the same auction. Without an artist's right for resale, the artist would not benefit from the increased value of his work whatsoever.

So other nations have gotten on board with this, allowing the artist to receive a percentage of those sales as long as the painting exists. Of course, that is something we need to be talking about here, as well.

Nonetheless, back to the copyright here at hand. Bill C-11 mirrors what was Bill C-32 in that we expressed some great reservations and the debate has gone around TPMs, or digital locks. I will get to that in just a moment.

The reason I brought up artist resale rights, by the way, is because I received some input from people who say we are not talking about artists enough in this particular debate and a lot of it has to do with digital locks; albeit, important, but let us keep in mind here the impact on the artist.

My hon. colleague, the parliamentary secretary, talked about people involved in the movie industry, the seamstresses and the other occupations. However, my fundamental question to that would be, if these people wanted to make a better living, I do not know how digital locks are supposed to be the be all and end all for them to continue doing their trades for the rest of their lives.

Aline Côté is the chair of Association nationale des éditeurs de livres. She represents Quebec and French Canadian publishers. This is how she describes copyright, which I think is a very apt description:

In fact, nothing is simpler than copyright law: if you create something original outside an employment framework, it is yours exclusively; you can give it away, sell it, authorize a third party to sell it for you, etc. Copyright law simply acknowledges a creator’s exclusive intellectual property on his work upon its creation. Since the initial work exists as a single entity (a manuscript or print-ready for books, a master copy in the case of movies or music, etc.), this exclusive ownership right gives the creator the right to authorize the reproduction of copies (copyright).

That being said, I want to return to the debate regarding TPMs.

We are talking about a bill that the government says is fair and balanced, but unfortunately some of it just does not add up or make sense. In some cases it is black or white, but there is no grey matter to deal with these situations, and the digital locks regarding the education exemption is a fine example. Here is what I mean by that.

An education exemption is in place for people who want to use materials mostly in a structured classroom, but even that now has had quite a bit of debate. How do we know what a structured education forum is? Does the bill go far enough to explain that? Is it a technical amendment that we have to look at? I believe that it is. If a corporation provides some training material internally, does that corporation have to be part of a collective? Can it get away from that now because it receives that exemption? That is not a proper educational structure within a corporation. It is certainly nothing akin to a post-secondary institution like a college or a university. That needs clarification.

Let us say one is within a legitimate education area, a school, a university or a college, and providing material free of charge under that exemption. What if that material is digitally locked? A right to fair dealing, a right that one would acquire under this legislation, is there but also in this legislation there is a digital lock. The two conflict.

Many countries have gone through this already, including New Zealand, Australia and now the United States of America, which also has exemptions for education but is also very strict on the idea of digital locks.

The government, and the Minister of Canadian Heritage in particular, have talked about having to live up to their obligations under the World Intellectual Properties Organization, or WIPO. Living up to those regulations may be excessive. New Zealand, Australia and the United States of America worked on ways to provide certain exceptions to circumvent these locks for the sake of the education exemption. In other words, they found there was a problem and they fixed it by doing that.

In the copyright legislation there is also a provision that would allow someone to purchase music and share it among his or her devices, unless it is TPMed, or digitally locked. The individual has the right to use that music on personal devices, but if it is digitally locked, which would be allowed under this legislation and is being promoted, then the two conflict. Under fair dealings the individual would not have the right to that song.

My colleagues across the way look at the video gaming industry as a good example. A good example is the fact that I can understand completely, wholeheartedly, why digital locks work in that particular circumstance if they protect the business model they are in and they are correct. These digital locks will do that. The use of digital locks cannot be expanded from this one sector to all of the others.

This legislation has been done in haste. We have to look at it. I do not know that by accepting this in principle at second reading would give us the freedom to look at it even further.

