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.

Combating Counterfeit Products Act

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill touches on relatively complex issues such as copyright, intellectual property, trademark rights and the ethical and legal challenges related to Internet regulations. There are many types of counterfeit products, and depending on the case, Canadians can suffer very different consequences. As with the Criminal Code, some infractions could endanger peoples' lives or safety, while others have economic consequences. When it comes right down to it, counterfeiting is a form of fraud and, like all fraud, sooner or later it will affect Canadians' quality of life.

The International Chamber of Commerce “puts the cost of lost tax revenue and additional welfare spending due to counterfeit goods up to USD 125 billion in developed countries alone. And 2.5 million jobs have been lost as a result of fake products.”

Globalization makes it easier for countries to engage in trade, thus considerably increasing the opportunities for this type of activity. The counterfeit products intercepted in Canada in 2012 and seized by the RCMP were worth nearly $40 million a year. That number has increased more than fivefold in the past 10 years, from $7.6 million in 2005 to $38 million in 2012.

By 2015, the International Chamber of Commerce expects the value of counterfeit goods globally to exceed $1.7 billion U.S. That is over 2% of the world's total current economic output.

The government introduced this bill on March 1, 2013, as Bill C-56. Interestingly, that very same day, the U.S. International Trade Administration published a report asking Canada to adopt specific measures in line with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement to combat counterfeiting in Canada. Specifically, it recommended that customs officers be given the necessary authority to intercept suspicious goods.

The problem is that Canada has not yet ratified the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement despite the fact that it signed the agreement on October 1, 2011. For its part, the European Parliament rejected the agreement, which means that neither the European Union nor any of its member states will be able to ratify the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. Stuck between a rock and a hard place, the United States and Europe, Canada seems to want to have its cake and eat it too by taking a vague position on the importance of combating this phenomenon without talking about the agreement specifically.

The American authorities can certainly suggest that the Canadian government improve its customs services and give them the authority they need to seize or at least intercept products that they suspect are counterfeit, but nothing can force the government to allocate the necessary resources. Without adequate training for officers and additional resources for inspection services, especially the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and customs, they can write whatever they want.

Not only do officers have to know all of the laws in addition to the Customs Act and details about trade agreements that have a bearing on these issues, they also have to have the expertise to recognize problematic situations and counterfeit goods. However, the government is cutting jobs and the agency's budget the same way it is cutting other departments and organizations.

We always get the same answer: the cuts are not affecting services. However, we must not kid ourselves. Border officers did not have these responsibilities before this bill was implemented, and with the staff cutbacks, there are fewer people doing the same amount of work. The agency was asked to cut back by at least 10%, as were all departments and agencies, which has resulted in a shortfall of over $140 million since 2012. The border officers' union said that some 1,000 jobs would be lost over the next few years as a result of those budget cuts.

In fact, that was one of the main criticisms of the members of the Canadian Anti-Counterfeiting Network, a not-for-profit group made up of individuals, businesses and associations that have joined forces to combat fraud, counterfeiting and copyright violations. In a letter to the Minister of Industry prior to the parliamentary committee's study of Bill C-8, which we are currently debating, the Canadian Anti-Counterfeiting Network outlined five contentious issues in the bill, including the lack of resources.

The letter states, and I quote:

While the Bill empowers Canadian customs officers more than before, we are concerned that insufficient resources may be allocated to allow for effective enforcement by CBSA.

We fully agree that more powers need to be given to border services officers. However, they must know what their rights and responsibilities are, since they will have no legal supervision. The agency must also have the resources needed to train them and properly enforce this legislation.

The Canadian Anti-Counterfeiting Network is currently fulfilling its mandate by helping to train customs officers and members of various police forces to recognize fraud and counterfeit products. In committee, the group's representative expressed his frustration with staff turnover and layoffs. He said:

I'm continually frustrated by the fact that it's like a drop in the bucket. If we go to the Niagara Falls border and train 50 border guards, as we did last year, and then come back in three months, 50% of them have gone on to other jobs, and we start over again. It's very difficult to maintain a level of understanding of what products look like.

They need some help on their side, and we're willing to help them, but we don't have funding either.

Let us be clear: strengthening the rules and legislation on counterfeiting is a good idea, but we have to put words into action.

According to a number of witnesses, the financial burden that comes with penalties and the administrative costs of a seizure falls to the rights owners, who are already stung by the counterfeiting.They therefore become financially responsible for the legislation put in place to protect their rights. The Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology heard from several witnesses about that, including Michael Geist, Wayne Edwards and Martin Lavoie.

At the very least, I would like to cite part of the testimony by Michael Geist, who is well known in the field of digital law and copyright:

Further, detention of goods can be used to harm small Canadian businesses that could find the goods they are seeking to import detained, oftentimes by competitors. The absence of a misuse provision in this bill is particularly notable in this regard.

Those remarks were echoed by Martin Lavoie of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters Association:

...I would like to raise a number of concerns that we and our members have with the bill in its current form.

One of them is about the responsibility of the right holder—or in other words, the victim of counterfeiting—to pay the fees associated with the detention and destruction of goods. We do not understand the rationale for this.

We believe that the importers should be responsible for these costs, since they are the ones introducing these goods into our country in the first place. They should not be given a free ride. Where is the disincentive [for importers of counterfeit products] in that? Moreover, these costs, which will largely be incurred in court proceedings, are likely to be onerous and difficult to support for smaller companies that are the victims of counterfeiting. I know that you've heard this from other witnesses. We share this concern.

That is a concern that we on this side of the House also share. We are going to support this bill at third reading, but it is important to recognize that the bill still has shortcomings that were not corrected by the committee.

The NDP proposed nine amendments, which were all rejected. The only amendments that were accepted were technical amendments. This happens regularly in every committee when the Conservatives see certain flaws in their bills.

Like all opposition parties, our role as the official opposition is not only to oppose—which will not be the case with Bill C-8 since we are going to support it—but also to point out any significant flaws in the text and any negative effects that the government did not take into account when drafting and examining the bill. We therefore strongly criticize the government for failing to listen to the arguments made by the opposition.

We are going to support this bill, since it is a step in the right direction on the important issue of counterfeiting. Given that trade with our major trade partner, the United States, is fairly free, this is a way to coordinate our efforts in the fight against counterfeiting, a practice for which there is no justification. As I mentioned earlier, counterfeiting is a type of fraud that must be dealt with.

Will the government now put words into action? Will it provide the resources necessary to implement this bill and ensure that border and other officials responsible for identifying and seizing counterfeit goods can do their work effectively?

With regard to funding for these agencies, whether it be border services, food inspection or customs as a whole, the government still has a long way to go to ensure that Bill C-8 becomes law and that authorities have the strength and power to enforce it.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to debate Bill C-8, An Act to amend the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, the short title of which is the Combating Counterfeit Products Act.

In fact, I am also surprised to be speaking, because I remember very clearly that the Conservatives have had a lot to say about this issue over the years. In 2007, the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology submitted a rather lengthy report that said specifically that counterfeiting and piracy were theft. The committee made numerous recommendations to that effect.

What surprises me this evening is that not one Conservative has spoken on this important government bill. This is a bill that was introduced by the Minister of Industry, which is somewhat rare. As well, during the time for questions after each speech, there have been no questions from the government.

As the member for LaSalle—Émard, when I debate a bill, I always ask myself whether it affects the people in my riding. The riding I have the honour and pleasure to represent is very diverse. It is a residential riding, but it has a very large industrial park. There are a lot of businesses in my riding and a lot of small and medium-sized businesses. When I look at this bill to combat counterfeiting, I wonder what impact counterfeiting has on the people in my riding.

There are numerous examples of counterfeiting that I will talk about briefly and that were discussed earlier. There are certain counterfeit products, and a number of cases in the media have shown this, that affect people’s health and safety. Combating counterfeiting means preventing products that could be hazardous to the health and safety of my constituents in LaSalle—Émard from coming in and circulating, and that is very important to me.

There is another perverse effect of counterfeiting: when counterfeit products are in circulation, there are consequences for our economy and intellectual property owners, Canadian companies and companies from elsewhere, that have invested in research and development to create a product, a trademark or a new product for which they hold the patents and the intellectual property—which they own, in a word. If those products and trademarks are copied, there is an economic loss for the owner of the intellectual property.

That is why I rise today to speak to Bill C-8, a bill to combat counterfeiting. I do it on behalf of the people of LaSalle—Émard.

Let us look a little more closely at what the bill is going to do.

(2.11) It is an infringement of copyright for any person, for the purpose of doing anything referred to in paragraphs (2)(a) to (c), to export or attempt to export a copy—of a work, sound recording or fixation of a performer’s performance or of a communication signal—that the person knows or should have known was made without the consent of the owner of the copyright in the country where the copy was made.

This bill has a long history. As I said, there was the big report after which the Copyright Act was changed. That was a very long process. In the last session, the bill was introduced as Bill C-56. Then it was sent to committee. Now it is Bill C-8.

I have been in charge of several files since being elected. I was the science and technology critic and the industry critic. I was a member of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, where I participated in a very long study of intellectual property. During that long study, we had the opportunity to hear from many experts and many witnesses who talked about the importance of protecting intellectual property. They talked about how we could improve that protection. They also emphasized the importance of intellectual property to the Canadian economy, especially in that it stimulates innovation. Intellectual property is often the result of research and development, which is what can make Canada a leader in innovation.

Over the past few years, unfortunately, Canada has lost ground on the innovation front and is no longer a leader. The Canadian Intellectual Property Council pointed that out recently. It mentioned the importance of having a solid framework for protecting intellectual property.

I believe that the copyright bill and Bill C-8, which we are talking about now, are a step in the right direction toward greater protection for intellectual property. The Canadian Intellectual Property Council also says that it is important for small and medium-sized businesses. In Canada, a lot of them do not exercise their rights. They develop innovations, but they may not be aware that their innovations can be patented and can be considered intellectual property. The Canadian Intellectual Property Council would like small and medium-sized businesses to take advantage of this tool, which can help them continue to innovate and profit from intellectual property.

Bill C-8, which was studied in committee, is a step in the right direction to stop counterfeit goods at the border. Now, how does that work in practice?

We noticed that the bill gives increased powers to border services officers so that they can seize counterfeit products. We stressed that this desire to give new powers to border services officers should not just be put in writing, but should also come with the necessary resources.

Some experts wondered what tools should be given to these officers to recognize counterfeit products and what exceptions exist for these products. Also, will expanding their powers give officers the necessary resources to effectively combat counterfeiting?

It is very important to combat counterfeiting effectively, but we must also provide the means to do so in order to protect people's health and safety. I am not sure the current government is prepared to give the Border Services Agency the necessary means to do that.

What will happen once the bill is passed? Will it produce the expected results? Will border services officers be able to shoulder the burden and effectively combat counterfeiting?

As I mentioned, we support the bill because we feel it is important to the health and safety of Canadians. We do not want counterfeit products to be used in Canada and to affect the health and safety of Canadians. We also recognize the impact of those products on the Canadian economy, on certain businesses, and on copyright violations. However, the necessary means must be available.

It is difficult to get a clear idea of the situation with the data from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, for example, or the Canadian Intellectual Property Council, which produced a document on how to stop counterfeiting in the Canadian market. What types of products cross borders? Which products do we manage to intercept?

The NDP made a very good recommendation in committee on how to measure the impact of this bill. Indeed, after its implementation, we will have to find out whether Canada is really combatting counterfeiting effectively. Unfortunately, that recommendation was ignored.

However, I must admit that when the bill was studied in committee, the government agreed to amendments that would clarify the bill. I commend the government for working with us. This shows once again the importance of studying these bills properly in committee in order to make them better. That was done with this bill when it was studied in committee.

This bill deals with imports and exports. It does not deal with the fact that, without realizing it, a person could cross the border with a counterfeit product for his personal use. This bill only deals with large quantities of goods that would be held at the border when they arrive in Canada. We have to make that distinction when debating this bill.

Recently, when I was researching a bill on a free trade agreement, I took note of Canada's trade imbalance. In the past 15 years, Canada's imports of manufactured goods have been increasing steadily.

