Bill C-56 (Historical)

Combating Counterfeit Products Act

An Act to amend the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act to add new civil and criminal remedies and new border measures in both Acts, in order to strengthen the enforcement of copyright and trade-mark rights and to curtail commercial activity involving infringing copies and counterfeit trade-marked goods. More specifically, the enactment
(a) creates new civil causes of action with respect to activities that sustain commercial activity in infringing copies and counterfeit trade-marked goods;
(b) creates new criminal offences for trade-mark counterfeiting that are analogous to existing offences in the Copyright Act;
(c) creates new criminal offences prohibiting the possession or export of infringing copies or counterfeit trade-marked goods, packaging or labels;
(d) enacts new border enforcement measures enabling customs officers to detain goods that they suspect infringe copyright or trade-mark rights and allowing them to share information relating to the detained goods with rights owners who have filed a request for assistance, in order to give the rights owners a reasonable opportunity to pursue a remedy in court;
(e) exempts the importation and exportation of copies and goods by an individual for their personal use from the application of the border measures; and
(f) adds the offences set out in the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act to the list of offences set out in the Criminal Code for the investigation of which police may seek judicial authorization to use a wiretap.
The enactment also amends the Trade-marks Act to, among other things, expand the scope of what can be registered as a trade-mark, allow the Registrar of Trade-marks to correct errors that appear in the trade-mark register, and streamline and modernize the trade-mark application and opposition process.

Bill C-56—Time Allocation Motion

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Minister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture)]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House to once again extol the virtues of Bill C-56.

As we know, in recent years, evidence has suggested an upward trend in global trade in goods. Two House of Commons committees have published detailed reports confirming the growing threat posed by these goods, not only to the Canadian economy but also to health and safety.

Furthermore, counterfeiting has become a priority for Canada's key trading partners and other G8 countries, many of which have taken steps to strengthen their respective intellectual property rights enforcement regimes. That demonstrates how important this bill is.

There are some very concerning numbers in terms of this problem. Just let me quote the fact that the RCMP has identified the value of counterfeit products has increased about five times from what it was back in 2005. Back in 2005, it was about $7.6 million and in 2012 it was about $30 million. We cannot close our eyes to this problem. This is a serious threat.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the bill;

and that, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Bill C-56—Notice of Time Allocation

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as you can see, I would like to advise that agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-56, an act to amend the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we continue to have good faith discussions with all parties in an effort to manage government business of the House, and based on those discussions, I would like to propose, for unanimous consent, the following motion: That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, on Wednesday, June 12, when the House resumes debate at the second reading stage of Bill C-56, an act to amend the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, which is also known as the combating counterfeit products act: (a) no more than two members from the Conservative Party, fifteen members from the New Democratic Party and two members from the Liberal Party and any independent member may speak, after which every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment; (b) if a recorded division is demanded, the vote shall be deemed deferred to Thursday, June 13, following the time provided for oral questions; (c) if the proceedings at the second reading stage of Bill C-56 are not completed by the ordinary time of daily adjournment, the House shall continue to sit for the purpose of completing the proceedings; and (d) after 6:30 p.m., no quorum calls or dilatory motions shall be received by the Speaker.

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to debate Bill S-2, An Act respecting family homes situated on First Nation reserves and matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures and lands situated on those reserves.

This is not the first time this issue has come up in the House of Commons. Similar bills have been debated during previous Parliaments. This is the fourth time we have talked about this issue. Why did the government wait so long to bring this bill forward? Why, after all this time, is it still flawed?

Aboriginal women's rights advocacy groups have made it clear to me that they are against this bill. I would like to point out that they were not consulted with respect to Bill S-2. They were consulted previously about other bills on this issue.

Fortunately, parliamentary committees asked people to appear as witnesses on this subject. Of course, the Conservative government seems to be restricting parliamentary committees' freedom more and more, which means that fewer and fewer witnesses are able to appear. Still, aboriginal women's groups were able to testify before the parliamentary committee, and they expressed clear opposition to this bill.

I would like to say a few more things about that. What is the primary objective of the bill before us? Matrimonial rights are simply not covered in the Indian Act, so we have a dilemma because some areas of jurisdiction may be seen as falling under provincial legislation. How are we addressing that?

The bill before us concerns matrimonial rights and interests, primarily with respect to property rights. In Canada, there are two kinds of property: movable assets and real property. Real property means everything not attached to the ground. This bill is really about rights to housing, homes and land. The dilemma is that first nations do not own their own land. This is a real legal dilemma, and Bill S-2 makes a noble attempt to resolve it. This is a step in the right direction because we have to recognize that this is a problem we need to solve.

The problem is that not only do first nations members not own their own land, but they are also currently experiencing a housing crisis because there are not enough homes. That causes all kinds of problems. This bill addresses sociological issues that could cause families to split up or that could lead to divorce, but it also addresses cases in which there is a death. In such cases, we have to determine what happens to the family assets.

The bill tries to address these problems, but unfortunately it does not do nearly enough.

For example, if the first nations are experiencing a housing crisis, if a woman wants to separate from her husband or if a family splits up, where will these people live?

The bill skips a number of steps. The first step seems quite obvious to me: fix the housing crisis within our first nations. If there is a shortage of housing, where will people go if they want a divorce? A number of families in my riding share the same home. That makes no sense. We need to fix this problem.

This bill brings up another problem: access to justice. Legal assistance is simply not available. That is another area of shared responsibility, since provincial and federal courts are unfamiliar with the rights and traditions of the first nations. Unfortunately, this bill does nothing to address those issues.