Here is what we suggested in our amendment, which I think is right. It is a direct test to an exemption. There are two ways of looking at this. We could study exceptions to the rule that we have been talking about extensively. One is Canadian made from 2004, that is the CCH ruling as we normally call it. There are six steps involved there. The other step is more of an international standard which is the Berne Convention from TRIPS. That is called a three step test measure, and I will read it out, “The courts shall interpret any exceptions to copyright infringement or limitations on copyright in this act so as to restrict them to (1) certain special cases that do not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work, and (2) do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author number three”. It is pretty profound when we think about it. If this material is provided to a school or a particular individual a three step test like this must be applied so that fair and equal balance is created.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think members on both sides of the House would agree that copyright modernization is long overdue but this bill has some glaring problems. The most controversial and worrisome of all is the issue of digital locks. I have received hundreds of emails from across Canada, as well as hundreds of signatures on my online petition. If people google “digital lock freedom”, they will find it.

Does the hon. member agree that the biggest problem of all in this legislation is digital locks, which will lead to huge abuses and possible jail time and huge fines?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I think he is right. I hope some of this is illustrated within the context of committee. Unfortunately, from what I understand, and I may be mistaken or at least I hope I am mistaken, the committee does not want to bring back anybody who was a witness during the last round when it was examining Bill C-32, which is a shame because all the new members in the House could have a good conversation about this.

As to the TPM measures, we must keep in mind that, as we say in legislation in many cases, there is nothing new under the sun here. Many countries have dealt with this and by way of example we should look at them, like what the U.S., New Zealand and Australia did. My hon. colleague makes a valid point.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, when The West Wing, which was a popular TV show, was filming its last episode, it came to my home town of Stouffville. A number of local businesses were able to participate in the show; from the baker who provided the food and snacks for the actors and crew to the people at the local hardware store who supplied generators to the production. All these people benefited from having a production like this in my home town of Stouffville.

I would suggest to members opposite that when this industry decides where it is going to make such important investments that create hundreds of thousands of jobs, it will look to jurisdictions that, along with their international partners, will actually protect the work it is creating. When I talk about people, like hairdressers, seamstresses and set designers, those are the people I am talking about.

Could the member confirm for me if he was on the select committee that studied Bill C-32? I think I am correct in suggesting that there were some 7 hours of debate in committee, 32 hours of witness testimony from 76 individuals and 153 individuals and organizations who submitted written submissions. This is actually the second time the member has spoken on this bill.

I am wondering how much debate is required before we send this bill to committee and continue to hear from some of the people who have not had the opportunity to speak. I also wonder if he could explain to the NDP the concept of Hansard whereby people can go back and review some of the testimony and comments made in previous discussions on both Bill C-32 and Bill C-11.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, once again, at the risk of infringing my own copyright, I would like to answer his question with the illustration of a point or perhaps revert back to a popular ad that was played. The number of submissions on Bill C-32, hundreds; the number of changes, zero; political lip service, priceless. Absolutely nothing was done to change it. What is the point of having all of this input, all with great amendments, I might add, when none of it was even looked at?

The member can sit there and pretend that he is listening all day. Some people build relationships on it. Nonetheless, I digress. Unfortunately, in this particular case I would suggest that he follow his own advice. He talked about The West Wing going to his town. As far as I am concerned, if he thinks that the production value is created by smaller communities such as mine or his and, if he is so concerned, he should worry about the artists who get the money directly to help ply their trade, not digital locks.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for London—Fanshawe, Service Canada; the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, Poverty; the hon. member for Etobicoke North, The Environment.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saint-Jean.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin speaking on the substance of Bill C-11, I would like to denounce the methods being systematically used by this government to limit debate. Once again, we are up against a motion that limits the time for debate on this bill. There have been too many to count. I do not know how many the government has moved, but it is becoming a habit. It has become a habit; this government's modus operandi is always to try to limit debate, as though there were some emergency, as though there were a fire, any time a bill is introduced on any subject.

In response to this, the government always says that it has a majority. To my knowledge, 40% of voters does not a majority make.

The government says that it has been given a strong mandate but this is not a strong mandate at all.

The government is using this strong-arm method, but it does not have a strong mandate. Since less than 40% of voters placed their trust in the Conservatives, they cannot use the argument that they have a strong mandate.