There used to be manufacturers in Canada. There were foundries and factories that made industrial machinery. In the region where I was born, for example, there was a manufacturer of large industrial machines. At that time, Canada was much more self-reliant in terms of manufacturing production. Instead of relying on imports, Canada was independent, that is to say it had a very strong manufacturing sector. We made the clothes we wore, and we built the machines used to make telephones and all kinds of parts.

In the town where I was born, there was a die casting plant that made parts for snowmobiles, cars and so forth. We no longer have this large manufacturing sector. We import more and more parts from other countries. The trade imbalance is due to the incredibly large number of all kinds of parts that we import, and this makes it increasingly difficult to know under what conditions they are manufactured. These are things I wonder about.

That is why we need a bill like this to fight counterfeiting. Canada is becoming increasingly dependent on parts of all kinds that are used in the manufacture of the equipment we use. Bill C-8 adequately addresses the problems I just raised. It helps protect us from some of these counterfeit parts, drugs and trademarks.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Thank you.

I support amendment NDP-4 introduced by Ms. Charlton.

During the study of Bill C-56, we noted that it was very difficult to understand the scope of counterfeit products, be it in Canada, the United States or anywhere else in the world. We also wondered whether this kind of bill was necessary. We thought so, but we had no solid evidence. Today, we want to ensure that we especially take into account counterfeit products that endanger people's health and safety.

I think an annual report to Parliament is important so that parliamentarians are truly informed as to the effectiveness of measures in place. As well, detailed data will help us have a better sense of the effectiveness of the measures in place and help us determine whether the problem is growing or diminishing.

That is why I wanted to add my voice in support of this NDP proposal.

[Dr. Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair, Internet and E-commerce Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon. I am a law professor at the University of Ottawa, where I hold the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law. I have appeared before this committee on a number of occasions and as in past occasions I appear here in a personal capacity representing only my own views.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you about Bill C-8. While the panel may disagree on certain elements of the legislation, I am sure that all agree that where harmful counterfeiting occurs—particularly involving health and safety—the law should provide all concerned with the legal tools necessary to address the problem. Indeed, we should not forget that the existing law in Canada is regularly used to conduct anti-counterfeiting raids and seizures, that border officials—as you heard on Monday—work with the RCMP and Health Canada on health and safety issues through their MOUs, and that the courts in Canada have awarded increasingly significant penalties in counterfeiting cases.

That said, context within a discussion on counterfeiting is important. It's easy, and rather scary as we just saw, to point to the obvious health and safety issues and, based on that, conclude that any available legal remedy should be adopted in response. Yet I'd argue that it's important to recognize that the scope of the problem remains subject to considerable debate, but even more, some proposed solutions may have unintended consequences that are themselves harmful and should be avoided. Moreover, given Minister Moore's insistence on Monday that the bill is about protecting intellectual property on an international scale, the international context, including the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement and the proposed trade agreement between Canada and the EU, merits some discussion as well.

Given that need for context, I'll actually shorten my remarks a bit by focusing on two main issues, first highlighting some of those unintended consequences, particularly those that could arise from some of the proposals for amendment that you just heard, and secondly, briefly discuss the international context of ACTA and CETA.

I should add that I won't be discussing the myriad of trademark reforms in the bill, some of which we just heard about, but I frankly think those are out of place in a counterfeiting bill. If the intent was to introduce an omnibus-style intellectual property bill, it should also deal with other live issues, including access to the blind that was the subject of a new international treaty that Canada actively participated in and was agreed to in June of this year, as well as reform of the Copyright Board of Canada that stakeholders on virtually all sides are increasingly calling for.

Let me focus though, as I suggested, on the potential unintended consequences of Bill C-8. I'll start by noting that the exception for individual travellers, the exclusion of patents and in-transit shipments, and the attempt to avoid application to grey market goods—some of the parallel import issues—I think are positive policy choices designed to ensure that the bill targets bad actors and doesn't allow border seizures to raise consumer costs. That said, there are some real concerns about potential unintended consequences, and I wish to highlight four.

First, as you know, the bill vests enormous power in the hands of customs officials, who are not copyright and trademark experts but will now be forced to assess infringement cases, including determining whether any copyright exceptions apply. The bill opens the door to detention of works if created without the consent of the copyright owner and the infringed copyright. Yet there are many works that are in fact created without consent of the owner, but rely upon exceptions such as fair dealing to do so, and are perfectly lawful. That often results in disputes over whether in fact the works infringe, an issue that is frankly best left to the courts and which even the courts often fight over. With this bill, though, it's now customs officials who are asked to make the determination and send the works to the copyright owner to consider whether they think it infringes copyright.

Some have claimed that the powers in this bill are consistent with international standards, yet the reality is that there are a number of countries—including allies such as Australia and Mexico—that do not have the ex officio powers envisioned by this bill in their laws. Using the courts for oversight is still viewed as a workable, legitimate approach to dealing with counterfeiting. As I mentioned, you heard on Monday how the CBSA works with the RCMP and Health Canada on the safety and security concerns. To vest this kind of power in non-expert customs officials, and to go even further as you've just heard, could lead to unintended consequences.

You have heard only today that some want this legislation to go further, including cost-shifting enforcement to the public, ignoring the costs that are borne by small businesses that import goods and could get caught up in the seizures. In fact, even today others have called for even more expansive powers for customs officials, including destruction or forfeiture of goods without court oversight. In my respectful view, these proposals are enormously problematic and would alter the attempt at balance in the bill by removing both important safeguards, shifting private enforcement costs to the taxpayer, and ultimately raising consumer costs.

Further, detention of goods can be used to harm small Canadian businesses that could find the goods they are seeking to import detained, oftentimes by competitors. The absence of a misuse provision in this bill is particularly notable in this regard.

Second, the bill does include an exception for personal travellers. However, the bill is oddly drafted by speaking of “works” rather than “goods”. Both the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement and leaked drafts of the Trans-Pacific Partnership focus on physical goods. By focusing on works, it could also cover things like iPod and laptop searches. In fact, if the exception were removed—and there have been some proposals that the exception could be removed—it could lead to escalated searches of iPods, smartphones, and other electronic devices, on personal travellers when they come across Canadian borders.

Third, there are groups, as we just heard, that are arguing for expanded penalties. The bill already moves copyright and trademark into the world of criminal provisions in a manner that extends far beyond what we've had in conventional IP law. Further, some are looking, and we just heard this, for statutory damages for trademark infringement. With respect, statutory damages for trademark are unnecessary. Rights holders frequently cite the value of their goods and the harms associated with counterfeiting. If the claims are accurate, demonstrating the value for the purpose of a damage award should not be difficult. Moreover, other countries that have moved in this area have run into serious problems. For example, Taiwan actually scaled back their statutory damages for trademarks when they found courts awarding disproportionate awards. In the United States, the use of statutory damages for trademarks has led to what is known as trademark trolls, similar to patent trolling. We would engage in litigation primarily designed to obtain costly settlements against small businesses that can often ill afford to fight in court.

Fourth, as you again just heard in some of the debates on what was then Bill C-56, there has been the prospect of removing targeting in-transit shipments. I'd argue that the bill wisely excludes in-transit shipments, and, with respect, a removal of that would be a mistake. The seizure of generic pharmaceuticals in transit would pose a threat to international trade, development, and public welfare. Experience with such seizures in the European Union led, in 2010, to both India and Brazil filing complaints with the World Trade Organization. They highlighted several incidents of consignments of generic medicines that were being transited via the European Union and being detained there.

In fact, Doctors Without Borders reported that in 2008 and 2009 there were at least 19 shipments of generic meds from India headed for other countries that were impounded while in transit in Europe. In one instance, German customs authorities wrongfully seized a drug shipment of amoxicillin, on suspicion that it infringed the brand name Amoxil. The cargo was detained for four weeks during investigation and ultimately revealed there was no trademark infringement. In another instance, Dutch customs authorities seized a shipment of AIDS drugs that were en route from India to a Clinton Foundation project in Nigeria.

In 2011, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled against in-transit seizures on the grounds that there was no infringement in the EU. A similar approach to exclude in-transit seizures is appropriate here, and any arguments that it should be removed, I believe, should be rejected.

Finally, from an international context perspective, notwithstanding some claims that this legislation is responding primarily to domestic concerns, much of the pressure comes from outside the country. Ms. Sgro asked about the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, on Monday. In fact, the United States has not yet ratified ACTA. The only country to have done so is Japan. The vast majority of signatories to ACTA, the entire European Union—all their member states—as well as Switzerland, are out. They have rejected the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement through their votes at the European Parliament. There are doubts that ACTA will ever take effect, as it may not even receive the requisite number of ratifications to take effect. Frankly, even if it does, it now stands as damaged goods and a far cry from the relevant international standard that some had hoped. It elicited an enormous public backlash, and Canada would do well to move on.

Perhaps even more relevant is CETA, which apparently contains border provisions consistent with Bill C-8. The problem, as many will know, is that the government has not yet released the CETA text, so there is no way of knowing precisely what is required under that treaty and whether there is room for change under this bill. It is perhaps consistent, but without the text we can't know if alterations to the bill might still fall within treaty requirements.

Finally, there is also the possibility, indeed, some say the likelihood, of border measures provisions in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is also still under negotiation.

The net effect of these international pressures—and with this I'll conclude—is, I would argue, that Canada would do well to pause for the moment until these international treaties are concluded and our obligations with regard to these kinds of border measure provisions are better understood.

I'll stop there, and I would welcome your questions.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The Chair is satisfied that this bill is in the same form as Bill C-56 was in the previous session at the time of prorogation of the first session of the 41st Parliament.

Accordingly, pursuant to an order made on Monday, October 21, the bill is deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-8, An Act to amend the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the special order made previously, I would like to inform the House that this bill is in the same form as Bill C-56 was in the previous session at the time of prorogation.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

MOTION THAT DEBATE BE NOT FURTHER ADJOURNED

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

Mr. Speaker, I prefer to take a more optimistic approach to characterizing the work of the people here in Parliament. In fact, our members of Parliament, through the months of May and June, actually sat on some occasions as late as 2 a.m. because we agreed to have extended hours in this House. As a result of that, we did not lose a month of debate; we actually gained more than a month of debate.

Good discussions took place here. People debated bills, and bills advanced as a result of the hard work put in by members of Parliament on all sides of the House, as should be acknowledged. As a result, a number of bills enjoyed support from all sides of this House and were able to go to committee. All we are asking is that those same bills be able to go to the same stage they were at thanks to all that hard work. It was the equivalent of well over a month of additional debate that took place in May and June.

An example would be Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act, which was there in May and June. As a result of the support of all parties in this House, that bill passed on a voice vote and went to committee. In fact, the NDP member for Scarborough Southwest said, “...we in the NDP do want to see this bill go back to committee...”.

This is the chance to do that, to acknowledge the work that was done by parliamentarians like him in June and to give effect to it by allowing it to be restored at committee as it was in June. It is a bill that would defend the interests of Canadians and it is supported by all parties. That is the kind of bill we are looking to see restored as a result of government business Motion No. 2.