We must absolutely talk about the courts having a knowledge of first nations traditions. Why would the first nations be subject to a provincial court if that court is not familiar with first nations traditions?

The Crown has an obligation to ensure that the courts that are affected by this bill have the information they need well in advance. The funding is simply not there. Once again, the Conservative government wants to place an obligation on the provinces without giving them the resources they need to fulfill it.

This is a rather serious problem across Canada. Every time this Conservative government suggests sharing responsibilities with the provinces, it seems to forget that this requires resources. It completely ignores the fact that the provinces do not have the means, especially when they are being forced to take on more and more roles that would normally be federal responsibilities.

In any event, since it is mostly women who would be affected by this bill, how are they supposed to exercise their new rights if they do not have the means to do so? How are they going to get to the courts in question if they do not live in the designated communities? They will be far from home.

If the bill passes, many aboriginal women will simply be incapable of exercising their rights because they will not have the means to get to the courts in question, which will quite often be far from their community. This is major flaw. Why not plan to have the courts go to them, instead of insisting that the courts, which are quite far away, be the places where matters related to this bill are resolved?

Parliament has dealt with this bill a number of times, in a number of previous parliaments, and a number of studies have been done. The problem is that the recommendations that have come out of these studies have been ignored and are not included in Bill S-2.

The Senate came out with the report, “A Hard Bed to Lie in: Matrimonial Real Property on Reserve”.

In that case, in 2003, they recommended that provincial laws apply. That was a good idea.

The Senate, still waiting in 2004, identified the lack of clarity for the rights of women on reserve as a human rights issue that was a recurring recommendation from the UN, which was a very damaging report.

In 2005, arm in arm, the parliamentary committee talks came up with five recommendations, which we see very few of in the bill in front of us today.

In 2006, again, the Status of Women report identified barriers, including insufficient funding or the implementation of it, especially for the problem of chronic housing shortages on reserves and the lack of high level consultations.

Again, the need for consultation and funding was recommended and, again in the bill, the government simply did not do its jobs. It did not consult with first nations on Bill S-2. The Conservatives asked them to come to the parliamentary committees. Thank goodness the opposition was there to insist that they show up, otherwise the government never would have consult first nations women, which is absolutely hypocritical on its part.

One of the biggest problems with this bill is that aboriginal communities have only 12 months to implement it. Most of the communities asked for three years if this bill passes. One year is absolutely not enough.

Again, there are some serious problems to address in aboriginal communities. There is a chronic lack of housing in aboriginal communities. If we do not deal with these basic problems, then how can we deal with fundamental problems such as matrimonial rights?

Matrimonial rights cannot be dealt with if a woman has nowhere else to stay. This is a simple, but fundamental problem. If we do not tackle the fundamental problems of first nations, then a bill like Bill S-2 can never be implemented fairly and in such a way as to guarantee the rights of aboriginal women in Canada.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I do want to start by reviewing what our House has accomplished over the preceding five days since I last answered the Thursday question.

Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, was passed at third reading. Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act, was passed at third reading. Bill C-63 and Bill C-64, the appropriations laws, passed at all stages last night as part of the last supply day of the spring cycle.

Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, has been debated some more at third reading. Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1, was passed at report stage. Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, was passed at report stage, was debated at third reading, and debate will continue.

Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act, was passed at second reading. Bill C-56, combating counterfeit products act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-17, the tax conventions implementation act, 2013, was debated at second reading.

On Bill C-62, the Yale First Nation final agreement act, we adopted a ways and means motion, introduced the bill, passed it at second reading and it has since passed at committee. I anticipate we will be getting a report from the committee shortly.

Bill S-16, the tackling contraband tobacco act, was given first reading yesterday after arriving from the Senate. Bill C-65, the respect for communities act, was introduced this morning.

Substantive reports from four standing committees were adopted by the House.

On the private members' business front, the House witnessed three bills getting third reading, one being passed at report stage, two being reported back from committee and one was just passed at second reading and sent to a committee.

Last night was the replenishment of private members' business, with 15 hon. members bringing forward their ideas, which I am sure we will vigorously debate.

The House will continue to deliver results for Canadians over the next week. Today, we will finish the third reading debate on Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act. Then we will turn our collective attention to Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, at second reading, followed by Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, at third reading.

Tomorrow we will have the third reading debate on Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1. The final vote on this very important job creation and economic growth bill will be on Monday after question period.

Before we rise for the weekend, we hope to start second reading debate on Bill C-61, the offshore health and safety act.

On Monday, we will complete the debates on Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, and Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act.

Today and next week, I would like to see us tackle the bills left on the order paper, with priority going to any bills coming back from committee.

As for the sequencing of the debates, I am certainly open to hearing the constructive proposals of my opposition counterparts on passing Bill S-6, the First Nations Elections Act, at second reading; Bill S-10, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, at second reading; Bill S-12, the Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act, at second reading; Bill S-13, the Port State Measures Agreement Implementation Act, at second reading; Bill S-16, at second reading; Bill S-17, at second reading; Bill C-57, the Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act, at second reading; Bill C-61, at second reading; and Bill C-65, at second reading.

Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to having another list of accomplishments to share with you, and all honourable members, this time next Thursday.

Suffice it to say, we are being productive, hard-working and orderly in delivering on the commitments we have made to Canadians.

