The primary difference between American and Canadian copyright law is that although the new bill implements DMCA-and SOPA-like provisions, the safe harbour clauses for ISPs are somewhat more lenient.
Whereas the DMCA mandates a notice-and-takedown scheme, Canadian legislatures have preferred to adopt a "Canadian" solution of notice-and-notice, which means that ISPs and hosting providers have more immunity by giving notice to their customers.
Unfortunately, this is a double-edged sword. Although service providers have greater immunity, thus less threatening to the structure of the internet, consumers are more likely to be given up by said providers, because there are less incentives for companies to defend such actions (since it requires far less costs and actions on their part to give notice rather than to take down infringing material).
Whereas the DMCA mandates a notice-and-takedown scheme, Canadian legislatures have preferred to adopt a "Canadian" solution of notice-and-notice, which means that ISPs and hosting providers have more immunity by giving notice to their customers.
Unfortunately, this is a double-edged sword. Although service providers have greater immunity, thus less threatening to the structure of the internet, consumers are more likely to be given up by said providers, because there are less incentives for companies to defend such actions (since it requires far less costs and actions on their part to give notice rather than to take down infringing material).