While Bill C-60 is history, a specific provision involving private copying merits a brief comment. The bill's approach to anti-circumvention provisions was generally that circumvention of a TPM was only an infringement where the purpose was to infringe copyright. There was, however, a notable exception for private copying. In other words, if you defeated the encryption on a copy-control CD for the purposes of making a private copy, that act would constitute infringement, even if the copying itself was lawful.
The presumed rationale behind this exception was that the private copying levy is supposedly linked to actual copying. Supporters of the provision argue that the levy can go up or down, depending on that copying. Assuming a world of ubiquitous copy-controls (that actually work), the levy would decrease to zero since there would be no private copying at all.
The problem with this rationale (aside from the fictional view of the effectiveness of copy-controls) is its faith that the levy will go down. If does not, then consumers are paying the levy but precluded from making copies. I raise this now because IT Business has an article on the private copying levy which notes that the levy still applies to cassette tapes even though virtually no one uses them to copy music anymore. In response, Anne Bucci, the executive director of the Canadian Private Copying Collective acknowledges that "it's unlikely the levy rate will fall. 'It's never happened before. Certainly, it would be an unusual situation.'"
In other words, levies go up, but don't go down. Creating an exception for private copying in C-60 on the assumption that levies would fall was bad policy that should not be replicated in a future bill.