Stephen Woodworth

[Iran, May 14th, 2012]

Mr. Chair, I thank the colleague opposite for her question because she does touch on an extremely important point. It is one that arises particularly from article 6 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I am sure my colleague opposite is well aware of article 6 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but for those others in the House who may not be, I would like to repeat it here. I do not have a copy of it in front of me, but I know it almost by heart because it is a provision I hold close to my heart, so perhaps I will paraphrase it.

Article 6 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that everyone has the right to be considered a person under law everywhere. There are no exceptions admitted to that in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which as my friend opposite knows, applies to every member of the human family.

I make it a personal point to draw this to the attention of the House and the members present that every human being deserves the protection of basic human rights. In this respect, there can be no discrimination of gender or age or location or interface with the law whatsoever. Every human being deserves to be considered a human person under the law, and there are very few laws in the world today that do not comply with that. Those that do fail to comply with that requirement are generally 400-year-old throwbacks to a different era.

[Iran, May 14th, 2012]

Mr. Chair, although I will with courtesy thank my colleague from across the way, I am astounded that the question of a mere fine in the context of the Iranian situation should be raised with any degree of seriousness in this House. I have constituents in my riding who are concerned because their friends and loved ones are subject to threat of execution.

I have related to this House some of the absolutely heinous measures that the Iranian regime takes, up to and including the practice of suspension strangulation. Can members imagine being hung by the neck for 20 to 30 minutes, gradually dying of asphyxiation?

Therefore I must say I find it somewhat inappropriate that in the context of the Iranian abuse of human rights we have a member in the House today asking about mere fines. This House should confine itself to the serious matter at hand in a professional and non-partisan way that really reflects the actual concerns of Iranian Canadians, Baha'i Canadians and others about the terrible human rights abuses that are occurring in Iran.

[Iran, May 14th, 2012]

Mr. Chair, this truly is a sad kind of debate to have, and it gets particularly sad the more partisan we become. I think every member in this House needs to remember that there are Canadians of Iranian descent and otherwise whose loved ones and friends remain in Iran and are suffering. Their grief for those loved ones and friends cannot be underestimated, nor should it be turned for any particular partisan purpose. Members of Parliament should stand together as one to represent our constituents and Canadians who suffer as a result of these conditions.

Hon. members have heard often about the egregious state of human rights in Iran and efforts on the part of Iranian authorities to oppress the Iranian people at every turn. I would like to draw the attention of the House tonight to the monumental failure of Iran's judicial system: the intimidation and imprisonment of lawyers, the rampant abuse of due process rights and the frequent imposition of the death penalty, even on minors and sometimes for crimes as vaguely described as “enmity against God”.

It is worth highlighting that Iran's constitution provides for the judiciary to be an independent power. In practice, however, the court system is subject to ideological influence, corruption and continued subordination to political leaders and security agencies.

The Islamic Republic of Iran continues to administer harsh treatment to the Iranian people itself without proper due process. This long-established trend has become even more entrenched since the 2009 presidential elections, which were accompanied by a surge in popular dissent.

More than ever, Iran is transforming all institutions, including the judiciary, into tools for political persecution and abuse of human rights. The most basic expression of a citizen's rights, the right to a lawyer, the Iranian regime sees as potentially threatening to the Islamic Republic, despite the fact that its laws guarantee representation by legal counsel. The recent sentencing of Iranian lawyer Mohammad Ali Dadkhah to nine years in prison is a good example of a case in which both lawyers and defendants are punished. Mr. Dadkhah is believed to have been targeted because of his efforts to defend political and human rights activists in Iran, including pastor Youcef Nadarkhani, who was sentenced to death in 2010 for apostasy.

Due process rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Iran is a party, are routinely and grossly violated, reducing the likelihood of fair trials. Despite their codfication in the Iranian constitution, a defendant's right to a public trial, to a presumption of innocence and to an appeal have not been respected.

Judges can choose to exclude defence lawyers from court proceedings or even to imprison them, as I previously mentioned. Defendants can be found guilty on the basis of “the knowledge of the judge”, a provision in Iranian law that allows judges to make their own subjective and arbitrary determination as to whether or not an accused person is guilty, even in the absence of any conclusive evidence. It is unbelievable from a Canadian perspective.

Arbitrary arrest of human rights defenders, opposition members and ordinary Iranians is commonplace. Reformers, opposition activists who are mere demonstrators, have been targeted since 2009 and even more so in the wake of the Arab Spring. Ridiculous crimes such as enmity against god, anti-revolutionary behaviour, moral corruption and even siding with global arrogance are met with absolutely draconian punishment.

Following protests in response to the fraudulent 2009 Iranian presidential election, prominent pro-reform activists, lawyers, journalists and politicians were not only imprisoned but also subjected to televised show trials in which they were coerced into making confessions.

Torture by security forces and prison personnel is terribly pervasive. Beatings, threats of execution, sleep deprivation, even rape of prisoners and detainees are widespread. Judicially sanctioned corporal punishment is often cruel and unusual, and even includes amputations and lashings and stonings as a method of execution. Iranian practices with regard to capital and corporal punishment have attracted widespread condemnation from international human rights bodies and organizations.

