One of the Liberal party proposed amendments to C-32 is to "Introduce a new resale right on art, similar to European laws". I believe it is important for Canadians thinking about copyright policy to recognise that the idea is quite controversial within the art community that this policy alleges to support.
When the idea came up recently in another forum I was contacted by a pair of Australian artists, Dr Anne Sanders and John R Walker who have been following the Canadian debate closely as well. A few days ago they sent me a link to a detailed letter published on Jeremy Phillip's 1709 blog.
They explain quite well that the primary beneficiary of a mandatory royalty scheme would be an intermediary, the collective society, and not the artist whose material reward for their art may in fact go down.
We need to be very careful in Copyright policy to ensure that the primary beneficiaries are Canadian creators and their audiences and fans, not intermediaries. A majority of C-32 discussion from the governing Conservatives or the opposition has been focused on policies that benefit technology platform intermediaries (AKA: technical measures), collective societies (Access Copyright with Education, CPCC with the recorded music levy, etc), or other intermediaries (Education institutional exceptions), often to the detriment of both creators and audiences.
One of the most harmful thing for creators is for governments to confuse copyright with a government funding program. It is inevitable that this will backfire and harm the very group that the funding program embedded into Copyright law was alleged to help. Government funding programs must be kept as far away from copyright law as possible.