Debates of May 14th, 2012

Copyright Modernization Act

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, am I confident that this legislation will help create jobs and help maintain jobs? I am confident that this piece of legislation, along with the economic action plan that we brought in, will help create even more jobs.

Obviously, the record is there: 750,000 net new jobs have been created in this country through the economic action plan. Constantly, we see that the opposition members want to vote against that. They are so desperate to divide this country that they actually go to foreign countries to talk down Canadian jobs.

In December of this year, four of the top five artists were Canadians. The largest film festival in the world is the Toronto International Film Festival. On this side of the House, we understand the importance of arts and culture. It is responsible for billions of dollars in investment. It is responsible for hundreds of thousands of jobs.

We have confidence in our artists, musicians, and the people who create motion pictures and TV shows. We know that they can compete with anybody. All they are asking for is that their creations and the works that they worked hard to create are protected, and that we open up even more markets for them around the world. That is what this legislation does.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we have all spoken admiringly about cultural groups and the entertainment industry. We recognize the importance they play in the jobs that are created. We want to do what we can to preserve those jobs.

The member made reference to the fact that this legislation does nothing in terms of university students. I would like him to provide clarification on that. A good number of university students are following the debate on this legislation. There is a genuine concern that the information that they garner from their classrooms and their studies will be attacked in part by this legislation, if it passes. There are time limits for how long they will be able to retain certain information from the classroom.

Can the member, on behalf of the government, provide assurances to university students across Canada that in no way do they have to worry about disposing of information that they collect from the classroom?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we provided that assurance. The bill provides that assurance. The only people who are questioning that are of course the opposition members in a desperate attempt to divide Canadians.

According to the bill, if a student is doing distance education at home and the professor shows a movie as part of the course in the classroom, should that student at home be able to take that movie and use it forevermore when the student in the class is not allowed to do that? Should the two students be treated equally? Absolutely.

However, will the notes that students take while in class be seized, as the opposition has stated? No. Will they be able to use those 30 years from now if they so desire? Yes. Will any not copyrighted information still be left in the possession of our students? Yes, of course it will.

The bill ensures that any copyrighted material is not used adversely against the people who work hard to create it. It evens out the balance between those who study at home and those who are studying in classrooms. That is why 25 student associations across the country support the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is now at report stage after years of debate. One of the things that we keep saying about this copyright bill and its predecessors, in the form of Bill C-32 and before that in 2004-05, is that times change. Technology changes swiftly. The first time I spoke about this legislation in the House was in 2005 when Twitter and Facebook did not exist. They were not part of the popular culture by any stretch.

As a result of technology changing all the time, we find ourselves in a position where sometimes the argument varies. We have been debating this issue for 10 or 15 years. The last time amendments were made was in 1997. Because of the shifting sands and the scope of the argument that we are making, we should be debating this quite often. The debate today will take a different form than what it would have been five or six years ago.

Modernizing the Copyright Act should stand the test of time. It is essential that it be neutral and balanced. It should also be flexible enough in that it can apply to the many technologies that are with us today and will be in the future. These include social media, technologies in the education field, including books, digital or not, and the dissemination of any type of information for profit. In the artistic world, this includes works of art such as songs or movies. My hon. colleague brought up the video gaming industry. That is a prime example of how we need good laws on the books in order for it to protect its property.

All the stakeholders that have been mentioned generally support the bill but they also say that it needs to be changed, that amendments need to be made. No major changes were proposed within the committee structure. That is unfortunate because there seems to be some legitimate claims to this. I will give the House the illustration that I spoke about in my question earlier.

Take the education exemption. Material used for the purpose of education is exempted from copyright. That in and of itself any Canadian would understand. Any person in the world would understand that copyright material can be used to build upon education.

Artists and others base their work on someone else's work. There is nothing wrong with that. That is the whole point of being involved in the world of music and movies. There is nothing new under the sun so therefore we must protect some of this at its core.

When it gets to the point where someone's art or someone's creation is exploited, allowing people to generate money from hard work by someone else, without adding anything to it, without fundamentally changing it and building upon his or her own artistic merits, then we have problems. That is where this legislation comes in.

Let us take a look again at that education exemption. As a result of it being such a blanket exemption, a lot of issues will have to be determined by the courts to see whether the law is being broken. Sometimes there could be a situation in education where someone is breaking the law. Material is being taken and is not only being used for classroom purposes, but it is being dispersed to a wider field. That work is therefore being exploited for profit, or the ability of that piece of work to make a profit is being diminished, and it is quite obvious.