While Iran acknowledged 421 executions in 2011, observers in Iran counted more than 650 executions based on publicly available information. Official statistics vastly understate the number of executions actually carried out, and they reportedly omit mass executions of prisoners who are in Iranian institutions.

Public executions continue using the cruel and inhumane method of suspension strangulation whereby individuals are suspended by the neck for 20 minutes to 30 minutes until they slowly die of asphyxiation. That is simply intolerable.

A revised Iranian penal code, due to take effect later this year, does remove the stoning penalty, and the UN special rapporteur on human rights in Iran has encouraged the government to explicitly restrict the use of this punishment and to commute existing sentences of execution by stoning. That revised penal code also abolishes the execution of juvenile offenders and offers alternative penalties to incarceration at the judge's discretion. These changes of course are very welcome, but it remains to be seen whether and how the new law will be applied in practice and whether existing sentences will be commuted in the spirit of this new law. Forgive us if we are less than convinced that real action and real reforms will actually take place.

The Government of Canada has been unequivocal in its position that Iran's human rights abuses in their various forms are completely unacceptable. Authorities must take immediate and effective measures to ensure judicial independence and due process are afforded to each and every Iranian citizen. As part of its ongoing efforts to promote respect for human rights in Iran, for the ninth year Canada led the resolution on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran at the fall 2011 session of the United Nations General Assembly. We have imposed some of the toughest sanctions in the world. We continue to work bilaterally and multilaterally with allies in like-minded countries to ensure that Iran's human rights record does not go ignored.

Rather than seeing improvements, the Iranian authorities seem to be further refining their system of oppression and control, including a submissive judiciary machine quick to crush any sign of citizen dissent and free expression. Canada will continue to stand with the Iranian people and urge Iranian authorities to guarantee the independence of the judiciary and the legitimate rights of the Iranian people.

[Iran, May 14th, 2012]

Mr. Chair, I would like to first thank my colleague for his comments tonight. I particularly appreciated his emphasis on the real corruption in the Iranian judicial system and the executions, mutilations and torture that go on. I will be speaking about that myself in a few moments.

I would like to ask my colleague across the way about a new initiative of the Canadian government, the office of religious freedom. What we find around the world is that much persecution is driven by religious prejudice. In Iran, of course, the Baha'i are suffering persecution. In China, it is the Falun Dafa, and in other places, Christians. In the Middle East, Jews are often subject to persecution. I wonder if the member opposite would be able to endorse, join in and support the new initiative by the government, the office for religious freedom? I understand it will have high-ranking ambassadorial status to investigate and speak out against religious persecution around the world.

[Copyright Modernization Act, May 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my friend's question gives me the opportunity to quote directly what was said by the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations:

--the government has demonstrated a commitment to...Canada's education community.

Students across Canada are greatly encouraged....[T]he...government has a clear understanding of how this bill will impact Canada's students, educators and researchers.

In answering my colleague's question, I would also take the opportunity to say that the reality is that by giving people the ability to have digital locks on the products they create, we are allowing them to give locks for different levels of usage. If there were no such locks, creators would need to charge the highest price for the highest and most extensive use of their product. However, by allowing digital locks, they could give graduated access to their products, some of them at much lesser cost than if it were going to be used by dozens or hundreds of people. In the end, this will be a boon for consumer pricing.

[Copyright Modernization Act, May 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the business of the opposition is to try to provoke as much worry as possible in Canadians all across the country. I would like to read for the member a few things that have been said about this bill which will allay not only his worries as he professes them, but the worries of Canadians all across the country.

I will begin with one of my favourite artists, Loreena McKennitt. She is an artist and creator of great renown around the world. As written in the Stratford Beacon Herald, she said that the changes proposed in the government's copyright bill are “fair and reasonable”.

The Canadian Photographers Coalition, creators of great intellectual works, welcomes the government's copyright reform legislation. It said:

These amendments should allow Canadian small business photographers the opportunity to generate additional revenues for their commercial work.

Perhaps my friend would be less worried if he knew that the Canadian Intellectual Property Council said:

We applaud and fully support the government's efforts to update Canada's copyright regime.

The International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees said, “We congratulate the government” for protecting “our creative industries and men and women working in film and television production across Canada.”

I could go on. I hope that will allay some of my hon. colleague's worries.

[Copyright Modernization Act, May 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about an important aspect of Bill C-11, the copyright modernization act.

Copyright is not only about creators and users; it is also about the companies that act as mediators and intermediaries to connect users and creators across the globe. Never has this been as true as it is today, given the proliferation of new services on the Internet. They have quite simply changed all of our lives. Canadians are now accustomed to having a wealth of information at their fingertips.

The marvel of the 19th century was Alexander Graham Bell's electrical speech machine. The Internet will be looked on as the marvel of the 20th century. Information is becoming accessible everywhere, connecting everyone. Not only is the Internet changing the way people communicate, it is also enhancing the global economy.