There having been discussions among the parties that it will receive unanimous consent, I would like to propose a motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of this House, the member for Peace River be now permitted to table the Report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development in relation to Bill C-62, An Act to give effect to the Yale First Nation Final Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank our witnesses for joining us today. I thank Ms. Triano-Antidormi for her remarks.

You are both a victim and an expert and, as a result, you are in a good position to say that Bill C-54 does not have a solid foundation. This is how you summarized the thoughts of our other two guests.

You said that the bill is vengeful in nature, stigmatizing, punitive and focused on brutality. You reiterated that this perpetuates the myth that people with mental illness are violent, whereas the reality is completely different. The recidivism rate is very low for patients.

You also pointed out that understanding mental illness is complicated. In your view, the solution is to have a better system that deals with mental health issues. Could you tell us what you think about rehabilitation and reintegration into society, which might be the best way to effectively ensure public safety over the long term?

[David M. Parry, Member, National Criminal Justice Section, Canadian Bar Association]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. It is a true honour to speak to you today and to be part of this very important conversation we're having this afternoon.

I feel that Bill C-54 presents many unique opportunities to change the law in this area, and I want to discuss the implications of this bill and some of the potential consequences it could have.

When Minister Nicholson was before this committee on Monday, he spoke about a need for a balance in what the Supreme Court has called the “twin goals” of the NCR regime. That is on the one hand public safety, and on the other hand, fair treatment of the NCR accused.

However, if balance is the issue, then the Canadian Bar Association respectfully submits that Bill C-54 gets that balance wrong. This imbalance here is significant, because getting it wrong ultimately puts long-term public safety in jeopardy.

No one denies the pressing need for adequate protection of the public. However, true protection of the public requires much more than detaining the NCR accused. Long-term public safety is best achieved through treatment and reintegration into society. Unfortunately, Bill C-54 does little to encourage this. The CBA supports some provisions of Bill C-54 but recommends against others.

I will now discuss the three major amendments proposed by the bill.

First, the CBA supports the proposed requirement that victims be notified, if they so choose, of the NCR accused's discharge, as well as the option for review boards to issue no-contact orders.These amendments fill a gap and have the laudable goal of addressing the needs of victims in the NCR regime. These build upon the introduction of victim impact statements in 2005, and the CBA fully supports them.

The second amendment I want to discuss is the removal of the “least onerous and least restrictive” requirement. The CBA recommends against this.

Under the current regime, review boards must make a disposition that is the least onerous and restrictive to the NCR accused, taking into consideration public safety, the mental condition of the accused, their reintegration into society, and their other needs. Public safety is already a fundamental consideration for review boards when deciding whether to release or detain an NCR accused. It's front and centre.

In the words of then Justice McLachlin in the Winko decision, “it ensures that the NCR accused’s liberty will be trammelled no more than is necessary to protect public safety”.

This requirement of being the least onerous and least restrictive is thus an important component of the balanced approach of the current regime. The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the “least onerous and restrictive” requirement is at the heart of the constitutional validity of the NCR regime. Several cases going back nearly 15 years have affirmed this standard as essential for compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The proposed amendment to remove this language would bring that constitutional validity into question. Introducing the new and untested language of “reasonable” and “necessary” in the circumstances serves to negate the goal of consistent application of the law by review boards across the country.

Likewise, the proposal to make public safety the primary consideration in the bill disturbs the crucial balance between public safety and fair treatment of the NCR accused by making one more important than the other. This is another component that the Supreme Court has repeatedly identified as central to the current regime.

The CBA therefore recommends that the committee not remove the “least onerous and the least restrictive” requirement.

The third and final amendment I wish to discuss is the proposed addition of a designation of high risk that would apply to some NCR accused. The CBA submits that this addition is not only self-defeating but counterproductive to the goal of enhancing public safety.

First, the proposed high risk regime suggests that just because the NCR accused has committed one serious offence, they will do so again. Existing evidence suggests the exact opposite. Furthermore, the Winko decision is clear that there can be no presumption of dangerousness. We moved away from the stereotype of the mad offender in the Swain decision nearly 20 years ago.

Second, the proposal risks being overbroad. That means the means to achieve its objectives are broader than necessary. This brings its constitutionality into question. The consequence of being designated high risk is that the NCR accused falls into a different custody regime.

It is unclear how this furthers the goal of enhancing public safety. The extra restrictions placed upon a high risk NCR accused could be characterized as punitive in nature. The objective ought not to be punishment because the accused has not been convicted of a crime.

However, if enacted, what does the CBA propose? We have three recommendations.

First, we recommend eliminating the proposed subsection enabling courts to designate an NCR accused as high risk if it is of the opinion that the acts that constitute the offence were of such a brutal nature as to indicate a risk of grave physical or psychological harm to another person.

Second, if this proposed subsection is not eliminated, then the CBA recommends that it should be redrafted to provide greater clarity, including a definition of “brutal nature” and a statement that the focus is on future conduct.

Finally, if the high risk regime is enacted, the CBA recommends adding a procedural mechanism to permit the NCR accused to apply directly to the court on an annual basis to remove the designation. This would encourage his or her progress and treatment.

I'd like now to offer some concluding remarks for the committee's consideration.

Our understanding of treatment and societal acceptance of mental illness have come a long way. We must always remember that the NCR accused is not a prisoner but a patient who needs effective treatment. That treatment is how we ensure public safety in the long term. Bill C-54 must recognize this essential point: an NCR verdict is not an opportunity to exact retribution on an immensely ill offender.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I look forward to the committee's questions.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. You know how I like to set the scene so that we can really understand the issue. That is simply what I was doing, Mr. Chair. Thank you all the same for rigorously calling me to order.