Business of the House and its Committees

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

moved:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, for the purposes of facilitating and organizing the business of the House and its committees in the autumn of 2013,

(a) during the thirty sitting days following the adoption of this Order, whenever a Minister of the Crown, when proposing a motion for first reading of a public bill, states that the said bill is in the same form as a bill introduced by a Minister of the Crown in the previous Session, or that it is in the same form as a bill which had originated in the Senate and stood in the name of a Minister of the Crown in this House in the previous Session, if the Speaker is satisfied that the said bill is in the same form as at prorogation, notwithstanding Standing Order 71, the said bill shall be deemed in the current Session to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation of the previous Session;

(b) in order to bring full transparency and accountability to House of Commons spending, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to: (i) conduct open and public hearings with a view to replace the Board of Internal Economy with an independent oversight body, (ii) invite the Auditor General, the Clerk and the Chief Financial Officer of the House of Commons to participate fully in these hearings, (iii) study the practices of provincial and territorial legislatures, as well as other jurisdictions and Westminster-style Parliaments in order to compare and contrast their administrative oversight, (iv) propose modifications to the Parliament of Canada Act, the Financial Administration Act, the Auditor General Act and any other acts as deemed necessary, (v) propose any necessary modifications to the administrative policies and practices of the House of Commons, (vi) examine the subject-matter of the motions, which had stood in the name of the Member for Papineau, placed on the Order Paper for the previous Session on June 10, 2013, and (vii) report its findings to the House no later than Monday, December 2, 2013, in order to have any proposed changes to expense disclosure and reporting in place for the beginning of the next fiscal year;

(c) when the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs meets pursuant to the order of reference set out in paragraph (b) of this Order, one Member who is not a member of a recognized party be allowed to participate in the hearings as a temporary, non-voting member of that Committee;

(d) the Clerk be authorized, if necessary, to convene a meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs within 24 hours of the adoption of this Order;

(e) the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to study the Standing Orders and procedures of the House and its committees, including the proceedings on the debate held on Friday, February 17, 2012, pursuant to Standing Order 51;

(f) the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights be the committee designated for the purposes of section 533.1 of the Criminal Code;

(g) the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics be the committee designated for the purposes of section 67 of the Conflict of Interest Act;

(h) the order of reference to the Standing Committee on Finance, adopted in the previous Session as Private Member’s Motion M-315, shall be renewed, provided that the Committee shall report its findings to the House no later than Wednesday, December 11, 2013;

(i) a special committee be appointed, with the mandate to conduct hearings on the critical matter of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls in Canada, and to propose solutions to address the root causes of violence against Indigenous women across the country, and that, with respect to the committee, (i) it consist of twelve members which shall include seven members from the government party, four members from the Official Opposition and one member from the Liberal Party, (ii) the Chair and the Vice-Chairs shall be the same Chair and Vice-Chairs elected by the previous Session’s Special Committee on Violence Against Indigenous Women, (iii) the routine motions respecting committee business adopted on March 26 and April 18, 2013, by the previous Session’s Special Committee on Violence Against Indigenous Women shall be deemed adopted, provided that it may, by motion, vary or rescind their provisions at a later date, (iv) it have all of the powers of a Standing Committee as provided in the Standing Orders, as well as the power to travel, accompanied by the necessary staff, inside and outside of Canada, subject to the usual authorization from the House, (v) the members serving on the said committee be appointed by the Whip of each party depositing with the Clerk of the House a list of his or her party’s members of the committee within ten sitting days of the adoption of this Order, (vi) the quorum be seven members for any proceedings, provided that at least a member of the opposition and of the government party be present, (vii) membership substitutions be permitted to be made from time to time, if required, in the manner provided for in Standing Order 114(2), and (viii) it report its recommendations to the House no later than February 14, 2014;

(j) with respect to any order of reference created as a consequence of this Order, any evidence adduced by a committee in the previous Session shall be deemed to have been laid upon the Table in the present Session and referred to the appropriate committee;

(k) the reference to “September 30” in Standing Order 28(2)(b) shall be deemed, for the calendar year 2013, to read “November 8”;

(l) the reference to “the tenth sitting day before the last normal sitting day in December” in Standing Order 83.1 shall be deemed, for the calendar year 2013, to read “Wednesday, December 11, 2013”; and

(m) on Thursday, October 31, 2013, the hours of sitting and order of business of the House shall be that of a Friday, provided that (i) the time for filing of any notice be no later than 6:00 p.m., (ii) when the House adjourns it shall stand adjourned until Monday, November 4, 2013, and (iii) any recorded division in respect of a debatable motion requested on, or deferred to, October 31, 2013, shall be deemed to be deferred or further deferred, as the case may be, to the ordinary hour of daily adjournment on November 4, 2013.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of government Motion No. 2, and I look forward to the continuation of what has proven to be a productive, hard-working, and orderly Parliament.

This year alone, from the end of January until the end of June, Parliament passed 37 new laws, matching our government's most productive year in office. This, of course, included a budget that will help fuel job creation, grow our economy, and increase Canada's long-term prosperity. Since the last election and the 2011 throne speech, we have witnessed 61 government bills become law. On top of that, an unprecedented 19 private members' bills received royal assent, heralding a renewed empowerment of individual members of Parliament to bring forward initiatives important to them and their constituents. It is a long way from the days when a Prime Minister derisively described backbenchers as “nobodies”, 50 yards off the Hill.

Yesterday's Speech from the Throne has outlined the government's objectives as being those that matter to Canadians. As a new parliamentary session begins, we remain squarely focused on jobs, the economy, and protecting families, while taking pride in the history and institutions that make Canada the best country in the world. Here in the House, these policy objectives will be given legislative expression in the form of bills that will be introduced over the coming weeks, months, and years. As we look forward to implementing the new initiatives outlined yesterday, we also want to ensure that important, unfinished work from the previous session, whether it be bills or committee business, is not forgotten.

Government Motion No. 2 would seek to facilitate and organize House and committee business for the autumn in view of our calendar and circumstances. Government Motion No. 2 proposes that June's unfinished work, in which all parties have an interest, carry on where we left off. I stand here today asking that all opposition parties join me in taking a balanced, principles-based approached to getting Parliament back to work. The bills and committee work I am today proposing be reinstated are those that have received support and praise from members opposite. It is also work that matters to Canadians.

We are not asking that only items proposed originally by the government be reinstated; we are proposing on behalf of all parties that everybody's proposals and initiatives be restored. It is a fair approach. It is a non-partisan approach. In respect of government legislation, paragraph (a) of the motion sets out a procedure for the reintroduction of government bills that advanced in the House in the previous session. In total, up to seven bills from the first session could fall into that category.

What sorts of bills are we talking about here? They are the type of legislation the New Democrats say they are keen to debate all over again. What are they? Let us consider some examples.

As pointed out in the Speech from the Throne, we are deeply committed to standing up for victims of crime and making our streets safer for Canadians. The former Bill C-54, Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, was designed to make sure that public safety comes first in the decision-making process regarding persons found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. It would provide additional security for victims and would enhance their involvement in the Criminal Code mental disorder regime.

During the previous session, the NDP and the Bloc agreed with the government and supported the bill. We hope that they will continue to support this important initiative.

In order to protect families and communities, we must also eradicate contraband tobacco from our streets to ensure that children are not exposed to the dangers of smoking through access to cheap packs of illegal cigarettes. That was the goal of the former Bill S-16, Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act, through the creation of mandatory prison sentences for repeat offenders in the trafficking of contraband tobacco. The bill will not only protect children against the dangers of tobacco, but it will also address the more general issue of contraband tobacco trafficking driven by organized crime groups.

A look at the debates at second reading in the Hansard shows that members of the NDP, the Liberal Party and the Bloc spoke in favour of sending the bill to committee. We are counting on their continued support of this initiative and we will adopt a non-partisan approach as Parliament resumes its work.

Former Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act, would implement our government's commitments under the Convention on Cluster Munitions, a significant achievement. Over time, the enactment of this convention will save the lives of many thousands of people around the world and will help put an end to the use of a weapon that has shattered the lives of too many innocent civilians.

In the previous session, support for this bill came from the Bloc and the hon. members for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Thunder Bay—Superior North, and Edmonton—St. Albert. We look forward to renewed support from them on this bill as part of our balanced, principle-based approach.

Our government believes in our national museums and we recognize the tremendous value they hold for all Canadians. As we approach Canada's 150th birthday, former Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act, offers an unprecedented opportunity to celebrate our history and those achievements that define who we are as Canadians. The Canadian museum of history would provide the public with the opportunity to appreciate how Canada's identity has been shaped over the course of our history. Canadians deserve a national museum that tells our stories and presents our country's treasures to the world.

This bill received support from the hon. members for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Thunder Bay—Superior North, and Edmonton—St. Albert. We look forward again to their continued support.

Our commitment to improving the lives of Canadians from coast to coast continues. In the case of aboriginals, former Bill S-6, the first nations elections act, would provide a robust election system that individual first nations can opt into. The act will help to create a framework that fosters healthier, more prosperous, and self-sufficient aboriginal communities through stronger and more stable and effective first nations governments.

The bill is the product of recommendations developed by the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs and the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and a lengthy national engagement campaign with first nations leaders across the country. As we see from Hansard, that bill passed second reading without the opposition even asking for a recorded vote.

The new parliamentary session will see our government stand up for Canadian families and consumers. This includes ensuring they do not fall victim to counterfeit goods. Counterfeit goods hurt our economy, undermine innovation, and undermine the integrity of Canadian brands, and they threaten the health and safety of Canadians on occasion. This is why I am asking that the NDP and Liberal MPs who stood in the House and spoke in favour of former Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act, going to committee will agree to allow that to happen again.

By allowing these bills that received varying degrees of support from across the aisle an opportunity to be reinstated, our intention is to finish where we left off on key pieces of legislation important to Canadians—not to enter into partisan gridlock, not to re-debate legislation that has already received support from parliamentarians, but to reinstate and pass bills so that we can move on to new initiatives and deliver results for Canadians.

As I made clear, government Motion No. 2 is about restoring everyone's business. That includes bills and motions that are important to everyone here and, more importantly, to Canadians.

Many of the Canadians I speak with want their elected politicians to work, make decisions, and get on with the important work we were sent to Ottawa to do. I can only imagine the reaction I would get if I told them we had to spend over a dozen days to have the exact same debates we had already had, to make the same decisions we had already taken, to have the same votes we had already voted on, in many of these cases on bills that we all supported.

It would be a remarkable waste. It would seem absurd to anyone in the real world, where efficiency and productivity count for something, but believe it or not, that is what the official opposition wants to do: play partisan games, hold debates that we have already had, and enter into the kind of unproductive and unsavoury political deadlock just witnessed south of the border.

A news article on Tuesday noted that “the NDP is fundamentally opposed” to the legislative component of our balanced approach to restoring the work of all members of Parliament, yet just a few short paragraphs later in the same article, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley is reported to have said he is “not opposed to bringing back some of the legislation”. Which is it? Are New Democrats fundamentally opposed, or are they actually in favour? Is this a matter of principle, or is it really just a matter of partisan gamesmanship? Is it just that some people like to stand and grab attention? I think the answer is obvious.

Our approach to restoring the work of all members also includes the important work that is being done in our committees. This means continuing our commitment to ensuring that taxpayers' dollars are spent efficiently and in a transparent manner.

That is why we are taking action to reinstate the mandate for the procedure and House affairs committee's study on members' expenses, including a special provision for independent members to participate at the meetings of the committee on this issue. We ask all members of the House to support this mandate so that we can increase accountability and transparency in MP disclosures.

Our balanced, principle-based approach to making Parliament work this session will also mean the reappointment of the special committee on missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. There is no question that the deaths and abductions of these women are a tragedy that has caused deep pain for many families. By reinstating this committee's work, we are ensuring that this tragedy receives the careful attention it deserves.

Other uncompleted committee mandates flowing from House orders include a private member's motion that would also be revived.

Finally, some scheduling adjustments are proposed. They include items to reconcile some deadlines to our calendar as well as the usual indulgence granted by the House to allow members from a recognized party to attend their party's national convention.

What I have just outlined to you, Mr. Speaker, is a fair and balanced proposal to get Parliament back in the swing of hard work. Government Motion No. 2 is balanced. It is based on a principle, a principle that we will be back where we were in June and that nobody is prejudiced by our prorogation. It is a non-partisan approach, one that would restore everyone's business regardless of their partisan affiliation and regardless of which side of the House they sit on.

[Jean-Claude Ménard]

First off, we received the proposal contained in Bill C-45 . In some ways, it's a fairly easy change to make because the total cost of the plan stays the same as far as we're concerned, except for new contributors. That cost, however, will materialize over time.

For the first five years, then, the change affecting new contributors isn't as significant as the change in the cost-sharing ratio, which will go from 35/65 to a 50/50 split. We carried out the evaluations that were asked of us.

[Jean-Claude Ménard, Chief Actuary, Office of the Chief Actuary, Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions]

Mr. Chair, honourable members of the committee, good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.

The primary role of the Office of the Chief Actuary is to provide actuarial services to the federal and provincial governments that are Canada Pension Plan stakeholders. While I report to the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, I am solely responsible for the content and actuarial opinions reflected in the reports prepared by my office.