Witnesses told us that we could put in a multi-step test. Even though there is a blanket exemption on education, as responsible people, as legislators, as lawmakers, we could take the material before a court. A judge could look at it and put it to a test. If people feel that a university has used their material to affect their ability to make a profit, it should be put to the test: does it fulfill the requirements of one to six options? Many jurisdictions around the world have done this. There is just no test in the middle between blanket exemption and copyright infringement. There is nothing wrong with putting a filter there to see if it could work. Otherwise the courts will have to decide.

Let us look at another example of Bill C-11. If we look at the logic of it, we have to try to understand why it was written this way, without certain limitations and without certain ways of looking at the unforeseen.

Many jurisdictions around the world went through the same process before we did. They put digital locks or technical protection measures in place and said, “that is that, we will be fine, there are no exemptions to it”. If we digitally lock something, that is it.

However, jurisdictions like the United States of America, New Zealand and Australia realize that we end up roping some of the laws we have placed into our own legislation. Here is an example. Within Bill C-11, if people download a song, they have the right to share this piece of music among other ways of listening. They could listen to it on an iPod or they could download it from iTunes and put it on to a CD. How do they listen to a piece of music that they purchased? They have bought a piece of music that they should be allowed to share. However, if a company, such as Apple, decides to digitally lock it, the music cannot be shared among one's other devices.

If I downloaded a book that was digitally locked, I could not transport it to the new iPad I bought, because I went from a reader that was built years ago. I could not transfer it because of digital locks. According to the law, I should be able to do so. I could get an app that converts it, but the problem is, the right to convert now belongs, not to the people of Canada, not to the government, not to this legislature, but to Apple. I do not mean to specifically pick on Apple. It could be Microsoft or it could be any other corporation.

We need to look at measures by which we could circumvent this when it comes to education. For example, a teacher might get a movie to show the English as a second language class. What if it is digitally locked for the particular player the teacher has?

We have not specifically looked at what I would consider to be sound amendments in this legislation, like the multi-step process. The multi-step process has to specify that even though there is an exemption involved and it is being used in a classroom setting, by putting it out widely among the public, we are basically cutting into the profit of someone who has copyright of the material. That is a question we need to be asking. That is the fair balance that we feel should be looked at. The committee heard from many witnesses, but very few changes, if any, were made. Nothing was changed in the legislation.

I think that international pressure probably came to bear and the Conservatives had to put something out, in light of the situation in the United States or even the European Union.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by my colleague. I wonder if he could provide some additional thoughts in regard to the consumer advocate groups or students that might have concerns in regard to the passage of the bill. There was a heightened sense of expectation that there would be some amendments to the legislation brought forward, but it did not appear as though that had taken place to any real extent.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is a pertinent one. When we look at the stakeholder reaction to this, it was wide and extensive. It came from an assortment of groups, including consumers.

When we talk about consumers, we are essentially talking about the fair dealing process. What I mean by fair dealing is people being able to use material for the sake of parity, for example, news clips, in that particular way.

The overriding measures of digital locks and TPMs are really getting to the core of consumer rights in this situation. By way of illustration, as I brought up earlier, we now have the right to take a piece of music or a movie and share it among our devices, but if it is locked, we cannot do that.

On the one hand the consumer is given the right, but on the other hand the government is allowing the business model of a large corporation to take it away.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments on this. I think the Liberals are as concerned about the bill as we are.

I have received some correspondence from teachers who are concerned about how this bill would impact the way they provide information to students. They are concerned that students could at some point be charged if they do not destroy the information right away. I wonder if my colleague could elaborate on some concerns that he may have on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, this has come up quite a bit.

The Conservatives say we are being too alarmist, but I do not think we can be too alarmist in this case. Even if the Conservatives are right in saying that notes would not be taken away to be burned and one would not be thrown in jail, even if we do not go to that extent, it is still a serious concern.

Education is a lifelong endeavour and one tends to keep materials for quite some time, especially those in long-distance education, in rural areas, first nations, and such places. We would always want to give them the right to have the material to use forever because it is a lifelong process.

In this case I think it is particularly onerous. However, again, we go back to where a few technical amendments certainly would have made it easier to digest if some of this material could stay with the particular student without allowing harm to happen to the particular artist or creator.

In creating something, balance is an ongoing measure. It is not black and white, which seems to be what is coming out of this legislation. It is something that has to be looked at. If there is a grey area, a court has to have some guidance from legislators to find out what it is it should look for in balancing between the creator and a person being able to keep material for the sake of his or her own learning.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to take part in today's debate on Bill C-11, the copyright modernization act.

I will say at the outset that I support this bill. It is the exact bill that was tabled in the last Parliament as Bill C-32, which reached the committee stage prior to the election last year. It is the exact bill that groups were calling to be passed more than a year ago.