I will therefore go immediately to the matter of information sources, but first I think it is important to say at least once that we Canadians benefit from CBC/Radio-Canada's unique mandate and role since we have the opportunity to tell our stories at extremely low cost.

Mr. Warkentin, I agree that $1 billion is a lot of money. However, this public broadcaster costs $34 per Canadian annually. As we say in Quebec, that is a real bargain compared to the United Kingdom and Japan, where a public broadcaster costs $90 to $100 per capita, or to Germany, where it costs $147 per citizen. So it is important to remind people that our public broadcaster really does not cost us a lot of money. That is a piece of information that is not widely disseminated.

I see the intention concealed behind the amendment respecting journalistic sources presented by our Conservative Party friends. In the circumstances, I do not think that amendment is enough to paper over the cracks and reassure all the stakeholders who have appeared before this committee. They told us how this amendment jeopardized journalistic work and could even lead to the disclosure of crucial journalistic information and perhaps to the disclosure of certain sources.

This amendment also raises another question regarding the ability of CBC journalists to do their work if this kind of threat is held over them like a sword of Damocles. This bill would weaken the act and take us from a system of exclusions to one of exemptions. Journalistic work might then be jeopardized by an access to information request made by a company or citizen six months later. Potential witnesses or whistleblowers would then simply decide not to speak to CBC journalists, knowing that they might lose their protection if the information they disclose does not affect the crown corporation's independence from government. That is our interpretation. This is a danger, since the doors will be opened and journalists will then have to fight and go to court.

For example, we saw how the serious work done by journalists on the Enquête program, who met with people over several months, led to the Charbonneau Commission. That is genuinely useful to Quebec right now. That commission would probably not have been struck without the protection afforded to journalistic sources. We feel that protection should not be jeopardized. However, that is the aim of the amendment that Mr. Butt has presented to us.

Journalists operate on the basis of trust. From the moment you cast any doubt, you undermine the mutual trust necessary for a witness to open up and provide privileged information, even though that may jeopardize his or her career or physical safety. If that kind of doubt arises, witnesses may go and see competitors such as CTV, if they are anglophones, or TVA if they are Quebec francophones. That is what was revealed by many who wrote to us or who testified on this point.

In our debate on journalistic sources, it is important to recall certain comments that were made by organizations that are major players in this field. I am going to read those comments in English, Mr. Chair, because they were sent to us in that language.

For example, the Fair Accountability Initiative for Reform told us this:

FAIR believes that Bill C-461 will seriously disadvantage the CBC in securing information from confidential sources about matters that affect the public interest.

Whistleblowers looking for a trusted journalist to make public a serious disclosure of wrongdoing are likely to be terrified—with good reason—of the possible consequences of being identified. If they know that a CBC journalist may have to disclose his or her source to a third party, while other journalists do not, this will be a very strong incentive to avoid the CBC....

Over the past six years we have taken calls from more than 300 bona fide whistleblowers on our confidential information hotline....

Whistleblowers are typically role-model employees. Contrary to some portrayals, they are not disloyal, under-performing, disgruntled employees. In fact, they are much more likely to be respected high-performers who are intensely loyal to the organization and its mandate....

Becoming a whistleblower is often not a choice. It happens because, simply by doing their job properly—auditing finances, inspecting engineering work, investigating crimes, treating patients—some employees come across information that it is their duty to report....

...whistleblowers do not consider [non-disclosure] an option. Their moral code, their sense of duty, or their professional code of ethics do not allow this....

I think it is clear from FAIR's testimony that whistleblowers are a particular type of employee who want to do right. They want public funds to be well administered and legislation to be complied with. They must deal with credible journalists who will be in a position to protect them. We have seen journalists willing to go to prison to protect their journalistic sources. That is because they are professionals and they are doing their job.

Canadian Journalists for Free Expression also calls for Bill C-461 to be rejected. That organization believes that the bill is so poorly designed and so jeopardizes the CBC's journalistic integrity that it cannot be repaired with amendments. It must therefore be withdrawn or rejected. In its view, it has become clear that the primary goal of the author and supporters of Bill C-461 is to permit disclosure of the compensation of all public officials. The CBC is merely a politically vulnerable means to achieving that. It is an easy target.

The author of the bill himself acknowledged that it constituted a piecemeal reform, one consisting of vaguely related elements, although he did not admit the harmful effects it would have on the general enforcement of access to information regulations.

We are very concerned about this abuse of judicial procedure. If Parliament wishes to compel public servants to disclose their compensation, it should imitate other Canadian parliaments and adopt a clear and simple bill obviously designed to achieve that objective. The aim of Bill C-461 is to do the same thing, but in a roundabout way, which has the collateral effect of discrediting Canada a little more. It makes the access to information and privacy system even more complex and exposes it to political manipulation.

Regardless of committee members' opinion of the CBC and compensation of its executives, they certainly do not want to nullify its ability to carry out its journalistic mandate. They believe that current regulations, which have been clearly explained by the courts, work very well and provide effective protection for the CBC's confidential sources, its independence from government and its intrinsic right to freedom of expression.

Once again,

“if it ain't broke, don't fix it.”

People agree on the interpretation of section 68.1 and are concerned about the collateral damage that might be caused if Bill C-461 were passed. If it were merely a matter of disclosing the salaries of senior officials, that would have been feasible, but we are proceeding here by means of a bill that affects the access to information of a crown corporation that also does journalistic work. That is where the problem arises and where the situation could be dangerous for working journalists.