The Office of the Chief Actuary conducts statutory actuarial evaluations—generally, every three years—on the Canada Pension Plan, the Old Age Security Program, and pension and benefits plans covering the federal public service, the Canadian Forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, federally appointed judges, and members of Parliament. In addition, whenever a bill is introduced before Parliament that significantly impacts the financial status of a public pension plan under the statutory responsibility of the Chief Actuary, the office must submit an actuarial report to the appropriate minister.

Following the passing of Bill C-45, the Public Service Superannuation Act was amended to increase the pensionable age—from age 60 to 65 in the case of new participants—for contributors entering the plan after January 1, 2013. Member contribution rates will be increased to bring their share of the plan's current service cost from 35% to 50%, thereby splitting the cost 50/50 between the members and the government. The President of the Treasury Board, the Honourable Tony Clement, submitted an actuarial report on March 25, 2013.

In the second half of the 21st century, we experienced remarkable gains in life expectancy and highly decreased mortality rates. In 1965, average life expectancy at age 65 was another 15 years. This means that someone who was 65 years old back then could hope to receive their benefits for 15 years, on average, until the age of 80. At that time, women lived slightly longer than men.

Today, 65-year-old retirees can hope to live another 20 years on average—with women still living slightly longer than men. However, the gap between the two sexes is narrowing quickly. According to projections, taking into account future mortality improvements—that is, future gains in life expectancy resulting from decreasing mortality rates—we could expect an additional three to four-year gain in life expectancy at age 65. Around 2050, based on our projections, people will reach the age of 88—people who were 65 years old 23 years earlier. Canadians are living longer, healthier lives and are working to a more advanced age.

According to the most recent labour force survey from Statistics Canada, the number of Canadians between the ages of 65 and 69 who are working has more than doubled over the last 10 years, increasing from 144,000 in 2002 to 374,000 in 2012. The number of those aged 60 to 64 who are still working also increased significantly to reach one million in 2012. Overall, the number of workers between ages 60 and 69 has more than doubled over the last 10 years, increasing from 600,000 to 1.4 million.

In any case, whether the focus is on a pay-as-you-go plan or a fully funded plan, a defined benefit or a defined contribution solution, or a public or private sector pension plan, it's clear that increased longevity will continue to put pressure on pension plan financing.

Thank you very much again for the opportunity to appear before the committee.

I will be happy to answer any questions you might have.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you, but I am going to continue anyway in order to inform everyone, since there are people entering and leaving the room.

The third possibility is to not consider the bill. If all of the members of the committee had been against Bill C-425, the committee would have had the right to not continue its study, on that basis.

The fourth possibility, which is the topic of the current debate, is to ask for a single extension of 30 sitting days, and provide the reasons for that. That is what is currently being proposed. The request has been justified because of a considerable expansion in the scope of the bill. The scope of Bill C-425 has been considerably broadened, and that is why we are being asked for an extension of 30 sitting days.

The fifth possibility is subsidiary. I hope everyone understands the legal definition of “subsidiary”. It is something that is included by default. If nothing is done in the 60 days following referral to the committee, by default, it may be considered that the bill has been reported without amendment.

Mr. Chair, the problem is that on this side, we are against the 30-day extension period. Bill C-425 may have been unanimously approved, but that is not the case for its amendments. What is being proposed is practically a new bill and a new legal context. During those 30 additional days, in my opinion, it would have been preferable to submit a new bill. The government chose to not submit a new bill, but rather to resort to what one might call a “mammoth” procedure...

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Chair, there will be three parts to my statement. The first concerns the text of the motion you have before you. My second point will be about the philosophy of law, and thirdly, I will conclude with an analogy.

Standing Order 97.1(1) lists five distinct elements regarding dealing with a bill. These are possibilities, not absolute obligations. This regulatory text does not state that it must necessarily be 30 days. There are other possibilities, and I am going to discuss all of them, with your permission.

In the first possibility, we must report on the amendments in the 60 days following the reference. Parliamentarians sitting in committee may decide to debate a bill and submit amendments to it, and then send it back to the House in the 60 days that follow. That is where we were heading with Bill C-425 before Mr. Dykstra's motion and the amendments to the bill submitted by the department were introduced. At first, Bill C-425 was heading toward that first eventuality, i.e. that we report the bill to the House, with amendments, in the 60-day period following its reference to committee.

The second possibility evoked in Standing Order 97.1(1) provides that we report without amendment in the 60 days following the bill's reference to the committee. In this case this means that Bill C-425 would have been such a good bill that it would have garnered unanimous consent around the table, and all of the parliamentarians would have approved it without any amendment and referred it to the House; the House of course maintains its right to debate it.

Those are the two most frequent procedures used in dealing with a bill.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Madam Chair, again, pointing to relevancy on page 1049 of O'Brien and Bosc, I believe the committee recommended to the House on April 23, 2013, that it be granted the power to expand the scope of the bill during its consideration of Bill C-425 . Therefore, the committee is waiting for the decision of the House before further consideration of the bill. Therefore, the motion put in front of the committee is to extend the time in which the bill will be considered in order to accommodate exactly what my colleague is talking about. Therefore, given that she, according to my understanding, is agreeing with the content therein, I would also argue relevancy on her current line of debate.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Absolutely, Madam Chair. Maybe I should clarify.

When I'm speaking of some of the items that are identified in the bill and why it's relevant to the motion at hand requesting an extension of further debate and why it's not necessary is that the amendments the government has put forward have changed the scope of the bill. I didn't want to repeat myself because I had mentioned this, and I figured my honourable colleague had heard and understood that part.

When the scope of a bill is changed so dramatically in committee that it doesn't make sense, it isn't necessary to give that extra time because it's deemed to be a different bill. It doesn't make sense for us to debate this new bill that wasn't presented to the House.

The committees are creatures of the House of Commons chamber itself. When a committee receives a bill from the House and the committee decides to.... I know that committees are masters of their own destiny; however, they are creatures of the House. When a committee receives a bill, such as Bill C-425, in its original form and then the committee—because there's a majority of government members and they have introduced multiple amendments that have changed the bill so much that the scope of the bill has changed from the original bill—it doesn't need to report that back. That is why, Madam Chair, it is important for us to have this discussion today and say that it's not necessary for this motion—

Business of the House

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to have that level of civility. I congratulate my friend across the way.

Before asking the usual Thursday question and before the government House leader across the way starts to talk about how he has been able to abuse Parliament over the past week, I would like to make a small observation for all those listening.

Of all the bills I am sure he is about to mention that are important, not a single bill passed through this legislative process in anything resembling a normal fashion. Bills S-8, S-15, S-17, S-2, S-6, S-10, S-16, C-56 and C-60, every single bill we have debated in the past week, operated under time allocation. I might parenthetically add that seven of them came from the Senate. It seems like a strange place for the government to get its agenda: a bunch of unelected, under-investigation senators, but so be it. It is the government's choice.

We tried to work with the government to find ways to allow the House to debate bills and to do so expediently. A good example is the Sable Island as a national park bill. For example, we offered up about five or six speakers who wanted to address the merits of the bill, which would have allowed the passage of that bill after they had spoken. The reaction from the leader from the other side was to move time allocation, which in fact ended up taking up more time in the House than the offer the NDP had made would have taken.

The Conservatives' strategy is sometimes bizarre. In fact, it is hard to figure out whether it is a strategy or not. I would like the Conservative member to enlighten me on this, even though the Conservatives' responses have no merit.

We have spent more than 14 hours debating and voting on time allocation motions in the past two weeks alone. I find it ironic that the government allots only five hours of debate to the content of the bill under time allocation, when the vast majority of our time is spent debating and voting on the time allocation motions and not on the bills. That is the Conservatives' way of doing business.

When will the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons learn that a hammer is not the only tool available for getting the work done?

Could the leader of the government tell us what his plans are for this week and the week following?

Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who does an excellent job as our science and technology critic. He raised a very important point about good intentions. Having good intentions is commendable.

However, we have questions about how the bill will be enforced. My colleague raised the point that contraband cigarettes are no longer a local issue, but that they have become national and international issues. How can we successfully tackle contraband?

I want to point out that it will be the same thing with Bill C-56, which deals with counterfeit goods, if we do not come up with measures to back up our plans.

Bill S-16--Time Allocation Motion

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank everyone for their impassioned speeches today. I have a couple of questions for the minister. This is where we come up with new, unforeseen circumstances and situations when we are ramming through all these bills.

This bill seeks to tackle contraband tobacco and also to stop contraband coming across the border. Yesterday, through time allocation, we rammed through Bill C-56 that would actually add ex officio powers to CBSA officers to stop counterfeit and trademark-infringed goods from coming across the border.

We have multiple bills going through at the same time that would add more responsibilities and put more strain on our border officers. At the same time, the government last year brought in over $143 million in cuts to CBSA. CBSA's own numbers say that it is going to lose 550 full-time staff between now and 2015.

I would like to ask the minister how he squares that circle. We are thrusting all these responsibilities upon CBSA while, at the same time, cutting its budgets. How is the CBSA supposed to continue to do the job of keeping Canadians safe?

[Alan Latourelle]

Thank you. It will be faster.

Clause 8 amends the federal accord act to restrict the number of current activities the board can authorize on Sable Island to four categories: access to existing wellheads on Sable Island for the purpose of safety and environmental protection; low-impact petroleum activities, including seismic, geological, and geophysical programs on the surface of Sable Island; emergency evacuation capacity for offshore workers; and maintenance of emergency facilities on Sable Island in case the island needs to be used to provide safe harbour to offshore workers in times of emergency.

Mr. Chair, a review of the debate in the House made clear that the key concern is focused on the ability of the Offshore Petroleum Board to authorize low-impact seismic activity. Allow me to offer several comments on this issue.

First, the Offshore Petroleum Board currently has the authority to authorize seismic activity on Sable Island. The purpose of Bill S-15 is to limit the board's current authority to consideration of low-impact seismic.

Second, as the board has indicated to Parks Canada in discussions, if a company wanted to collect new data from Sable Island, the board would ask the company to justify why the current seismic information is not sufficient and to demonstrate that such data could not be gathered beyond the national park reserve. If not, then the board would want assurances from the company that other less intrusive techniques could not be used to augment the existing seismic information. If the only remaining option required a seismic program placing equipment on Sable Island, an environmental assessment would be conducted by the Offshore Petroleum Board. Such an assessment would have to meet the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act's standard of determining the likelihood of an activity that causes significant adverse environmental effects. Given that clause 7 of Bill S-15 requires that the board seek the advice and recommendation of Parks Canada on such a proposed authorization, Parks Canada would have an opportunity to influence the nature of any proposed seismic program.

As members heard during the House debate, the last time a seismic program was undertaken on Sable Island was in 1999. A code of practice formed part of Mobil's environmental assessment and protection plan and was the principal instrument in guiding mitigation measures related to the seismic program. Negotiated by Zoe Lucas, an expert on Sable Island, the code compelled the company to make a number of changes to the nature and timing of its seismic program, a program, it was concluded, that did not have an impact on Sable Island. A similar code of practice would be required should any future seismic program be recommended.

I realize the central concern is that Bill S-15 does not define “low impact”, but, Mr. Chair, any amendments to Bill S-15 with respect to the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act would require the Province of Nova Scotia to agree with these amendments and then go through the process of also amending their legislation.

For that reason, Parks Canada and the board have discussed alternative means to address concerns over defining low-impact seismic activity. Both the board and Parks Canada are committed to: 1) developing together a draft definition or protocol to address the concerns raised regarding low-impact seismic activity; 2) undertaking consultation with the province, industry, stakeholders, and the public on its proposed definition; and 3) identifying an appropriate mechanism under the accord act, be it regulation, directive, guidance, memorandum of understanding, or some other appropriate mechanism to give effect to the final product.

We would certainly welcome any ideas the committee has to assist us.

I want to confirm that, in my view, we are not undermining the integrity of our national parks system. To reiterate, we are not amending the Canada National Parks Act to permit low-impact seismic activity in national parks. We are amending the accord to restrict it to low-impact on Sable Island, and in negotiating new national parks, I can assure this committee that we are not entertaining a similar agreement.

Finally, as I noted earlier, we are also amending the Canada Shipping Act, as Sable Island is currently administered under the act by the Canadian Coast Guard. Bill S-15 will repeal all sections that pertain to Sable Island. Once it becomes law, then the administration of Sable Island will be transferred from the coast guard to Parks Canada.

