Earlier this week the 2nd Reading debate on Bill C-32 opened in the House of Commons. This provided the first tangible opportunity for Canadians to hear from each party concerning their views on the proposed legislation. Similar to the Canadian Coalition for Electronic Rights, the Liberals, NDP and Bloc seem to agree with the Bill in principle, meaning they agree Canada’s copyright regime needs to be updated and that Bill C-32 is a plausible starting point. That being said, there quickly emerged a general consensus amongst ALL opposition parties that Bill C-32 is flawed at its very core by how it implements protection for digital locks. A flaw that each party insisted be fixed at the committee stage to ensure a balance between publishers, distributors and creators / consumers.

The following is each party’s stance on Bill C-32 and its flawed approach to digital locks:

LIBERALS (MARC GARNEAU)

The Liberal Party has problems with digital locks and technological protection measures, or TPMs. The Liberal Party has concerns with the application of new TPM circumvention amendments in Bill C-32. Specifically as it applies to music, video and other digital media, the Liberal Party believes the Copyright Act must allow Canadians who have legitimately purchased a CD, DVD or other product the ability to transfer their purchase onto other personal devices, such as an iPod, or make a personal backup copy on their computers so long as they are not doing so for the purposes of sale or transfer to others. We do not believe that Bill C-32 achieves that principle at this time. There are various ways in which a solution could be found and we look forward to examining the different options in committee.

NDP (CHARLIE ANGUS)

The digital locks make a mockery of any claim of giving fair rights. The government says that we will get fair dealing rights for education and for reproduction for private purposes. People can make back-up copies; there will be copying rights for the print disabled; there is the so-called YouTube mash-up provision. But if there is a digital lock in place, all those rights are erased. Clause 41.1 lays out very clear technological protection measures, which supersede the rights that citizens would otherwise enjoy. Thus Bill C-32 offers citizens’ rights that they will not actually be able to access. What the government is doing is creating a two-tiered set of rights between digital and non-digital products. Instead of legal certainty, Canadian citizens will face arbitrary limitations on what should be their legal right of access.

BLOC (CAROLE LAVALLEE)

This bill is totally unbalanced because it benefits major U.S. companies and major computer gaming software companies to the detriment of artists. There are two totally disheartening approaches in this bill and seven deadly sins, if I can put it that way. The first approach is one using digital locks. Sure, we can say that digital locks are necessary, and that they must be respected, but to base an entire bill on them is a bit much. With this bill, the government is telling artists that if they want to make money, all they have to do is put digital locks on their musical works to prevent anyone from copying them. If people want to make a copy for themselves, or to transfer the music to another format, it would be absurd to make them buy the original work again. That makes no sense, and it will not work. We are talking about the survival of artists and their art here, and this is important for many reasons. An approach based on digital locks is completely ludicrous.

Industry Minister Jim Prentice came under fire during question period today by Charlie Angus who implied that the Minister of Industry was guilty of taking orders from US interests on the Canadian copyright file.

Angus:
So from here on in the only consumer rights you will have are the ones the US industry gives you. If you try to protect your rights they will come after you. Why has this government declared war on Canadian consumers?

Prentice quickly fired back, reading from the same script as his Parliamentary Secretary Colin Carrie

Prentice:
The educational exemptions are made in Canada. The format-shifting exemptions are made in Canada. The time-shifting exemptions are made in Canada. The private copying of music exemptions are made in Canada. The provisions relating to statutory damages, Mr. Speaker are made in Canada. All of these provisions of the Bill are uniquely Canadian.

Unfortunately, Prentice fails to mention that the anti-circumvention provisions included in Bill C-61 were born in the United States and made worse in Canada. These anti-circumvention provisions undermine each of the “made-in-Canada” provisions and exceptions the Minister of Industry was touting on the floor.

Just when you thought the master of closing salutations couldn’t top his hang-up mid-interview with CBC’s “Search Engine” Prentice closes his supposed answer with gem of a statement:

Prentice:
My friend’s comments about the USA DMCA are NDP BS.

Angus goes on to commit the support of the NDP to fight the Canadian DMCA and to protect Canadian consumers and creators. Something clearly not high on this minority Government’s agenda.

Former NDP Industry Critic and perpetual thorn in Jim Prentice’s side, Charlie Angus continues to direct the June 4th, 2008 Question Period agenda to the Copyright reform issue. Angus, the author, broadcaster, editor, journalist, negotiator, singer, MP and all around good guy demands a fair and open debate on this important issue.