The Canadian Media Guild recalled that Parliament and legislators should—

[Dr. Isabelle Gaston, As an Individual]

Good afternoon.

Thank you for having invited me to participate in this meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

I am sure my experience within the system will help you to recognize the importance of Bill C-54, a bill which I support.

I thank Prime Minister Harper for allowing the victims to be heard at long last.

I am an emergency room physician. I practise in a regional hospital centre and our hospital houses the third largest psychiatric department in Quebec. Consequently, many patients with psychiatric illnesses come to my emergency department for treatment.

One fact is more relevant for this committee. I was the mother of Olivier, 5 years old, and Anne-Sophie, 3 years old, who were murdered on February 20, 2009. I was present at all of the legal proceedings and on July 5, 2011, my former husband was found to be not criminally responsible for the death of my children. Afterwards, the work of a fastidious commission of inquiry into mental disorders led to the release on parole of the man who took the life not only of my children, but, by the same token, of two Canadian citizens.

Even though I am at the centre of a terrible tragedy, I hope that you will understand that my testimony is no more and no less biased than that of certain lawyers, psychiatrists or other witnesses who will appear before you. Indeed, some of them seem to forget that there are two sides to every coin. You were elected and you will have to vote on this bill. This topic is too important to be allowed to become a partisan issue, identified with a single party.

No law is entirely perfect and none will ever please everyone. However, I think that a good law is a law that tends to be as fair as possible for the majority of the citizens of a country. Bill C-54 gives priority to public safety.

While rereading the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I realized that defending the right to life and safety is far from easy in Canada. It sounds good on paper, but when someone is dead, I get the impression that we tend to forget them. In Canada, all human beings are considered to be equal in value and dignity. Everyone is supposed to have an equal right to protection before the law. Actually, that is not the reality. This bill will give everyone the protection they are entitled to, not only to us, the victims, but to everyone in society.

When people object that the bill will do nothing to further prevention, that the rate of recidivism is low and that it will stigmatize those with a mental illness, I think that they are straying from the topic. They are forgetting to draw a distinction between primary prevention and secondary prevention. They forget that a serious crime was committed. That cannot be just set aside. They forget that someone else was the victim of a crime and someone else will be a victim if there is a subsequent offence.

People have to stop accusing those who are in favour of the bill—people like myself, for instance—of lacking empathy for those dealing with mental illness. That is a false argument. I am not lacking in empathy, quite the opposite. I am in favour of rehabilitation and I understand the suffering caused by a mental illness. I treat patients who are psychotic, depressive or suicidal with the same energy as those who come in with a heart attack.

It would be fairer, in order to really understand my position, to know the hierarchy of my values. I find it unfortunate that a person suffering from a mental illness commits a crime, but I find it even more unfortunate that someone loses their life or well-being because of that crime. For me, the death of Olivier and Anne-Sophie demands that I require that the system protect my life, my well-being and that of others, because it is when you lose those you love that you realize that being alive and healthy is a privilege.

Certain psychiatrists claim that this act will undo years of progress and that it is very unfair. Unfair to whom? According to you, is it unfair to demand that we be cautious? I do not agree with those who claim that the defenders of this bill are trying to be punitive with people who are not criminally responsible. Injustice is sustained by everyone, myself, my children and all of society. If you believe that demanding that the person who took someone's life receive care and at least short-term supervision is punitive, we do not have the same vision of the work done by mental health workers.

I am quite willing to be sensitive and acknowledge that it is not always easy to be in a psychiatric institution, but it is much better than being six feet underground. The atrocious death of my children demands that the system not cut corners with my safety and that of other citizens. A non-criminally responsible person will be able to take up their life at the completion of their mental rehabilitation.

If Bill C-54 is passed, certain patients will be declared “high risk” if they have committed a very serious crime, if they have been guilty of serious physical mistreatment of others, or if there is a strong possibility that they may commit other acts of violence. This makes perfect sense to me.

It is time for things to change, because the current state of the system is not very reassuring. In December 2012, even if the commission of inquiry into mental disorders felt that the murderer of my children still presented a serious risk because of his mental state, he was nevertheless released without supervision.

I do not understand the rationale behind such a decision. I have the impression that people are playing Russian roulette with my life. I don't feel protected, really, at this time. People try to reassure me by telling me not to worry, but out of millions of Quebeckers, it was nevertheless my sister and my niece who came face to face with the man who killed my children, in a shopping centre near their home, last February 18. That morning, I had declined the invitation to go shopping with them because I was working that day at 4 o'clock. Why?

I think that all families that are in my position have the right to feel safe, especially in their immediate neighbourhood. On the contrary, we are not informed about anything and we do not have access to the information that would allow us to know what point in the process our aggressor has reached. I have no idea how my former spouse would have reacted to me that day, nor how I would have reacted to him. What I do know however, is that I am afraid. I know that the current system is not there for me. I also know that should there be such a meeting, I would be alone to defend myself before, during, and after that encounter.

It is wise to let a judge decide to release or not release an individual deemed to be “high-risk”. The members of the commission of inquiry into mental illness probably do good work, but as a physician, I know it can be difficult to be both physician and judge. In my opinion, the biggest precaution that should accompany this change in the legislation is that the professional corporations should remind their members of their code of professional conduct and of the ethical rules that govern medico-legal assessment. Professional corporations should also point out that there is a major difference between medical evaluators and practising physicians. Under no circumstances should any physician be authorized to wear both hats. This seriously undermines the confidence of victims.