The importance of the people who connect others through technology has long been recognized in Canada. Bill C-11 follows this theme, while reflecting the evolution of technology. It delivers safe harbour or shelter from liability under copyright law to those who merely provide the platform and tools that let people use and find things on the Internet. Bill C-11 recognizes the absolutely vital role played in realizing the potential of the Internet by mutual intermediaries such as Internet service providers and search engines.

Safe harbours are also formally recognized by Canada's trading partners that signed the 1996 World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty. All agreed that the mere provision of physical facilities did not in itself amount to a violation of copyright.

In the digital environment, it is crucial that neutral intermediaries are not held liable for the activities of their customers. So long as they are simply providing a connection, caching, hosting or helping to locate information, they should be exempt from copyright liability. Bill C-11, by providing clear limitations on their liability, would ensure that these services would continue to provide users with open access to the dynamic online environment.

At the same time, ISPs are in a unique position to facilitate the enforcement of copyright on the Internet. Because ISPs are often the only parties able to identify and warn subscribers accused of infringing copyright, the bill would require all of them to participate in the fight against piracy. The bill would bring into law what is sometimes called the “notice and notice” regime. This system is currently used on a voluntary basis within Canada's Internet service industry.

Under this system, when an ISP receives notice from a copyright holder that a subscriber might be infringing copyright, the ISP forwards the notice to the subscriber. I am proud to say that notice and notice is a uniquely Canadian solution to this problem. It would ensure that we would not view a truly neutral Internet service provider in the same light that we would an actual copyright pirate.

An amendment made at committee stage has clarified the safe harbour provisions so that the strongest efforts are made to catch only the true Internet pirates. At the same time, the bill clearly would not allow us to tolerate negligence.

During the clause-by-clause review of the bill, the legislative committee adopted technical amendments that would ensure that the notice-and-notice regime would be appropriately implemented. These amendments clarify that an ISP must send the notice “as soon as feasible”, rather than the previous language, “without delay”.

The committee did its jobs in this case and improved on the proposal it had before it. All of this would ensure that delays in forwarding notices due to circumstances beyond the ISP's control would be taken into account by any court.

Only ISPs that fail to live up to the notice and notice requirement would be liable for civil damages. Again, this approach to addressing online infringement is unique to Canada. It provides copyright owners with the tools to enforce their rights while respecting due process and protecting users.

Another amendment made at committee clarifies the responsibilities of Internet service providers and search engines to not interfere with monitoring software on websites, such as those that generate data sometimes used to monetize web traffic.

The bill requires ISPs and search engines to comply with instructions on websites relating to caching and indexing, as long as those practices are in line with industry standards. To avoid imposing an overly onerous burden on Internet intermediaries, amendments were adopted to clarify that ISPs and search engines must comply with these instructions, but only when they are specified in a manner consistent with industry practice.

We strongly believe that the bill, as amended, would encourage even greater participation of Canadians in the digital economy and would deliver incentives to Canadian businesses and creators to invest in digital technologies.

Copyright modernization is an important element of a strengthened economy and with other initiatives will position Canada for leadership in the global digital environment.

One of the other initiatives, for example, is the Minister of Industry's recent decision to open up the 700 megahertz spectrum to auction. That announcement also included a focus on tower sharing and stronger rural deployment, meaning greater coverage for people everywhere in Canada. It also included opening up our telecom sector to increased global investment, a measure that we see in the budget implementation bill, which also needs to be passed swiftly by Parliament.

Further, we have put a priority on ensuring wider broadband deployment. We intend to reach a target where 98% of Canadians will have access to broadband infrastructure. That is 98%. We are investing in programs to help students, communities and businesses adapt to the digital economy. We are moving forward with consumer protection measures, such as anti-spam and do-not-call measures.

Through these steps and, most critically, steps being taken by Canada's private sector digital economy leaders, we are becoming an increasingly digital nation. As I have mentioned, copyright reform and the broader protection of intellectual property is an important element of Canada's digital economic shift. In passing this bill, we would enhance Canada's capacity to innovate using digital technologies, help build a world-class digital infrastructure, provide the best conditions for the growth of our information and communications technology industry, and foster Canadian creativity.

With a riding like Kitchener Centre in Waterloo region which is home to the offices of Canadian digital giants like Desire2Learn, OpenText, Google, RIM, and others, I am keenly aware of the benefits of these new copyright provisions for all Canadians. I urge all hon. members to join me in supporting this bill so that the copyright modernization act can lead the way toward even newer digital marvels in the 21st century for all Canadians.

[Petitions, May 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from my constituents in Kitchener Centre who point out that Canada is the only nation in the western world, and in the company of China and North Korea, without any laws protecting the rights of children before birth. They said that Canada's Supreme Court has said that it is Parliament's responsibility to deal with this issue.

The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to enact legislation to restrict abortion to the greatest extent possible.

I would be happy if we could just have an informed discussion about the rights of children before birth.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act, May 10th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, it is a very astute observation that the NDP members refuse to actually debate what is in the budget. All they want to talk about is process, and that is because what is in the budget is really beyond debate. It has been so well received across Canada that there is nothing they can say to criticize it.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act, May 10th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter is that Canada has come out of that recession more quickly and in a better and stronger position than any other member of the G7, and that is thanks to our government.