In concluding my remarks on the first part of the bill, allow me to paraphrase our minister in summarizing the gains that Bill S-15 represents for Sable Island.

First, we are protecting Sable Island under the National Parks Act, the strongest federal conservation legislation, as Canada's 43rd national park.

We are putting in place, for the first time, a legislative ban on exploratory and extractive drilling for petroleum resources from the surface of Sable Island.

We are creating a legislative buffer around the national park reserve that prohibits drilling from its boundary out to one nautical mile.

We are legally limiting the number of current petroleum-related activities that can be permitted on Sable Island and directing that if seismic is permitted it be low-impact.

We are putting in place a legislative requirement for the Offshore Petroleum Board to consult Parks Canada should it want to issue a permit for activity on Sable Island.

We are protecting the asserted aboriginal rights and title by the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia by designating it a national park reserve.

Finally, we will provide opportunities for Canadians to experience Sable Island, either on site or by various other means.

Let me now address part 2 of Bill S-15, which deals with amendments to section 4 and schedules 4 and 5 of the Canada National Parks Act.

Clause 13 of the bill amends section 4 of the Canada National Parks Act to address concerns of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations regarding that section. The bill makes two amendments of a technical nature to section 4. It fixes the discrepancy between the English and French versions and adds a new subsection 4(1.1) to clarify the authority of the Minister of the Environment to use sections 23 or 24 of the Parks Canada Agency Act to set fees in national parks. The wording of this clause in the bill was improved through an amendment made by the Senate to avoid any misinterpretation of the intent of the proposed changes.

I would like to assure the members of this committee that the wording of subsection 4(1) of the act is not affected by these amendments. The wording of this subsection, which is known as the national parks dedication clause, continues to remain virtually unchanged for over eight decades. This clause provides that:

National parks are dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment and that they are to be maintained and used so as to leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.

Clause 14 of the bill makes minor amendments to the description of the commercial zones for the community of Field, British Columbia, located within Yoho National Park of Canada. These minor zoning modifications are not controversial, they have community support, and they are well within the legislated commercial growth limit for Field. The changes will help support services, such as a gas station, required by park visitors and the town's businesses and residents.

Finally, section 15 of the bill amends the leasehold boundary set out in schedule 5 of the act for Marmot Basin Ski Area. This ski area is located within Jasper National Park of Canada.

Questions were raised during second reading of this bill regarding the type of analysis carried out for this proposal, as well as regarding the opportunities for public involvement. I wish to reassure the members of this committee that Parks Canada has in place a comprehensive and tightly controlled policy framework for the management of ski hill operations in national parks. This framework respects the Parks Canada mandate of maintaining or restoring ecological integrity while fostering a sense of connection through memorable visitor experiences and opportunities to learn about our natural and cultural heritage. It also provides ski area operators with greater certainty and predictability for business planning.

There are three main aspects to the Parks Canada policy framework for management of ski area operations in national parks. The first element of this framework is the Parks Canada Ski Area Management Guidelines, revised in 2006, which provide general direction to maintain ecological integrity and economically viable ski area operations within national parks. The second element comprises site-specific guidelines to control development and use at each ski area by setting out the scope, nature and location of potential development that may be considered for the ski area, and under what conditions.

In the case of Marmot Basin, the Marmot Basin Ski Area Site Guidelines for Development and Use were approved by Parks Canada in 2008. They included a comprehensive public participation program and completion of a Strategic Environmental Assessment. These site guidelines outline what development and use may be considered in the future, and establish growth limits, ecological management parameters and approaches to ski area operation.

The third element of the policy framework is a requirement for ski areas to develop long range plans and carry out detailed impact analysis for project proposals that the ski area wishes to advance in a five to fifteen-year time frame.

Marmot Basin is well advanced in the process of preparing its long-range plan, and in fact, its website gives a notice of intent to start public consultations on its long-range plan this fall. Marmot Basin's long-rang plan submissions will be accompanied by a detailed environmental impact analysis consistent with requirements for federal lands under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act of 2013. The purpose, nature, scope, and public participation elements of the process will be similar to previous project assessments conducted by Parks Canada.

The operator of Marmot Basin Ski Area wishes to improve the ski experience at Marmot Basin in order to maintain a competitive position with other new and expanded ski operations in the region. The operator has proposed to remove 118 hectares from its current leasehold in exchange for a smaller parcel of land contiguous to another part of the ski area. The proposed amendment to schedule 5 of the act is a major reduction of the leasehold boundary and a substantial environmental gain for Jasper National Park.

The 118 hectares to be removed from the leasehold is an important habitat for woodland caribou, which is listed under the Species at Risk Act. The area also contains natural mineral licks that attract mountain goats, and it is habitat for other species such as grizzly bear, wolverine and lynx. In fact, in a separate regulatory process, the area will be added to an existing declared wilderness area and will have a greater degree of protection than is currently the case. Uses will be carefully managed to protect the wilderness character of the area. In exchange, Marmot Basin would be granted access to a smaller 60 hectare parcel of less ecologically sensitive land for future development for skiing.

Any proposed development of the exchanged land remains subject to decision-making by Parks Canada under the detailed and public long-range planning process and environmental impact analysis that are part of the system of safeguards that Parks Canada has put in place.

Mr. Chair, the land to be exchanged was carefully selected to avoid caribou habitat and other important wildlife habitat including potential grizzly bear denning sites — none of which have been identified in the area. Before any development would be authorized, further environmental evaluation of the area will be conducted in the context of the long-range planning process that Marmot Basin has announced recently.

I would like to point out that this type of proposed land exchange is permitted under Parks Canada's policy regime for ski area management.

The 2006 guidelines specifically allow for the potential to make the modifications proposed where there is a substantial environmental gain.

This applies in situations where there is a leasehold reduction or reconfiguration that results in better protection of sensitive areas and exchange for development of less sensitive areas. This is exactly the situation we are dealing with for the Marmot Ski Basin area proposals. Consultations on these proposed changes where held during the preparation of the guidelines.

This bill brings lasting benefits to the people of Canada. It establishes Canada's 43rd national park by protecting a unique and storied island off the shore of Nova Scotia. It enables changes to enhance the economic viability of the community of Field and of the Marmot Basin.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Combating Counterfeit Products Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I can barely contain my emotions as I rise in the House because I know that the entire nation is hanging on my every word as I weigh in on this important debate.

I would like to begin by quoting a 13th century French poet named Rutebeuf. Some 700 years ago, Rutebeuf wrote:

What has become of the friends
Whom I held so dear
And loved so much

One could paraphrase his words today:

What has become of the principles
That I praised so highly
And boasted of so much

I am, of course, talking about the Conservative Party and the bitter disappointment it has inspired among its supporters.

For years, while it was in opposition, this government said that it would clean up Ottawa, bring change and act according to the following principles: integrity, transparency, freedom of expression and enabling parliamentarians to do their work.

What has happened since the beginning of the Conservatives' majority mandate? Parliamentarians are being prevented from talking, debating issues and making suggestions. The government is imposing time allocation. It is forcing committees to work behind closed doors. It is doing exactly the opposite of what it promised Canadians.

It is good that we are debating Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, the Combating Counterfeit Products Act today. What we are seeing is counterfeit debates. Democratic freedom is being undermined and parliamentarians are being prevented from doing their work.

With this bill, that makes 47 gag orders. Forty-seven motions to limit members' speaking time on government bills. This evening, the leader of the Government in the House of Commons came to announce another gag order. A 48th gag order is coming.

I think that the Conservatives are aiming for 50 before the session ends. They must want to end on a round number or something like that. It must be as simple as that.

However, these are the same Conservatives who would tear their hair out and shout whenever the Liberals dared impose time allocation after weeks of debate. Once in power, these same Conservatives today put their principles behind them and can impose time allocation after an hour or two of debate by saying that it is a matter of urgency and that the bill absolutely must be passed because it is of vital importance.

In the meantime, they tell reporters that the NDP should give consent to adjourn Parliament and go home. It is one or the other: they cannot have their cake and eat it too. They cannot say that a bill urgently needs to be passed and then complain that the NDP is keeping them in Parliament and forcing them to work and answer their questions.

Let me come back to the bill. I come from a family that is well-rooted in the cultural community. My father is a writer and my brother is a musician, so copyright is very important to me. I know that this bill is about more than just copyright as it relates to artists, but it can have consequences for that.

It is important because copyright and intellectual property are related. These are fundamental to respecting creators and people who develop products, whether we are talking about cultural products, merchandise or high-technology products. This evening we talked about pharmaceutical companies and many other things.

This debate is important to the NDP. We believe that this bill is headed in the right direction. However, members will understand that I will probably raise a concern in a few minutes. The Conservatives often do not walk the talk, as people used to say when I was young. However, this bill does have good intentions.

We have to recognize the importance of innovation in economic development and the fact that the creators of these innovations are entitled to the resulting profits. We must not allow third parties to copy what they have developed, built or imagined and abscond with the fruits of their labour.

That is outright theft of the revenues generated after a product, good, idea or concept is created and developed. It is rather difficult to know what happens surreptitiously, under the table. There are estimates but, in this case, we only have the value of seizures of counterfeit goods by the RCMP. It says that seizures increased from $7.6 million in 2005 to $38 million in 2012. That is significant.

As my colleague pointed out earlier, it is probably just the tip of the iceberg. That is just what was seized. There must be a lot of counterfeit goods in the world.

I think that if we have an opportunity to travel around the world, we will see all these young people in tourist areas who sell brand name watches that are fakes. This is just one of many examples of what we can see when we travel around the world.

In 2009, the OECD estimated that the international trade in counterfeit and pirated goods could be valued at up to $250 billion. I think it is worth studying this issue and doing what is necessary to solve the problem.

Bill C-56 is a step in the right direction but the official opposition would be much happier if we had the resources to serve our ambitions. We are not just talking about the loss of money but a risk to Canadians and Quebeckers. We learned from the testimony of several witnesses that counterfeit goods often pose a risk to the health and safety of consumers.

We heard this evening about counterfeit electrical components that can be dangerous and can cause short-circuits, as well as about poor quality counterfeit winter jackets or vests with unsanitary stuffing that do not do the job. Counterfeiting is of even greater concern to us when it has an impact on the health and safety of our constituents.

However, I must admit that I am sad and disappointed. This bill is so important for Canadian companies and consumers that we would like the Conservative government to allocate the resources needed to enforce it. For the time being, we still do not know where the funding for the enforcement regime set out in Bill C-56 will come from. That is not just a minor detail.

This bill imposes significant new duties on Canada Border Services Agency officers at a time when budgets are being cut. That is where the Conservatives' true colours shine through because we know full well that they are imposing an additional burden, additional standards and additional rules on the CBSA. They are proposing measures and then turning around and cutting $143 million from the CBSA'S budget. The Conservatives are giving the CBSA more work to do and telling them that the work needs to be done, but then they are not giving them the resources they need to do that work.

According to the Canada Border Services Agency's report on plans and priorities, 549 full-time jobs will be cut by 2015. Of course, some of those jobs will be border officer positions. The CBSA will therefore have fewer financial resources, more work to do and fewer employees to do it.

What we heard the immigration minister say this evening was wonderful. Every time we try to show the practical implications of the Conservative government's blind cuts to public services, the Conservatives tell us that our figures are inaccurate and that they are going to give us the facts.

What is funny is that last year they announced $4 billion in cuts to services for Canadians. They said they would cut the cost of bureaucracy, red tape and photocopies, but that this would not affect services for Canadians. They said they would cut 19,600 positions, but that this would not make a difference or have any impact.

In its report on plans and priorities, the Canada Border Services Agency itself says that 549 jobs are going to disappear, yet the Conservatives say no, that is not true. That happens every time we provide an example. According to the Minister of Immigration, the real numbers show that the budget is going to increase by 27%. He needs to talk to the President of the Treasury Board.

When the President of the Treasury Board announced his budget reduction plan, he said that there would be cuts of 5% to 10% across the board, that no one would escape. However, every time we mention job cuts and the impact on services, the government says that it is not a question of cuts, that there will actually be an increase in funding. There will be more border services officers and the budget will increase.

If every budget cut has turned into an increase, I want to talk to the Minister of Finance. How will he get rid of the deficit in time for the next election in 2015?