It would be desirable to increase the length of hospitalization in a psychiatric facility to three years. Even if you cannot force an individual to undergo treatment, you would thereby certainly increase his chances of eventually participating in the rehabilitation activities available to him. At the very least, this would allow for a longer period of observation, so as to permit a better assessment of the person who has committed a serious crime.

In my situation, it took one year before the murderer of Olivier and Anne-Sophie decided to begin therapy. Unfortunately, that therapy was at an “embryonic” stage, according to his physician, when he was paroled in December 2012. At the hearing that preceded that parole, the patient admitted that he had made a great deal of progress, thanks to his stay in hospital, even though he had wanted to be released a year earlier. I would also like to remind you that the expert who testified a year before that parole suggested that the patient be released without any kind of condition. That example is a good illustration of the fact that aside from the patient, the health care team and the experts can also benefit from a longer assessment period.

In conclusion, this bill gives me greater hope that one day, the scales that are the symbol of our justice system will once again attain a certain balance for the parties involved. However, it remains essential in my opinion that a national or at least a provincial reform be brought about to guide the experts who testify before the court. No matter how often the expression “not criminally responsible” is redefined, or how rigorous the follow-up of those who are deemed not criminally responsible by the board responsible for that follow-up, those who interpret the legislation are the ones who can weaken our legal system and generate injustice, both for the accused and for the victims.

That is why it is urgent that rules and procedures be brought in as frames of reference for the experts who testify before the courts. The quality of the expert assessments presented to the judges and jury members must be monitored. Even if most of these expert assessments are of good quality, we must ensure that they respect all the rules of proper practice.

We must require at the very least that these assessments be rigorous, impartial and objective. The trust the general population, and victims, place in our justice system depends on it.

Thank you. I am available to reply to your questions.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

With respect to journalistic sources, it's my view and the view of the Information Commissioner that nothing in Bill C-461 compromises the CBC's ability to offer assurances to confidential sources that their identities will be protected.

We've gone through them, but I'll start with the one I finished with. Anybody's name is private; it's personal information under the Privacy Act. If a document were to be released, the name of the individual would have to be redacted because it's personal information.

I think the problem—and I said I'm open to this, as you know, because you and I have talked privately—is that if the word "independence" is inadequate to protect the CBC's journalistic competence, then that could be modified. It was suggested last week that "independence" be modified by adding "freedom of expression and independence", and that this might provide a greater comfort level. I would be open to that type of an amendment, because the purpose of this bill is not to jeopardize the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's ability to operate as a broadcaster, or its journalistic integrity.

I believe that not disclosing documents relating simply to activities is not the proper test. We've seen anecdotes as to what happens when documents cannot be released simply because they relate to activities. The National Citizens Coalition indicated that they tried to find out how many vehicles were in the vehicle fleet, and that information wasn't disclosed.

In my view "activities" is too broad. Based on the evidence I heard, I'm going to concede that "independence" might be too narrow. If the members are comfortable with modifying that and adding the words "freedom of expression", as has been suggested, I would be comfortable with that.

However, Mr. Nantel, as you know, I don't get to propose amendments at this committee, nor do I get to vote on them.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Again, I think this is an important component of what we do. You're quite correct. We've introduced dozens of pieces of legislation, all with the aim of better protecting the public, and at the same time, making sure that the interests of victims are heard and considered. This bill is consistent with our efforts to better represent victims across this country. This is why I believe that so many victims are pleased and supportive of what we are proposing in Bill C-54

As I indicated in an answer to an earlier question, ensuring that the victims are notified when an individual is being discharged, I think is only fair and appropriate. Again as I indicated to you, this is “if requested”, if they want to be notified. Victims sometimes say to me that they don't want to hear about this, and that's fair enough. But for those victims who do want to be notified, I think it's fair and reasonable that there's a regime in place to have the ability to have a non-communication order between that individual and the victim, If an individual gets released into the community. This is one of the important components of this particular bill, to ensure that the safety of victims is considered when decisions are being made.

We don't want anybody to be victimized in this country over and over again. So, yes, a major component of what we are doing here is ensuring that the individual concerns of victims are recognized.

I indicated three different components of what we are doing for victims, and again, I believe these are all very reasonable. I think they will stand the test of time. I hope that when you have individuals or groups before this committee, this comes up for discussion, because again, I've been very encouraged by the comments I have heard and the comments from my provincial counterparts for that matter as well.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and honourable members.

I am pleased to reappear before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics to answer further questions on my private member's bill C-461.

Bill C-461, the CBC and public service disclosure and transparency act, attempts to bring greater transparency to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and to salary disclosure in the federal public service generally.

As you know, your committee meetings have to some extent been derailed and interrupted by motions and several unscheduled votes in the House of Commons. Accordingly, I am pleased that the committee has shown interest in this legislative proposal and scheduled extra meetings to properly assess and vet this important legislative initiative.

Mr. Chair, with your consent, I would like to briefly summarize the evidence that the committee has heard thus far, and then I will take any questions the members might have.

Members, what you have not heard as evidence is as telling and as interesting as what you have heard. For example, not a single witness has supported the government's dubious proposition that the benchmark for specific salary disclosure for federal public servants should be raised to $329,000. Both the National Citizens Coalition and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation have testified that the proposed benchmark of DM-1 or $188,000 is too high and ought to be lowered to $100,000 to mirror Ontario's sunshine list.

