The CBC¹ article (23 June 2010) quotes CSIS director, Richard Fadden talking about the danger of the situation

“The individual becomes in a position to make decisions that affect the country or the province or a municipality. All of a sudden, decisions aren’t taken on the basis of the public good but on the basis of another country’s preoccupations.”

We recently saw that the chief of staff of former Conservative Industry Minister, Maxime Bernier, admitted that the Conservatives were pushing through copyright legislation purely to satisfy the preoccupations of the US.

This news is visible from a number of sites (NDP) such as the Speak Out on Copyright site. But its source is an analysis of digital copyright reforms called North American Digital Copyright, Regional Governance and the Persistence of Variation² (PDF – 1 June 2010), which covers Canada, the USA, and Mexico, and was written by Carleton doctoral student, Blayne Haggart. The document includes the following information about the Conservatives last (failed) attempt at revising Canadian copyright law.

“The 2007/2008 bill and its delay demonstrate the complex role of the United States and civil society in the Canadian copyright debate, especially in the context of a minority Parliament, and the supreme role of the Prime Minister’s Office and Privy Council Office as the final arbiter of legislation in the Canadian parliamentary regime. The decision to pursue DMCA-style TPM rules was purely political, the result of pressure from a Prime Minister’s Office intent on passing a U.S.-friendly law. As Michele Austin, then-Industry Minister Maxime Bernier’s (2006-2007) chief of staff, recounts: “The Prime Minister’s Office’s position was, move quickly, satisfy the United States.” When the two ministers responsible protested for political and technical reasons, the PMO replied “We don’t care what you do, as long as the U.S. is satisfied” (Haggart forthcoming).” [emphasis mine]

It’s difficult to see how that comment could be interpreted as anything other than Conservative office holders operating in the interests of a foreign power while disregarding the public good.

It might be argued that the comments were taken out of context and perhaps the Conservatives involved had made other additional comments about ensuring Canadian interests are satisfied. But giving them the benefit of the doubt presents a logical problem. When the US interests are at odds with Canadian interests, one has to give, and the speaker of the quote above makes it clear that it’s the Canadian one, which can be discarded.

Additionally, a benefit-of-the-doubt argument doesn’t hold up to the evidence of the last few years. With respect to copyright and digital rights types of issues, the Conservatives have not acted inline with Canadian interests. They disregarded popular Canadian opinion with respect to copyright policy in favour of foreign commercial and political interests. Even their latest contentious attempt still includes the worst of the US DMCA.

This is a betrayal of Canadian trust.

Now its October 2008, post election, and with minority status the Conservatives sound intent to push through what they failed to accomplish previously. Although large quantities of candidates from the other parties signed on to Michael Geist’s copyright pledge, the Conservatives didn’t. Their words (spinning ideas copied from industry) saying their approach is balanced and trying to sound positive are hollow doublespeak at best. Here’s the background.

2007 from the Financial Post:

A single sentence on copyright reform in Tuesday’s Speech from the Throne spoke volumes about what the future of managing digital media could look like in Canada and suggested a U.S.-style amendment to the Copyright Act is on the way…

In the United States, copyright reform resulted in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which was passed by Congress in 1998 and centres around standards established by the World Intellectual Property Organization…

Mr. Knopf said the music industry and the U.S. government will gain if copyright reform is accomplished in Canada are.
“The American record industry is trying very hard to get the same kind of drastic remedies in Canada as [it] can ? in the United States, so you can go around suing children and dead grandmothers, which is not a very Canadian thing to do,” he said in an interview…

In 2007, this was the retreat as reported by CBC:

“A controversial bill that seeks to reform Canadian copyright laws will not be introduced this week, federal officials confirmed on Thursday…

…Prentice was expected to introduce the copyright reform bill earlier this week. The bill would have made such activities as the time-shifting of television shows, file-sharing of music and video, and copying files to CDs or MP3 players illegal…

…Critics said the proposed legislation will mirror the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act and take a hard line against the copying of digital materials. Geist accused Prentice of caving in to lobbying from U.S. entertainment companies, who are seeking to curtail digital copying in all its forms…”

12 June 2008, CBC reported on the introduction of Bill C-61:

The federal government has introduced a controversial bill it says balances the rights of copyright holders and consumers – but it opens millions of Canadians to huge lawsuits, prompting critics to warn it will create a “police state.”…

However, Liberal industry critic Scott Brison blasted the government for its lack of consultation with Canadian stakeholders and for not considering the implications of the bill if it passes.

“There’s no excuse for why the government has not consulted broadly the diverse stakeholders,” he said. “The government has not thought this through. It has not thought about how it will enforce these provisions.”…

“They’ve got a few headline-grabbing reforms but the reality is those are also undermined by this anti-circumvention legislation. They’ve essentially provided digital rights to the U.S. and entertainment lobby and a few analog rights to Canadians,” [Michael] Geist told CBCNews.ca. “The truth of the matter is the reforms are laden with all sorts of limitations and in some cases rendered inoperable.”…”

The Toronto Star Reported in early 2008:

“Last week’s introduction of new copyright legislation ignited a firestorm with thousands of Canadians expressing genuine shock at provisions that opposition MPs argued would create a “police state.” As opposition to the copyright bill mounts, the most common question is “why”?…

…Why did a minority government introduce a bill that appears likely to generate strong opposition from both the Liberals and NDP with limited political gain?…

Why did senior ministers refuse to even meet with many creator and consumer groups who have unsurprisingly voiced disappointment with the bill?…the bill dubbed by critics as the Canadian Digital Millennium Copyright Act (after the U.S. version of the law) is the result of an intense public and private campaign waged by the U.S. government to pressure Canada into following its much-criticized digital copyright model…

The private campaign was even more important. Sources say that U.S. officials, emboldened by the successful campaign for anti-camcording legislation, upped the ante at the Security and Prosperity Partnership meeting in Quebec last summer. Canadian officials arrived ready to talk about a series of economic concerns but were quickly rebuffed by their U.S. counterparts, who indicated that progress on other issues would depend upon action on the copyright file…

Those demands were echoed earlier by the USTR, which, according to documents obtained under the Access to Information Act, made veiled threats about “thickening the border” between Canada and the U.S. if Canada refused to put copyright reform on the legislative agenda….

7 October 2008, CBC reported that:

The Conservatives are promising to reintroduce controversial copyright-reform legislation if they are re-elected, according to the party’s official platform released on Tuesday…

The Conservatives’ previous copyright-reform legislation, Bill C-61, which died on the order paper when the election was called, was released in June to a wave of criticism. While a number of organizations that represent copyright holders, such as the Canadian Recording Industry Association and the Entertainment Software Association of Canada, praised the plan, it was roundly criticized as unfair by consumer advocates, artists, privacy watchdogs, education groups and other businesses…

Follow the links for the details