It is the culmination of one of the most extensive consultations that any bill has undergone. More than 9,000 Canadian citizens and organizations have provided their thoughts regarding what a balanced copyright bill should look like. It is from that exercise that we arrived at the balance which we have today. It is a balance with which not everyone is 100% content, but everyone can agree that they have some specific measure that they called for. Canadians can also agree that what we have in this bill, especially with the amendments arrived at during committee stage, is in the right ballpark of what balanced copyright law should look like. It is a hard-won balance, the result of principled compromise, and one which the government is proud of.

Across the way, the opposition parties have talked about this balance in two separate, almost disjointed ways. On one hand, they pit artists against consumers and then they turn around and favour consumers over artists, all the while ignoring the need to ensure compromise.

Over here, we realize that this compromise is necessary because consumers and artists are two sides of the same coin. If artists do not trust the rules that protect their rights and govern Canada's digital economy, they will be reluctant to produce their content here. The government and members of Parliament have heard that time and time again. We have also heard that if consumers are unable to enjoy and use that content in legal ways that make sense to them, there will not be a market for the artists' work. That is why we have created a bill that strikes the right balance between the needs of consumers and users, while at the same time making strong exemptions for educational purposes, or fair dealing.

Given this, the bill is an important stepping stone to the establishment of a strong framework in which Canada's digital economy can thrive. We know that the economy is changing significantly. What we do with smart phones, tablets and computers has taken our economy in a new direction. Artists and rights holders are using the digital economy not only to create new markets, but also to create hundreds of thousands of jobs for Canadians. Those benefits are reflected in the raft of groups that are supportive of this legislation, namely, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Entertainment Software Association of Canada, the Business Coalition for Balanced Copyright, the Canadian Anti-Counterfeiting Network, the Canadian Intellectual Property Council, and the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. I could go on, but I think the point is clear. This bill has wide-ranging support from those who see it as a key platform in the growth of the digital economy and the creation of knowledge economy employment.

I must say that in listening to the opposition members, it is as though they have forgotten the process by which we have arrived here. I have listened with interest to today's debate and it is eerily reminiscent of the budget debate.

In the budget, for example, we on the government side are putting forth a plan on how to sustain Canada's economic health in a time of global economic uncertainty and the opposition is dreaming up new ways to stop our economic growth right in its tracks. We are providing for new, reasonable and economically viable ways to help grow our economy, whether it is through investment in our knowledge economy, sensible changes to the Investment Canada Act, or opening up our telecom sector to increased foreign investment. Like copyright reform, these measures are important for the advancement of Canada's digital economy. The Minister of Industry's telecom announcement will mean great things for the advancement of a rural digital economy in ridings such as my own, as we saw that rural deployment is a strong focus of his. However, the opposition says no to these investments and no to changes that will create jobs and investment right here at home.

In the budget implementation bill, we have proposed practical changes to create a reasonable timeline for environmental reviews while creating stronger environmental laws. We know that in the next 10 years more than 500 projects representing --

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

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I was willing to listen to about four minutes on the budget implementation bill, but the member has exceeded that and he keeps going on about the budget implementation bill. If the Conservatives want time allocation, they might as well stick to it.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I take it the hon. member is referring to the rule of relevance as it relates to debate.

The hon. member will know that members are afforded a great deal of liberty in terms of exploring different ideas around how their remarks are relevant to the question that is before the House. I am sure the hon. member for Nipissing—Timiskaming is going to be coming around to the point.

The hon. member for Nipissing—Timiskaming.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Absolutely, Mr. Speaker.

Five hundred new projects representing $500 billion in new investments will be proposed for Canada. The potential for job growth is enormous.

Since 2006, our government has worked to streamline the review process for major resource development projects. Our efforts have made a positive difference without any negative environmental impact. We know more needs to be done and more can be done.

However, the opposition says no to jobs and economic strength and federal and provincial revenues that will flow from that measure. I understand that part of this is the role of the opposition parties, but even their parliamentary games are beyond unreasonable. For example, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster took up over 13 hours of debate and 70 speaking spots. He even read some Twitter posts. I guess none of his colleagues had anything to add.

When I look at these kinds of tactics, I am not surprised about the opposition's stance on this bill. The same kind of games were played during the second reading--

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to stick to that same point of order. I am assuming the member is going to get around to the copyright bill again, right?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I note the hon. member's remarks and the Chair is also listening carefully. The hon. member may understand that there are two minutes remaining in the time allocated for his remarks. I am sure he will be getting around to the question before the House.