Moreover, although the CBC and the journalist guilds oppose the provisions that allow the Information Commissioner to review access decisions of the CBC based on a prejudice or injury-based test, neither of them expressly supports the government's signalled intent to introduce an amendment providing for an exclusion for journalistic source documents.

The Information Commissioner meanwhile is firmly opposed to the prospect of another exclusion to replace the currently much-maligned exclusion in section 68.1 of the Access to Information Act. She seemed incredulous that the government would replace an exclusion subject to an exception with a discretionary exemption thereafter subject to an exclusion. Clearly this would constitute, to use the words of the Federal Court of Appeal, “not a model of clarity...[and a] recipe for controversy”, all of which Bill C-461 is designed to prevent.

Moreover, the Information Commissioner reiterated that journalistic source privilege has never been raised—not a single time—in a dispute between the CBC and someone seeking documents, and that journalistic source privilege, according to the Supreme Court of Canada in Regina v. National Post, is not absolute and must be examined on a case-by-case basis to determine its applicability.

Finally, and this is important, Mr. Chair, as personal information is exempt from disclosure pursuant to the Privacy Act, concerns that names of confidential sources will somehow be disclosed to the public through access requests are entirely unfounded.

We did, however, hear some interesting evidence that could prove helpful. I would ask the committee to consider amendments that will ultimately improve this legislation.

There has been some admittedly credible evidence that Bill C-461's attempt to protect the independence of the public broadcaster is inadequate and will lead to excessive disclosure. Perhaps. However I remain convinced that excluding documents merely relating to activities is much too broad and has led to such questionable results as CBC's refusal to release how many vehicles are contained in its vehicle fleet.

It has been suggested that freedom of expression could be added to independence to provide a greater comfort level. I would support that, provided the Information Commissioner is allowed to review contentious decisions to ensure the protections and exemptions are being applied appropriately.

As indicated, both the National Citizens Coalition and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation have testified that the salary disclosure benchmark of $188,000 is too high and ought to be lowered to $100,000. I agree with their first submission but suggest that $160,000 is a more realistic benchmark. As members know, $160,000 is the approximate salary of a member of Parliament. Although any chosen benchmark will be arbitrary, I would submit that an MP's salary is as defendable as any other proposed benchmark would be, because Parliament would be requiring no greater disclosure from federal public servants than its own members are subject to.

A related issue, Mr. Chairman, is the use of the words “specific salary” in Bill C-461. It is uncertain whether the term “specific salary” includes the up to 39% performance variances, otherwise known as bonuses, that the top mandarins may be entitled to. It is certainly the intent of the bill that such bonuses be disclosed. Accordingly, the committee may wish to consider an amendment to clarify that all executive compensation, that is salary and bonuses, ought to be subject to access to information requests.

Finally, what hadn't occurred to me until I heard the Information Commissioner last Wednesday was that she believes that the transition provisions contained in the current version of Bill C-461 are inadequate, as rejected applications for disclosure might subsequently be resubmitted under the new, more transparent rules. The current wording of Bill C-461 suspends operation for 90 days to allow there to be a mechanism to deal with applications that are in the queue.

But she's quite right that if the rules change, rejected applications for access could simply be resubmitted. So she advised that it be made expressly clear that all under-review matters be adjudicated under the new rules to prevent resubmissions.

Mr. Chair, I am pleased with the totality of the evidence presented to this committee and the divergent opinions on what is and what is not appropriate access to information held by government. These are important matters and I did not expect the witnesses to be unanimous. However, debate and discussion is necessary as Canada attempts to modernize its clearly outdated access to information legislation.

I trust that upon reflection, members of this committee will reject proposed amendments that remove Bill C-461's attempts to achieve greater transparency, but will adopt and approve amendments that clarify and strengthen Canadians' rights of access to information held by their government.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I look forward to the questions by committee members.

Combating Counterfeit Products Act

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will proceed.

Today they are more pervasive and more difficult to detect and, in this sense, much more problematic. Consumers may even unwittingly purchase a good that they assume to be legitimate, but which contains counterfeit components. We owe it hard-working Canadian families to prevent exposure to such products.

Copyright piracy is the making of illegal copies without consent of copyright holders and their subsequent commercial distribution. We know from our stakeholders, that copyright piracy is increasingly moving online.

The issue of copyright piracy in the physical marketplace is far from resolved, when we think of CDs, DVDs or software being offered for sale in stores and in other markets.

Commercial counterfeiting and piracy are growing issues in Canada and around the world. As with illicit activities, the scope of counterfeiting and piracy is difficult to track and measure.

However, this is what we do know. The RCMP investigated over 4,500 cases of IP crimes in Canada between 2005 and 2012. In 2005, the RCMP seized over $7 million worth of counterfeit and pirated goods. In 2012, this number had grown to $38 million, a fivefold increase.

Canada is not alone. Other developed countries are signalling a rise in the prevalence of counterfeit and pirated goods in the marketplace.

This increase in the value of seizures in Canada is also consistent with what we have heard from Canadian businesses. They have been telling us for years now that counterfeiting and piracy have an impact on innovation and economic growth across the country.

Over the last six years, organizations such as the Canadian Intellectual Property Council and the Canadian Anti-Counterfeiting Network have issued reports calling for legislative changes to deal with counterfeiting and piracy. Most recently, we heard the same calls from several witnesses at a study before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

The measures proposed in the bill are crucial if we are to keep creating high-tech jobs in the future.

