More specifically, the debate is: how do you enforce the law? For example, we agree that shooting people should be illegal. Do you enforce that by having a law against shooting people, or a law against guns?
Likewise, we agree that driving while intoxicated should be illegal. Do you enforce that by having a law against driving while intoxicated, or laws against the possession of cars and intoxicants?
Arson should be illegal. Do you enforce that with a law against matches?
The means the US is trying to push on the world (and which C-32 would enforce, since it is not currently so in Canada) is a law against matches, and that's Draconian Capitalism: they want to give privately developed DRM technology legal status. In other words, if you break a DRM mechanism, or produce/possess/distribute software which enables such mechanisms to be broken, then this is considered the same as the crime of making and distributing illegal copies of a copyrighted work, even if you did not do so.
That's the kind of law that means if you buy a DRM protected device and tinker with it, you are now a criminal. Eg, Apple, rather than just saying you void your warranty if you jailbreak your own phone that you paid for, we will have you arrested and fined or imprisoned, and that will be true after your warranty has run out, too.
By my reading (and I asked Micheal Geist about this, and he agrees), the current version of C-32 leaves this defanged by limiting the consequences to the payment of damages. Which is to say, Apple could sue you and win, but if they cannot demonstrate that your actions actually cost them anything, then you will owe them $0. This way, people who are really pirating things pay a fine, people who are not really pirating anything in a significant way won't.
But presumably this is one of the things a conservative capitalist government will want to get tougher about, because they do not give a ___ about individual rights. It's a great example of how when right wing types refer to "big government" and "excessive regulation" they use the term socialist instead of the more accurate totalitarian, because rhetorically they are trying to pretend that the kind of the big government and excessive regulation they want is not also totalitarian in nature. There's a word for right-wing totalitarianism too...its got latin roots...
Also, of course, the conservatives want to pour money into the prison system here (so we can be more like America, and maybe even hopefully bankrupt health care!), and they will need people to send so hey, maybe you should get two years less a day for running a homemade windows kernel.