The government cannot talk out of both sides of its mouth. It cannot say that it will increase resources for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, for example, and then put it on the chopping block, as it has done with every other government agency and department.

Last year, I found the first few pages of the budget to be fascinating. They contained an additional $51 million allocation to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. In subsequent pages, where the bad news is usually found, the government's three-year budget reduction plan reduced the agency's budget by $56 million. I went to see a finance department official to ask whether the $51-million allocation or the $56-million reduction was right. He told me that both were right and that they would result in an overall reduction of $5 million.

The Conservatives obviously do not like to adjust the good news figures they want us to believe to reflect the reality of the cuts being made. We are seeing that, in several departments and in organizations such as Service Canada and other agencies, the Conservatives' budget cuts hurt.

This bill has good intentions, but in practical terms, on the ground, it will reduce services for Canadians. As the Conservative member who spoke before me said, if the government does not give teeth and real resources to this bill, border officers will have to be bold and do the work that the government does not dare do, without the resources that the government does not dare give them. This will be an additional burden on border officers.

That is a concern of ours. Once Bill C-56 is passed, customs officers would be asked to make highly complicated assessments on whether goods entering or exiting the country infringe on any copyright or trademark rights. Such an assessment for pirated copies would include, for example, consideration of whether any of the exceptions under the Copyright Act would apply to a product such as the CD or DVD that the officer is looking at. That is something with which the courts often struggle. We would be asking border officers to do sensitive, detailed work without providing them with enough employees, training or resources to do the job. That is worrisome.

Would traffic at our border crossings into the United States be slowed down? Would that mean that people will have to wait even longer because the border officer has to check the contents of a truck filled with boxes and ensure that those are not contraband or counterfeit goods? In addition, although there used to be two of them to do the job, now there is just one officer. That will increase the burden on border officers, make their task harder and increase their workload, and that is what concerns us.

I would like to talk about the lack of respect the Conservative government has for border officers. The Canada Border Services Agency is in the process of negotiations, and yet, for the first time in the history of Canada's public services, the Conservative government will try to impose a collective agreement based on recommendations published by the public interest commission on June 5.

Once again, the government is not showing respect for free collective bargaining. It wants to increase their workload. It is not even honouring their ability to freely negotiate their contract and collective agreement. Furthermore, the government wants to impose a new contract that would contain salary increases that are lower than what other public servants have obtained or are obtaining.

I want to put this in perspective, because it is absolutely one of the consequences of the Conservatives' attitude towards workers. I wanted to take this opportunity to talk about the government's lack of respect for the border officers in how it is handling the renewal of their collective agreement.

I also want to remind members of the Conservatives' attitude towards intellectual property. Earlier this evening, my colleague from Timmins—James Bay said that the assistant to the minister who is now the President of the Treasury Board went to Ottawa to ask that Canada be put on the 301 watch list because of its poor record on protecting intellectual property laws. This list includes countries that are as effective as Yemen and North Korea at protecting intellectual property.

By the Conservatives' twisted logic, being on the black list, being one of the bad guys, being among the world's worst offenders when it comes to protecting intellectual property rights, would actually give us an incentive to enact appropriate legislation. As if we need the whole world to see us as incompetent, unable to protect our own creations, our own inventions, our own innovations. As if we need to be compared to Yemen or North Korea before we can take action.

The funny thing is that, after the President of the Treasury Board's top official intervened, it worked. A few weeks later, Canada was on the list. Everyone here should be ashamed of the fact that our country is on the same list as countries that care so little about such critically important issues as copyright and protecting intellectual property.

I know it is late, but I would like to thank all of my colleagues for their speeches this evening. They were all excellent, and so were the questions. I would also like to thank all of the people who work behind the scenes, people who work for the caucus and the leader's office and who are here to support us and help us do our work even if that means working until 1 a.m.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Yes, I might want to go to the industry committee now.

However, it is really an interesting bill. Before I get into some of the details of the bill, when I was in my consulting realm, I always talked about the change imperative for companies and the reasons for bills and why they were so important.

We have had a bit of discussion about counterfeit products and foods. We have discussed a number of things in the House tonight. We have talked about the level of problems with counterfeit worldwide. Some have estimated it at $250 billion and some at $400 billion to $600 billion. A significant percentage, or at least a good percentage of that, is tied to organized crime, which has to be a concern to the House as well as to the citizens of Canada.

I represent one of the largest potato-growing areas in Canada, with two large McCain french fry plants. There is a significant amount of intellectual property that goes into the development of new potato breeds and those types of things. As well, there is a lot of research into foods. McCain Foods does a tremendous amount on its french fries worldwide. All of this is very important intellectual property for these industries.

Innovation is alive and well in many of our industries. Many of those who represent forestry and agricultural ridings know it is the same for them as well.

The proposed combating counterfeit products act is the latest in our government's ongoing efforts to strengthen and modernize Canada's intellectual property laws. It will help confront the realities and challenges presented by large-scale commercial shipments of counterfeit goods. It will also respond to concerns raised by Canadian consumers and job-creating innovators and will provide a made-in-Canada approach to fighting counterfeiting that is compatible with the approaches of our allies.

Counterfeit goods are more pervasive now than ever before. Seizures of counterfeit goods by the RCMP increased fivefold between 2005 and 2012. Not only is counterfeiting increasingly pervasive, it is increasingly dangerous to Canadian consumers and costly to our economy.

Anything can be the target of counterfeiters, from everyday consumer goods to car parts. We have heard about brake parts and hockey jerseys. Earlier today we heard about Canada Goose, face wash, shampoo, batteries for cars, golf clubs and even wine.

This disturbing trend affecting Canadians' health and safety needs to be addressed right away. Over 30% of counterfeiting now involves harmful products, compared to 11% in 2005. Without these robust measures, these products will make their way into our homes and our children's playgrounds.

As was said earlier tonight, a lot of these products are getting harder and harder to identify. Being an avid golfer, I can speak to the fact that somewhere in the area of two million counterfeit golf clubs enter the market every year, as well as wine. It gets harder and harder to pursue these types of things because it is hard to tell the difference between what is counterfeit and what is real.

The government takes counterfeiting very seriously, and this bill would give Canadian rights holders and law enforcement the tools they need to combat this growing problem that exists at the border and domestically and to target those who profit from the commercial trade of counterfeit goods.

Specifically, the bill would give the authority to the border services officers to detain suspected shipments. Border services officers would have the authority to detain suspected counterfeit goods that were imported into Canada or that were exported from Canada on their own initiative.

When I was talking before about some of the golf clubs and wine and how hard it was to even trace some of these things, I looked at the website of a company that now provided the scanning tools to try to identify some of these types of things. It is interesting that it was talking about the wine industry and how it was taking counterfeit product and putting it into original-type bottles to be sold. There were 17,000 bottles which were deemed to be counterfeit. It was estimated that it would take 7,000 hours and $1 million for this to all be assessed.

I know there are many people in the House of Commons who would love to be in on that project and on the committee responsible for assessing these 17,000 bottles of wine. I can think of all kinds of things at midnight that would be interesting to see.

When we talk about the golf club industry, counterfeiting is so pervasive that the industry is actually investing to help the border services officers in the U.S. get the training to identify counterfeit golf clubs. This is because they have a different regime from the one we have in terms of responsibility.

Once the suspected goods are detained, border services officers will have the authority to communicate with the copyright owner or the registered trademark owner to inform them that a suspected shipment has been encountered. This bill would also allow for the creation of a new process, called the “request for assistance”. It would allow the rights holders to seek assistance from border services officers by supplying information about their copyright and registered trademarks. The request for assistance would also facilitate communications between border services officers and rights holders.

The bill would provide rights holders with new tools to protect against counterfeiting and to take civil action against infringers. The new civil causes of action would target manufacturing, distribution and possession with the intent to sell counterfeit goods. Currently, counterfeit goods must be sold or offered for sale before a rights holder can initiate a civil action. With the combatting counterfeit products act, rights holders would be able to initiate a civil trial earlier in the supply chain, before these goods reached the market where they could deceive and harm Canadians' and steal Canadians jobs.

The bill would add new criminal offences to help combat counterfeiting for the purposes of trade. These target the sale of counterfeit goods, as well as manufacturing, importing, exporting and processing counterfeit goods, if they are intended to be sold or distributed on a commercial scale. The bill would also add new offences for exporting and possessing pirated copyright goods. These offences are meant to complement the existing criminal offences in the Copyright Act, such as the sale, rental and importation for sale or rental of copyright-infringing copies.

I really appreciated the comment that was made by my colleague from Durham with respect to his background and experience in this field. He gave us some real context for the House on this debate tonight.

The bill would recognize newer practices, such as applying counterfeit labels just before sale. Sophisticated counterfeiters want to ship goods separately from labels so as to avoid being caught. To deal with this, new offences would target the sale of counterfeit labels or the manufacture, importation, exportation or possession of counterfeit labels for the purposes of trade.

In addition, the bill would introduce minor amendments to the Trade-marks Act, which has not been modified since the 1950s. For example, the bill would remove unnecessary paperwork requirements for businesses during the trademark application process, would modernize the language found in the act and explicitly would allow the registration of non-traditional trademarks, including sounds, scents and holograms. Overall, the bill would improve the Trade-marks Act by aligning the legislation with modern business practices.

The problem of counterfeiting is not just a Canadian problem. It is a global problem in which Canada is one destination among the many for counterfeit goods. As I indicated earlier, there are estimates that the counterfeit market could be $250 billion, but that does not count some of the DVDs and similar items that are pirated as well. That could take it to well over $500 billion.

This bill would provide a domestic response to a global problem. It is a made-in-Canada solution that would ensure our intellectual property enforcement regime would be compatible with global standards. It is a domestic approach that draws on the best practices of peer countries.

Let us take a moment to look at border regimes in some of the other countries, because that is important.

In the EU model, customs authorities have ex officio authority to temporarily detain suspected infringing goods. They cannot take ownership and seize or destroy the goods.

In the EU, rights holders may apply to customs authorities for enforcement of their IP rights at the border. In these cases, it is the rights holders who assume all the costs of the border enforcement process, possible ensuing civil action and the storage and disposal of suspected IPR infringing goods. In return, they will be informed of any resulting border detention.

However, in the EU, when the action of IP rights infringement results in the violation of public laws—for example, criminal fraud or a threat to public safety—the state can also commence criminal investigations and prosecutions, the cost of which is assumed by the government.

In the U.S. model, it is the federal government that is primarily responsible for enforcing IP rights at the border. In particular, the U.S. customs and border protection is responsible for detecting, seizing and disposing of counterfeit and pirated goods found at the U.S. border. If an importer takes issue with the seizure, it is customs and border protection and not the courts that decide the issue, making administrative determinations on the existence and validity of IP rights. Customs and border protection has the authority to impose administrative fines for violations. It also absorbs all the costs of the IP rights enforcement process, ensuing litigation, storage and disposal of goods.

In terms of the overall approach to IPR enforcement, Bill C-56 proposes a made-in-Canada approach, an approach that is appropriate and well-suited to Canada's needs. The bill reflects the fact that the enforcement of intellectual property rights is primary the rights holders responsibility, while acknowledging some role for federal agencies.

For example, to temporarily detain suspected counterfeit goods and inform rights holders and in the area of criminal enforcement, which will be worked out between them and the RCMP, the determination of whether goods are counterfeit is ultimately left to the courts.

The new request for assistance process will allow border services officers to use information provided by rights holders in their request for assistance document in order to determine whether there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the shipments contain counterfeit goods. If there is a suspicion, the border service officer can detain the shipment and notify the rights holder of a suspected shipment. The rights holder is then given a period of time to decide whether he or she will pursue the matter in civil court.

The RCMP and Health Canada will be given the chance to decide whether the shipment at issue may be a criminal or a health and safety matter respectively.

The detention of suspected goods allows the RCMP or Health Canada to pursue the matter criminally and the rights holder to pursue the matter civilly.

The border services officer does not make a final determination on whether the detained goods are counterfeit. Only a judge in a court has the power to do that. That is a departure from some of the questions that have been asked tonight, because that is the court process. I know I will get some questions on this with respect to the financial aspect of CBSA. That is important for us to know.