Businesses have been overwhelmingly vocal in their support of the bill. For example, Mr. Kevin Spreekmeester, vice-president of global marketing at Canada Goose Inc. and co-chair of the Canadian Intellectual Property Council, said, on March 1:

Canadians have long been victims to the illicit counterfeit trade and the new measures announced today should be welcome news for consumers, businesses and retailers alike.

Mr. Jayson Myers, president and CEO of the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, explained that counterfeiting:

—has been a longstanding priority issue for manufacturers...[they] punish legitimate businesses. They are a drain on our economy and on jobs – and they put the health, safety and environment of every Canadian at risk...

Counterfeiting and piracy hurt our economy. However, beyond their economic impact, there are serious criminality and health and safety issues that we simply cannot overlook.

The commercial production and distribution of counterfeit and pirated goods has been associated with organized crime. This is just another line of business for them and it may help them fund other types of activities, such as drug smuggling and illegal firearm sales.

As for health and safety, there are numerous examples of counterfeit goods that could expose Canadians to danger. Think of the counterfeit batteries or car parts, medicines or baby food.

In 2005, 11% of counterfeiting and piracy cases examined by the RCMP involved harmful products. In 2012, this number grew to 30%.

I would also like to take a moment to speak about one of the particular issues that illustrates the growing threat posed by these goods.

In July 2012, Canada Border Services Agency officers referred a shipment to the RCMP for investigation. This shipment contained 476 counterfeit wheel bearings, with a commercial value of $45,000, which were to be used by the Canadian mining industry.

What this illustrates is the fact that these goods have not been subjected to Canadian safety standards and may cause harm as a result. Who knows whether these pieces of equipment would have actually functioned to the standard of levels that we expect in Canadian equipment.

With the new provisions in this bill, we will start to get a fuller picture of the threat that commercial counterfeiting and piracy pose to the Canadian economy and to address it within Canada and at its borders.

Now that I have described the scope of this issue and the very tangible consequences of counterfeiting and piracy for businesses, consumers and the economy, let me turn to a description of the key elements of Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act, and of how this bill would help in the fight against commercial counterfeiting and piracy.

To confront this, we must give new authorities to border officers to enable them to act when they encounter commercial counterfeit or pirated goods at the border. We must also give rights holders the tools they need to stop counterfeiting and piracy before these illegal goods can enter the Canadian market and undermine their brand and their work. Third, we must give law enforcement the tools it needs to pursue those who gain commercially from this illegal activity.

With respect to the bill itself, let me expand. First, the bill would strengthen Canada's intellectual property rights enforcement regime at the border. Currently, border officers are not allowed to search for and detain counterfeit and pirated goods without a court order obtained by the trademark or copyright owner, which has proven to be onerous for businesses overall.

Bill C-56 introduces a process that would allow rights holders to submit to the CBSA a request for assistance, which would enable border officers to share information with rights holders regarding suspect commercial shipments.

The request for assistance would allow rights holders to record details about their trademark or copyright at the border, and to provide contact information. It would also contain practical information about how to identify legitimate versus counterfeit or pirated goods. The request for assistance would be an effective tool to enable rights holders to defend their private rights in civil court.

Let me be clear. Bill C-56 would not allow border officers to seize goods for copyright or trademark infringement. It would provide the authority for border officers to temporarily detain goods suspected of being counterfeit or pirated, and then provide limited information to rights holders regarding those detained goods.

This information could only be used to determined if the goods were counterfeit or pirated, or to assist the rights holders in pursuing remedies in the courts. The courts would remain the only competent authority to determine whether goods detained at the border infringed intellectual property rights and to apply appropriate remedies.

The bill would also amend the Trade-marks Act and the Copyright Act to allow border officers to temporarily detain shipments suspected of containing commercial counterfeit and pirated goods. Border officers would be able to act either following a request for assistance or on their own initiative.

With these new measures at the border, we would only target commercial counterfeiting and piracy. There would be a personal use exemption, which means we would not be searching individual travellers possessing personal use quantities.

The bill would provide a specific exception at the border for individual consumers importing goods intended for personal use, as part of their personal baggage.

Goods that were made legitimately in the country where they were produced would be excluded from the new border measures.

With this bill, we would send a clear message. We understand the threats that counterfeiting and piracy represent for our businesses, for the economy and for the health and safety of Canadians, and we are acting accordingly.

Our government has been clear. Our focus remains on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for Canadians. Counterfeiting and piracy directly threaten each of these. With the provisions in the combating counterfeit products act, our government would be taking action to curb the presence of these illegal goods in our country and at our borders.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say at this hour I am usually here on my own, just with your, so I am delighted to have so many guests. I am honoured today to rise and introduce C-56, the combating counterfeit products act, at second reading.

Last year our government welcomed the final passage and coming into force of the Copyright Modernization Act, which gave new rights and new tools for copyright owners and users, giving them the certainty and tools they need to fully engage in the online world. As part of the overall balance of the bill, the copyright modernization act introduced specific provisions to deal with the issue of online piracy.

With the combating counterfeit products act, we would be taking the next step in putting in place the legislative changes that are needed to deal with counterfeiting and piracy in the physical marketplace and at our borders. This bill would protect Canadians from harmful counterfeit products. It would help our creative businesses and workers, and law enforcement and border officers confront the increasing threat of trademark counterfeiting and copyright piracy. It would also bring Canada's laws in line with international standards.

Before describing the various features of this bill, please allow me to clarify what counterfeiting and piracy mean in the context of the--