The hon. member for Nipissing—Timiskaming.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, every day the NDP delayed, another day went by without a modern, flexible copyright regime to help spur on our digital economy. When it comes down to it, that is what this bill is all about, how rights holders and consumers interact with the digital economy.

We know after listening to witnesses at committee stage on both Bill C-11 and Bill C-32 that this bill will create jobs and support the growth of Canadian businesses in a digital online environment. It will promote creativity and innovation, give Canadian creators the tools they need to combat piracy and better enable consumers and users to participate in a digital age. It is about ensuring that artists can profit from their work in the way that they choose. At the same time it ensures that consumers have access to the latest in creative content on the latest technologies in a way that makes sense.

We believe the bill is sensible. We believe that it is a balance. We believe it is time to pass this legislation once and for all, for the sake of consumers, artists, the entertainment industry and the Canadian economy as a whole.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since my colleague did not really respect the theme of the debate, I will do the same and ask a question that extends a little beyond the theme of this debate, but that concerns something he mentioned in his speech. He mentioned the government's commitment to ensuring that remote regions have Internet access.

In my opinion, that is not necessarily the case. I see the government determining the rules for the auction of the 700 MHz bandwidth, which will not necessarily improve Internet access in remote areas.

I would like to hear his comments on that.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this legislation, through Bill C-32 and now Bill C-11, has had 150 submissions from stakeholders. We have heard from over 70 organizations. We have studied this thing to death and it is time to move on. It is time for the opposition to stop the delaying tactics and get this bill into legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Nipissing—Timiskaming for a spectacular discussion because he has shown the direct parallel between what the opposition likes to do. It likes to delay bills. When it comes to the economy, it likes to talk down the Canadian economy. It likes to go to foreign jurisdictions and talk down Canadian creators, those who create jobs, wealth and investment.

Therefore, I thank the hon. member for making that direct link between the 11 or 13 hours, or three days, of filibustering on the economic action plan and the over two Parliaments' worth of filibustering by the opposition on this bill. The hon. member is quite correct. When the opposition delays and obfuscates, it hurts Canadians jobs and the economy.

I wonder if the hon. member would agree with me that it is time we passed this bill because it is imperative that we bring in copyright reform to improve jobs and the economy.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is i quite right. That was the intent of most of my speech. There has been delay after delay. The opposition has thrown minutia at us. We have it at 95% to 98%. There is an old saying, “You can't let perfection be the enemy of the good”.

The opposition is simply throwing delay tactic after delay tactic. Canadians have waited for this legislation for over two Parliaments. It is time to get on the job. We want to get things done.

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

Mr. Speaker, that begs the question as to why the Conservatives prorogued the House a couple of years if that were the case.

I have a question for the member that requires only a yes or no answer.

I will use the example of a classroom that has a particular piece, like a movie, to play for the sake of education and the movie is digitally locked and it is unable to play it. Let us say that it goes around that lock and plays the movie anyway. Even though it is in the classroom, would that be an infringement, yes or no?

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not a digital technocrat but, as I have indicated to the House, the legislative committee received 140 written submissions and heard from over 70 individual organizations. It has come up with a balanced compromise that would not only fit those needs but that would fit the needs for the digital world for Canadians into the future.

As I say, it is time to move ahead and move on with the legislation.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today about my concerns with Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act.

As the official opposition critic for digital issues, I can see that the proposed measures will have serious repercussions on the digital economy and on the Canadian public. I believe we must study these repercussions very carefully.

First, I would like to speak about the importance of changes in technology. Our society is going through great upheavals, and the constant advances—ever faster and more significant, thanks to new technology—become central to all our spheres of activity. In our professional and personal lives or in our academic careers, we are affected by this observation.

Copyright—authors' rights—is one such facet. I believe we must look closely at the rules that regulate copyright today and harmonize them with current international standards. I believe, therefore, that it is our duty to study the measures we need to adopt in order to satisfy the interests of everyone involved in this issue. Many groups of people are involved, and their demands are not necessarily the same. Sometimes, they are even quite antagonistic.

Creative, university, technological and business communities, along with consumer rights advocates, have legitimate concerns, but they do not necessarily go hand in hand.

This very complex issue deserves careful, in-depth consideration. I would like to reiterate that the NDP supports careful consideration of updated copyright rules. That is also why I would like to make the House aware of the many problems with this bill.

My first concern is about digital locks and consumers. Digital locks force consumers to pay for access to works for a limited time.

Michael Geist, a leading technology pundit, told the committee that:

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 use rights and the new rights set out in Bill C-11 will cease to apply if the copyright holder decides to place a digital lock on content or on a device.