Since the tabling of the bill in March, many stakeholders have been in support of the bill. These include the Canadian Intellectual Property Council, the Canadian Anti-Counterfeiting Network, Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, Electro-Federation Canada, the Entertainment Software Association of Canada and Food & Consumer Products of Canada.

While the bill is supported by a majority of stakeholders, some misconceptions have been heard. I will take the opportunity to address these concerns.

Some have suggested that the bill grants border services officers more power without judicial oversight, in a sense expecting these officers to be copyright and trademark experts. This is simply not true. As I mentioned before, they would have the authority to detain goods based on a reasonable suspicion that the goods were counterfeit. The ultimate authority to determine whether goods are counterfeit can only come from a judge in a court.

Some members may have heard the misconception that the bill was the result of international pressures to change our laws. In fact, the bill was developed in response to repeated calls by Canadian stakeholders, including innovative businesses, which we have talked about tonight, that employ Canadians.

As early as 2006, the Canadian Anti-Counterfeiting Network released a position paper on the need for legal reform in Canada to address intellectual property crime. In 2007, it released another report on counterfeiting and piracy in Canada. It was also in 2007 that two parliamentary committees, the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology and the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, both heard several stakeholders on this issue.

Since 2009, the Canadian Intellectual Property Council has also released reports asking for legislative changes in the area. More recently, in 2012, the standing committee that this will be referred to also heard from many witnesses about the issue of counterfeiting. Many others have met with or written to government officials with their concerns. Canadian stakeholders have been clear about the economic and health and safety issues associated with counterfeiting. This bill shows that we have listened.

There should be no concerns that Canadians will have luggage and their personal music devices searched for counterfeit goods and pirated copies. I am glad we have consensus on that. With everybody who spoke to that, it is very clear in the bill that this is not an attack on individuals personally for bringing things across the border.

Personal baggage will not be searched for counterfeit or pirated goods upon entering Canada, nor will personal music devices be searched. In fact, Bill C-56 clearly identifies such goods for personal use to be outside the scope of the legislation. The bill would provide the tools to pursue those who aim to profit from commercial counterfeiting activities: those who manufacture, possess, import, export or attempt to export for the purpose of sale and distribution, as well as those who sell or distribute counterfeit on a commercial scale. We are going after the core of the problem, the criminals, often highly organized and sophisticated, who prey upon unsuspecting Canadian customers.

Intellectual property legislation is always about creating a balance between owners and users. Bill C-56 provides a carefully balanced approach to protecting Canadians against the effects of counterfeiters. A strong intellectual property rights regime is central for any knowledge-based economy such as Canada's in order to foster an environment that promotes innovation, attracts new investment and stimulates economic growth.

As the committee moves forward with the bill, our government remains committed to working with Canadian rights holders as well as our international partners in fighting against counterfeiting. The bill will send a clear message to those who aim to profit from counterfeit goods that what they are doing is against Canadian law.

In conclusion, counterfeiting hurts jobs, threatens growth, and it exposes Canadians to health and safety risks. With this bill, our government continues to stand up for the economy, the rights holders and for all Canadian consumers. I thank all my colleagues in the House and all my colleagues from the opposition parties for their willingness to support this at second reading to send it to committee.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-56. I want to thank my colleagues from Durham, Vancouver South, York Centre, Kitchener—Waterloo and Don Valley West who also commented on the bill.

I will agree with my colleagues from the NDP that this has been a very good debate tonight. It is an interesting debate on an interesting bill. Even though I do not serve on the industry committee, it has been—

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the enthusiasm is overwhelming. I am moved. Especially considering that we are coming to the midnight hour, the enthusiasm New Democrats have for the House of Commons, for democracy and even for debate is stirring and important, because there has been a certain lack of enthusiasm for debate coming from the Conservatives.

The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons will know the actual number. I think we are at 47 or so time allocation motions. On all of these bills, and this is one of those bills, we seek to find some comfort for the Conservatives, who are often looking for comfort, particularly when there is a lot of turmoil in their lives, much of it self-inflicted. They want these kinds of things to move at an orderly pace. We offer them an orderly calendar. A certain number of New Democrats will speak and allow the bill to go ahead, and they still shut down debate, even under those circumstances. One wonders what the motivation is sometimes. I think we are up to 47. Again, if the government House leader rises tonight, he will be able to remind us.

This bill is an important one. The Conservatives say that it is critically important. How critical it is in their minds begs the question, simply because it was first introduced on March 1 of this year, seven or eight years into their mandate and 27 years after the last time the bill was reviewed. My friend from the Conservatives earlier talked with some great expertise about the importance of this thing. If it were important, one would think it would be a priority, and if it were a priority, one would not think that the 11th hour of this particular sitting and session of the House of Commons would be the time they would move the bill. If this were devastating to the Canadian economy, to the intellectual property rights regime in Canada, our ability to trade with other nations and all of these things that have been talked about, it would be a priority, but it is not a priority. It is a panic. When things are panicked, mistakes are made.

It is important for my friends to realize that they cannot quite have it both ways. If they say that this is urgent and desperate and we need to move it through rapidly, then one says that there has been a majority government for two years. Other bills have been moved, some of certainly less consequence or even quality, some would argue. I am thinking of a few bills, such as Bill C-30. My friends will remember Bill C-30, the Internet snooping bill, which the Minister of Public Safety so eloquently justified by saying to the opposition and to all Canadians that one was either with the Conservatives or was with the child pornographers. Do members remember that classic? That was a good one. They got rid of that bill. It was a bigger priority than this piece of legislation.

However, let us talk about the bill, because it is important. We will take a look at Bill C-56 and see what it actually would do.

New Democrats have been aware of the importance of protecting intellectual property rights in Canada. It is important both for our own industry and our ability to innovate and design leading-edge technology, as Canada has so often done in the past, particularly when we used to have things like industrial development strategies, but not so much with these guys. We had export policies that said that adding value to our resources in Canada was a priority for the federal and provincial governments, but not so much with that side.

We agree with the merits of this bill and agree with sending it to committee. We believe that we need to hear from the experts. We have one or two experts in the House of Commons who maybe spent a previous life looking at the intellectual property regime in Canada and around the world. I do not claim that expertise, and I think most members of Parliament would not either. We need to rely on the experts, and not just the industry experts, and this is important for us as New Democrats. While those voices are critical to the design and implementation of legislation, we need to hear from the border guards, who are the folks who are going to be potentially seizing some of these products. We will have a very challenging time distinguishing between the bootlegged products people have talked about and other products that would offer serious harm or threats to Canadians' safety and health.

My friend talked about toothbrushes and toothpaste that caused people harm, but it gets even more serious than that. There is medical equipment that is improperly made. It is counterfeit, and Canadians are exposed to this, because they trust the label on the brand. It is not about buying a sweater for a child and hoping that it is the actual brand. Some of these things are quite important. When buying brake pads for one's car, one wants to ensure that they are actually brake pads that will stop the car.

The problem with counterfeit is that it can so often appear as something that is solid and consistent and legitimate. The reason it is so effective is that it looks good.

We have been having a bit of a debate. I do not want to say that it has been a nerd fight, but we have been arguing about the numbers. The numbers do not really help out the government's case in terms of providing help for the border officials who are meant to guard our borders, not just from counterfeit products, which is important, but even more important, from illegal contraband and weapons. They come into this country, some would argue, through our ports, where 2% to 3% of all containers are inspected. That is not a lot, and with those types of odds, some smugglers will just take the chance of getting caught, because the ability to make money is so great.

We have heard from the CBSA itself in this year's report. This is not a report produced by the official opposition. This report is produced by the border agency. We have heard that the government has cut $145 million from the border agency this year. Excuse me, I want to get the number right. It is $143 million. I exaggerated. It is not $145 million but $143 million. I want to make sure the number is right. I do not want to upset anyone on the other side.

The CBSA's report on plans and priorities indicates a loss, not a gain of 1,000 and a loss. It indicates a net loss of 549 full-time-equivalent positions. If the CBSA is not telling the truth or has its numbers wrong, I would encourage those on the government side to help it out a little. The Conservatives are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts. The facts of the matter are that there are 549 fewer full-time-equivalent positions. If we are going to ask them to do more with fewer staff, is the law worth the paper it is written on?

We need two things, of course. We need the tools. This is an update of the legislation, and New Democrats support the updated legislation. Things have changed since the last time we looked at these intellectual property regimes that are so important for businesses that are looking to innovate and trade. If we do not look at legislation often, we want to get it right. To the Conservatives who say that one hour of debate is good enough, that we can zip it through committee and get it back out the door and then wait 30 years to correct the errors we make, I say that it is not right.

Nearly 100% of the amendments the opposition moved were based on testimony from experts, from border officials, from those in industry and those who deal with intellectual property. We hope that there is some sort of new openness, because the Conservatives have rejected virtually everything we have offered before, because they can, not because they have any counter-argument.

I have been at the committee hearings where we quote witnesses everybody agreed with when they testified. We move the change the witness suggested. There is no debate or counter-argument from the Conservatives. There is a vote, they kill it and they move on. We just do it over and over again.

A number of pieces of legislation have moved through the House completely unamended. Some of these bills are hundreds of pages in length. They are technical bills amending other acts. Sometimes as many as 60 other acts of Parliament are amended by one bill. The government does not change anything based on the testimony it hears. The testimony we hear, in very specific and technical ways, offers another viewpoint.

It raises the question of what is going on. Why would a government claim to have a keen interest in helping manufacturers and innovators in this country protect their intellectual property and a keen interest in helping consumers, yet not allow border officials to have the tools and services they need?

If we hear from border officials that we should change something in the legislation and New Democrats happen to be the party offering the amendment to the bill, for goodness sake, I hope the Conservatives change some of their patterns and hubris and say that it does not matter which political party moves it. What matters is whether it is a good amendment and whether it is a good improvement. Going through hundreds of pages of laws without any changes smacks of a certain unfortunate level of arrogance.

On this legislation, let us make sure that the tools we are offering our border officials also match up with the planning priorities—not the stated planning priorities of the government, not the stated spending priorities, but the real priorities, with real money and training.

We have talked about giving border security officers new powers to play a discerning and defining role in investigating the products to make sure that they are contraband, or not. That requires new training. We all admit it, but we do not see in any spending priorities from the government actual resources for training. CBSA has to take it from something else.

To the government, to all members of the House, let us do what the House of Commons is built to do: study legislation, look at it, take our time and get it right. If we are only going to do this once every generation, and if it is so important for our industry, then let us make sure we get it right.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before beginning my speech, I would like to mention that I will be sharing my time with the House Leader of the Official Opposition, who is also the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. He is one of the members who works the hardest in the House of Commons. What is more, he is the most ardent defender of the rights of Canadians. The NDP is really proud of its parliamentary leader.

I would also like to mention the great work that my wonderful colleague from LaSalle—Émard has done. She gave an excellent speech. She has a good grasp of the dynamics of the situation. I listened very carefully to her speech, which was very enlightening. I am also very pleased to mention my colleague from Sherbrooke's excellent work. He talked about the importance of border protection. Over the past few months, there have been major scandals in the ridings of Sherbrooke and Compton—Stanstead. Incidents have shown that our border is indeed porous. Unfortunately, the Conservative government did not do its job and did not make sure that our border is secure.

Bill C-56, the Combating Counterfeit Products Act, amends the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act. It seeks to strengthen the enforcement of copyright and trade-mark rights and to curtail commercial activity involving infringing copies and counterfeit trade-marked goods.

This bill creates two new criminal offences under the Copyright Act. They deal with the possession and export of infringing copies. The bill also creates offences related to the sale or offering for sale of counterfeit goods on a commercial scale. It creates a prohibition against importing or exporting infringing copies and counterfeit goods. Finally, it grants border officials new ex officio powers to detain infringing copies and counterfeit goods.

These are important changes, since up until now, border officials required copyright holders to first get a court order before they would seize infringing copies or counterfeit goods. These are the main changes proposed in this bill.

