Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity. I'll just make a few points. The first is that I think Professor Geist is absolutely talking about free copying. When it comes to the educational exception, one can copy up to a substantial part without infringing. Anything over or above that would normally be subject to compensation authorization.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  Thank you very much for the question. There are a lot of issues that are not in this bill. If you looked around the country, people would say that they'd asked for things in the consultations, but they're not seeing them in the bill. If we took every one of those and said that we can't move forward on copyright until we get everything in, we would go nowhere.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  Thank you very much, Mr. Cardin. With respect to the terminology, I can actually see both sides of that question. When somebody buys a BlackBerry or an iPod at Future Shop or wherever, an amount is added. Is it a tax? It has an attribute of having an extra amount. Looking at it from the creator's side, they're looking to be paid a royalty, so there are two sides to it: on the one hand, an amount is added; on the other hand, an amount would go to the creator.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  Mr. Cardin, I agree with you that this is all about ensuring that ultimately artists get paid and are rewarded for their work. I think everyone would have to agree that uncompensated uses are detrimental everywhere. My own view is that we do a number of things. The first thing we do is to get rid of the wealth destroyers, who result in a lot of uncompensated copying.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  Can I answer that very quickly?

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  Thank you, Mr. Lake. I'd like to respond to a couple of comments that Professor Geist made in response to Mr. Angus's question. I do agree with the notion that we need very clear framework rules, but I fundamentally disagree about what those rules are. As well, I do not believe that a person who buys a product subject to a digital lock should necessarily simply have the right to circumvent that digital lock, and I don't think using the “trumping” language is actually appropriate.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  Thank you very much, Mr. McTeague. That's a very good question. I think the enablement provision would be one of those tools that would help achieve a similar result in Canada. If you look at The Pirate Bay, The Pirate Bay is not directly liable for infringement. What The Pirate Bay does is facilitate infringement by others.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  Thank you, Mr. Lake. I appreciate it. The first thing to mention is the fact that we have a bill and we're at the committee. It really is essential for the Canadian economy that we move forward with this bill and get something that can be passed. I can't underestimate how important it is for Canadian business, Canadian jobs, and Canadians who want to establish new business models and go forward, so the fact that we're doing this is good in itself.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  Thank you for the question, Mr. Angus. I hope at a later point in time I get an opportunity to address the other part of your question, which Professor Geist dealt with, because I don't agree with that. Concerning this situation, I believe that artists are losing revenues, as you've said.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  Madame Lavallée, I certainly agree with a lot of your sentiment, particularly the sentiment that talks about droit d'auteur and how important that concept is in Quebec. Sometimes in English Canada we unfortunately don't perceive it that way. Your point is a very valid one, and the Bureau du droit d'auteur mentioned that point.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  In my view, several provisions would not comply with a three-step test. In my view, education, as currently drafted, is not a special case. It would affect the market and it would unreasonably prejudice the interests of the authors. The UGC provision as well is not a special case.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  It's unquestionably true that this will cause loss of revenues to creators. It won't be simply the broadcast mechanical royalty, which takes an existing situation with an existing tariff and removes money that the Copyright Board has already valued. On the educational exception, I think it's unquestionably true, because by definition some dealing is free dealing that would have been compensated for before, so there definitely will be loss of revenues there.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  You ask a very good question. It's one that I could spend all of your time on. Unfortunately, I can't do that. There are two perspectives here. One is looking at the bill in its current form and looking at the bill as it could be when the unintended consequences are removed. In its present form, some of the provisions, particularly the exceptions, are very widely cast and could have very damaging effects on creators.

Bill C-32 (40th Parliament, 3rd Session) committee  I would like to thank the committee for inviting me to appear today to provide input on Bill C-32. Before starting my remarks, I would like to give you some background. I'm not telling you these things to boast, but because I understand some have expressed concern that I have one or two clients implicated in this legislation and that their views are shaping my perspective.