Once again, I am disappointed because we are again being forced to cut debate short and we will not be able to explore this properly. As many of my colleagues have pointed out, many of us are new here and would really like the opportunity to express our thoughts on these important issues. Indeed, the bills we are voting on today will have consequences. Many of my colleagues would like to have the opportunity to express their thoughts, without being systematically bullied by this government.

A number of things in Bill C-11 can be criticized. I would first like to talk about the thing that is probably most shocking to Canadians: making it an offence to remove a digital lock. The impression we get is that this government wants to put the entire population in prison; I do not know where we are going to put all the people being locked up. In the NDP, we say this government is disconnected from reality, disconnected from what Canadians see and what Canadians think in everyday life. Canadians do not understand why they want to put someone in prison for five years, when other crimes are much worse but are punished much less harshly. Putting sentences for digital manipulation on the same footing as assaults and crimes against the person makes no sense to the Canadians who watch us do our work as legislators every day.

I am going to offer a more personal anecdote. Before I became a member of Parliament, I worked for Statistics Canada. Statistics Canada's legislation on the subject of the census said that a person could go to prison for not answering the census. This was quite an old provision. Canadians did not understand why failing to fill out a form could mean someone would go to prison just like a person who committed a crime against a person, who committed an assault on someone, or who caused damage to property. People could not understand it.

The fact that we are told someone can be imprisoned for a term of up to five years shows that the government is completely disconnected from reality. No one in Canada would understand how someone could be put in prison for five years for digital manipulation, when other people do not go to prison for crimes against a person. For myself, this is what I find most shocking when I read this bill. It tells me there is a complete failure to understand, a complete disconnect between the government, on its pedestal, which is all powerful and demonstrates every day that it uses and abuses those powers, and the people who are trying to live their lives, and sometimes just trying to survive, and cannot understand this double standard.

Another aspect is also a cause for concern, in my opinion. We have the impression that this government is targeting students. There is a provision in this bill that would require them to destroy course notes they have used after 30 days, when those notes should be part of the knowledge they have acquired. They should be able to retain them for later use in their profession or in higher education. This makes no sense.

We want a country that develops and flourishes due to the quality of its teaching—providing better education for its children—and yet, paradoxically, a clause has been included in this bill that will force students to destroy their class notes. As a result, they will not be able to take advantage of everything they have learned, which is valuable to them, and to all of us here. Indeed, we need the next generations to be better educated and more comfortable, in a professional sense, with new technologies. This is yet another example of the government not sharing the same approach. It is as if they were living in another world.

Something else shocked me. I have listened to a number of debates and discussions on this issue and get the sense that the government is being deliberately ambiguous, and engaging in verbal games with words like “creator” and “copyright owner”. Some of my colleagues made a very relevant observation earlier, and that is that creators are not necessarily—and not at all in many cases—the rights holders. In the debate on this bill, every member across aisle constantly talks about standing up for the rights of authors, but copyright is not always the property of the authors, rather it belongs to big companies or publishing houses which, in practice, are not the authors.

So there is this constant, insidious ambiguity, deliberate in my opinion, regarding creators—whom we wish to encourage, of course—and copyright owners. The latter are often, too often, big companies with sometimes outrageous profit margins, whose situation does not resemble that of a creator, that is, the person who had the brainpower to generate the cultural product in the first place.

The NDP has consistently favoured a balanced approach to find the right balance between, on one hand, the rights of creators—not the copyright owners—to receive fair compensation for their work and their contribution to society in general, and, on the other hand, the right of the consumer to have access to culture at a reasonable price.

When considering the flaws in certain provisions in this bill, what automatically springs to mind is the issue of digital locks, which has in no way been resolved. In fact, as things currently stand in the bill, there could be situations where legal and legitimate copies are banned, despite the fact that it is perfectly legitimate to make the transfer from one format to another once the rights to a product have been purchased. Clearly the bill has not resolved this problem.

I will stop there and answer my colleagues’ questions.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech got me thinking.

If we are prohibiting copying and forcing people to destroy data, would it not make sense to think about destroying old bills that have already been introduced? This would mean less paper hanging around and would save power.