Digital locks do not take into consideration existing rights including the fair dealing rights of students and journalists. I think that the bill's inflexibility when it comes to students is very worrying.

Indeed, I find it draconian that distance education students will be forced to destroy their course notes one month after their course has ended. When a person takes a course, he should be able to keep his notes so that he can use or consult them at a later stage. That is what learning is about: the person keeps what he has learned. It is completely unfair and inequitable, especially since the cost of education continues to rise.

Moreover, vested Charter rights—for example a change of format in the case of a visual disability—may be denied, which would jeopardize the balance between respecting the rights of artists and the right to fair access to content for all Canadians. In my opinion, this constitutes a voluntary exclusion of certain people who should have a universal right to use and discover these works.

It is therefore believe it is essential that we consider these repercussions, which divide the public by restricting access to information for some and not for others.

I am also concerned about the fact that consumers do not have access to content they have already paid for if they exceed the time limit for which they have access to these creations. This will give copyright owners unprecedented powers.

My second concern has to do with legislative measures proposed under the bill. In fact, the bill creates new anti-circumvention rights, which prevent access to copyrighted works. Individuals or organizations that are found guilty of having accessed content without paying for it will be subject to large fines.

My third concern has to do with financial matters. Digital locks enable content owners to charge a fee; however, a distinction needs to be made. These owners are not necessarily the creators or developers of the content, which means that the money collected does not necessarily end up in the hands of the artists or authors.

In its present form, then, this bill deprives artists and content creators of millions of dollars in income, and redistributes it to the copyright owners, which are often big corporations such as record companies and movie studios.

As a result, this bill serves to secure higher incomes, not necessarily for artists and content creators, but for copyright owners. In my riding, a number of artists’ associations are concerned about this vision.

When it comes to creators’ rights, the artists—the ones who are really responsible for these works—will be faced with another problem. This bill contains provisions that would change mechanical rights for musicians, which will result in a loss of $21 million for music creators, who already have very low incomes.

We should help them to continue enriching our lives. This bill would also weaken the moral rights that provide them with some control over their creations and content.

As a result of its consultations with the industry, consumers, creators in Quebec and anglophone creators, the NDP brought forward 17 amendments in committee in order to strike a balance between the rights of creators and the rights of consumers. Unfortunately, this government is too stubborn to listen to anyone other than its Conservative friends, and it rejected all our amendments.

A number of eminent researchers and groups support our position and share our concerns. Over 80 arts and culture organizations across Quebec and nationwide argue that this bill would be “toxic to Canada’s digital economy”.

“These organizations caution that, if the government does not amend the copyright modernization act to provide for adequate compensation for the owners of Canadian content, it will lead to a decline in the production of Canadian content and the distribution of that content in Canada and abroad.”

The NDP is trying to strike a balance between all the interests of the stakeholders involved in and affected by this issue. In its present form, I do not think that this bill meets that need. It is important for creators to have the means to create and that they be compensated for their work. It is also important for consumers to have fair access that does not create inequalities.

This bill risks creating more problems than it solves, both from a legal and a financial perspective. I will be happy to continue to work with the committee members and the many witnesses.

We will work in committee to try to change this bill when we form the government in 2015.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague and I congratulate her on having been chosen as the digital affairs spokesperson for the New Democratic Party. We are the only party that actually understands the importance of having a digital spokesperson and I think she is very equipped for the job.

The issue of forward-looking copyright as opposed to backward-looking copyright or defensive copyright is crucial to the issue of developing a 21st century economic plan.

Under this provision, any long distance learning materials, the transfer of materials from library to library, which has such an incredible potential for development and for learning research, the government will make it law that after five days any of the research materials must somehow disappear. They need to have a technological protection measure to interfere with the right of people to do research.

Why does my hon. colleague think the government wants to treat researchers, academics, students and people doing medical and legal research as though they were pirates, that they are such a threat that we need to put locks on their ability to learn?

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the excellent question. As we know, this government has a tendency to treat Internet users and researchers as criminals. That seems to be the Conservative way.

To answer the question, I find it quite disturbing that the government did not consider the fact that students taking distance education courses will be forced to destroy their own notes. Or perhaps it did consider this and simply chose not to worry about it.

I think this is a huge problem, because people want to keep their notes when they are learning. Yet, people are being told they have to destroy their notes. I think this really shows how unbalanced this bill is. It shows that many amendments are needed and that this government really did not think this through when it rejected our amendments.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is well versed in the large-scale implications of this unfortunate piece of legislation. I am just thinking of local bands in my community. Could she tell us how this measure would negatively impact local artists in her community?