However, it is important to understand that this bill assigns new tasks to border authorities, to the border officers. As I have already said, as my colleague from Sherbrooke said so well earlier, and as my colleague from Compton—Stanstead often says during question period, there are already problems at the border. Ensuring safety at the border to allow the border authorities to do their job properly is problematic. The reason is quite simple: $143 million was cut from the Canada Border Services Agency. There were already problems, but instead of strengthening the border, the government made more cuts to the Canada Border Services Agency, which is irresponsible. This will have a direct impact on jobs. It will affect officers who work to protect our borders. Five hundred and forty-nine jobs will be cut, which means 549 fewer people to do the work at the borders across Canada, including in the Sherbrooke area and at the Compton—Stanstead border.

This is not going to improve the situation, despite the fact that this bill makes some corrections, as a number of members have mentioned. I am not one to make partisan speeches. I will even mention the hon. member for Durham, who made a very important speech and talked about a number of things, including the fact that this bill needs to be improved in committee. I think it is a shame that we have to hear such things.

It is 11:35 p.m. and I am a bit tired, so that explains why I sometimes lose my train of thought. I think it is important to the democratic process for us to be here, even at 11:35 p.m., to make speeches, debate bills, propose amendments and provide explanations about the validity of these bills. We will support this bill at second reading so that it can go to committee. That is very important.

This is directed mainly at the Conservatives, because I know that NDP members do an excellent job in committee. I do not know how many times I have made speeches in the House about the excellent job NDP members are doing in committee. They listen carefully to the recommendations made by experts and then bring them forward in the form of amendments.

We will support this bill. As a number of members have mentioned today, we have been waiting for this bill for a long time. We must strengthen the fight against counterfeiting to ensure respect for the efforts of Canadian businesses and the goods they produce and to protect the health and safety of all Canadians.

Several of my colleagues have given good examples of car parts and other items we use every day that could put our health and safety at risk. That is why this kind of bill is so important. It will essentially guarantee that the products Canadians use are safe.

However, the Conservatives, who are currently in power, have to provide the necessary financial and human resources to implement this bill. We will support it and study it in committee.

I must appeal to the Conservatives once again, because unfortunately, as we have seen many times in the past, they have not been listening. I hope they will listen closely to all of the experts who testify before the committee, and I urge them to take the experts' recommendations into account along with amendments that the NDP and others will make based on the experts' recommendations. I hope they will improve this bill. That would be a first step to show that they are acting in good faith.

They could also show they are acting in good faith by investing the necessary money and human resources to ensure all Canadians benefit from a bill that meets their expectations.

The government has been aware of this problem for a long time. Difficulty measuring the scale of counterfeiting and pirated goods in Canada has been a challenge from the start. The OECD's 1998 report entitled “The Economic Impact of Counterfeiting and Piracy” was a first look at the scale of the problem.

I am running out of time, so I will wrap up my remarks. This bill must meet the needs of Canadian consumers and protect health and safety. The Conservatives must reverse their decision to cut the CBSA's budget by $143 million, a decision that will result in the loss of 549 jobs. Otherwise, this bill will not really benefit Canadians.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly Bill C-56 is a better bill than previous bills we have seen the Conservatives table. Since the bill basically creates new and significant ex officio powers for border officials, can the member tell me how much money is being invested in the training of these officials? It is obvious that these are specialized areas, so if he could answer that I would appreciate it.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, despite the gag order imposed on us, I am very pleased with our discussion because it gives us the opportunity to gain a better understanding of the implications of Bill C-56.

I thank my colleague, who serves on the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, as I do. I would like him to tell us again how important it is that the committee conduct a thorough study, since this is the committee that the bill will be referred to. Accordingly, as one of his colleagues indicated, the report must include certain specific issues that were raised during the consultations I held with a number of industry stakeholders.

I would like him to talk about the significant role the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology has to play in the review of this bill. As he mentioned, this bill is important for intellectual property, for the protection of intellectual property rights and for several industries, including those in his riding and in the riding of LaSalle—Émard.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Kitchener—Waterloo and as a member of the industry, science and technology committee, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise this evening to speak to Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act, at second reading.

The flow of counterfeit and pirated goods crossing our border is of mounting concern. Knock-off goods undermine the integrity of legitimate Canadian businesses and raise their costs. They deceive consumers and often put their health at risk. They siphon off tax revenue and fuel the growth of organized crime. For all of these reasons, I support Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act, which is one more step in our government's march toward a modern and strong intellectual property regime.

For my part today, I would like to look at how the proposed act would promote public safety by fighting serious and organized crime.

First, however, let me reflect on the nature of counterfeit and pirated products, why they are so hard to detect and why they have become such a pressing issue.

Modern counterfeiters operate in more subtle ways than they did in the past. They often remain out of sight, and their clandestine goods reach our borders unannounced and too often undetected. What is worse, their wares often make it all too easily onto the open market to be sold to often unsuspecting customers and consumers.

Counterfeit goods can take the form of consumer products such as clothes, appliances and toiletries—household items that we need to be safe—and even health products like medications that Canadians rely on for their families. Frankly, they can be anything that can be produced and distributed for profit.

Modern-day counterfeiters have an utter contempt for copyright and trademark laws, for the health and safety risks posed by unsafe or inferior products, for the lost tax revenue for our infrastructure and essential services, for the lost profits for intellectual property owners and for lost consumer confidence in the marketplace.

It is disturbing to note this criminal activity is also becoming more common. Between 2005 and 2012, the RCMP estimates that it investigated more than 4,500 cases of intellectual property crime in Canada. During that same period, the value of counterfeit products seized by the RCMP skyrocketed from $7.6 million to $38 million.

As high as these numbers are, they are only a drop in the ocean. Remember that $38 million represents the value of the seized products. How many other products manage to cross the border? How many more millions of dollars were lost? How many more consumers were put at risk?

One fact is clear: counterfeiting is on the rise not just in Canada, but around the world.

At least 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 to safety.

Many of our trading partners have already taken steps to strengthen their intellectual property enforcement regimes. We cannot afford for Canada to be at a disadvantage compared to our peers. We need a made-in-Canada solution that takes account of the key international developments in the fight against commercial counterfeiting.

For several years industry associations have been pushing for changes to Canada's intellectual property legislation. I am proud to say that Bill C-56 responds to demands for a modern approach to combat counterfeiting and piracy.

Once passed, the bill will help reduce the availability of counterfeit and pirated goods in Canada. In so doing, it would protect the integrity of our economy, support Canadian growth and jobs, and help protect Canadians from the health and safety risks posed by harmful counterfeit goods.

From a public safety perspective, a successful attack on counterfeit goods also means taking a lucrative source of revenue away from serious and organized crime. To that end, the bill would introduce new enforcement tools to strengthen Canada's existing intellectual property regime, both within Canada and at our borders. It would also bolster existing protections against commercial counterfeiting activities.

In this way we would be better equipped to prevent large shipments of counterfeit goods from entering Canada. By disrupting the distribution of illegitimate goods, we would make it more difficult for organized crime to make a profit.

Let us make no mistake: the collection and distribution of significant quantities of counterfeit products is not the random work of a few isolated individuals. The scope of the problem and the profit involved would suggest that organized crime is involved.

What is the attraction? Organized crime can take the profits from counterfeit goods to support any number of nefarious activities, from trafficking drugs to smuggling firearms. In other words, the profits from all these fake products are buying real drugs and real guns and threatening the safety of our streets and communities.

Our government stands firm in the fight against organized crime. The bill would give the RCMP new tools to combat the threat posed by counterfeit and pirated goods when serious and organized crime is believed to be involved.

At the same time, it would not be used at the border to search individual travellers who happen to possess counterfeit or pirated goods for their personal use. I will have more to say about the role of consumers in a few minutes, but first let me provide a more detailed overview of the proposed legislation.

It often takes years of hard work and significant investment to develop intellectual property, not to mention the huge effort to turn that property into a brand that consumers identify and trust. Counterfeit goods, then, do not simply result in lost sales for trademark and copyright owners: they also undermine hard-earned reputations and can put the very existence of businesses at risk.

The proposed legislation would help Canadian businesses protect their brands and works. Currently, if counterfeit trademark or copyright goods are sold in the marketplace, for example, the rightful owners could take legal action through civil courts. Specifically, they could ask for civil remedies for the manufacture, distribution and possession with intent to sell counterfeit goods, but how do the rightful owners stop these goods from entering the market in the first place?

Under current legislation, rights holders must first get a court order to have authorities detain suspicious goods at the border. The amount of specific information needed to obtain a court order can lead to delays that work to the advantage of criminals.

Bill C-56 would streamline this system, allowing trademark and copyright owners to submit a so-called request for assistance to the CBSA and provide information to help identify suspicious goods, thus assisting rights holders to seek civil remedies.

These officers in turn would share information about the detained goods with rights holders. Armed with this evidence, rights holders could then pursue the matter in the courts, as I mentioned a few minutes ago. This collaborative approach would help take the wind out of the sails of organized crime.

Of course, the bill supports the Canadian judiciary system for determining who has copyright and trademark rights, thereby protecting against abuse or misuse of these new border measures.

Rights holders would pay the costs associated with the detention of goods, and the proposed legislation would also contain safeguards for information sharing. Importers would also be notified if their shipments were detained and would have the right to inspect them.

Finally, if the system was being abused, the Canada Border Services Agency could remove a rights holder from that request for assistance process, so there are safeguards.

While the new act would introduce civil remedies, it would also strengthen our criminal law.

Currently the Criminal Code has limited offences relating to trademark fraud. The laws primarily target conduct related to forgery of a trademark; possessing instruments for forging a trademark; defacing, concealing or removing a trademark; and passing off wares or services as genuine, with intent to deceive.

These offences, however, do not go far enough. That is why the bill would make it an offence to sell, distribute, possess, import and export counterfeit goods for the purpose of trade. Offenders would be subject to fines and face possible jail time.

In addition, new criminal offences for possessing and exporting pirated goods for the purposes of trade would be added to the Copyright Act. That would allow the RCMP to seize counterfeit and pirated goods. These provisions were not proposed lightly, but considering that profits from such goods can end up in the hands of organized crime, we need to pursue and prosecute offenders more diligently. That is why the proposed legislation would provide new powers to investigate commercial counterfeiting.

Mr. Speaker, you will note now that I said “commercial counterfeiting”. The proposed legislation will not result in searches of travellers at the border who may possess counterfeit and pirated goods for their personal use—we know that consumers do not always know the origin of a product they acquire in good faith for personal use—nor will the government be pounding on the door of law-abiding citizens who may own knock-off DVDs.

The proposed new authorities to seize goods and prosecute are intended to be used against those who knowingly bring in counterfeit goods with the intent to sell, rent or distribute them in the marketplace. That said, I believe consumers play a role in the fight against counterfeit goods. Canadians are increasingly aware that commercial counterfeiting is not a victimless crime and that knock-off goods do hurt. They hurt intellectual property owners who lose hard-earned income. They hurt law-abiding Canadian taxpayers, as commercial counterfeiters do not pay their share. They hurt the entrepreneurial drive that stimulates innovation and fosters new economic growth. Most insidiously, they hurt innocent people through defective products that maim, injure and sometimes even kill.

In the end, Canadians pay a truly high price for the fake products commercial counterfeiters sell. By being smart consumers, all Canadians can help us combat the scourge of counterfeiting and piracy. In so doing, we can all do our part in the fight against serious and organized crime.

I would like to close by putting Bill C-56 into a larger legislative and policy context. This new act is part of this government's ongoing commitment, a commitment I have been very proud to be involved in, to strengthen protection for intellectual property and to ensure our communities are safe.

The bill would complement the Copyright Modernization Act that recently came into force. Together these two pieces of legislation would create a comprehensive approach to the protection of intellectual property rights. I want to reassure the House that Canada is committed to the efficient flow of legitimate goods across our border. We will work with all of our trading partners to ensure that our actions to enforce intellectual property rights do not themselves become barriers to legitimate trade. Our country so depends on the flow of trade.

Canada has always been a trading nation, and no more so than now, but for all the benefits brought by the global economy, there are associated risks. Faced with an escalating threat of counterfeit and pirated goods and in response to the calls for action from industry, the government has tabled this bill before the House. I believe Bill C-56 is fair and balanced legislation that helps us tackle the scourge of counterfeit and pirated products while protecting the rights and the interests of individual consumers, travellers and legitimate business.

By passing this bill, we not only protect industry, consumers and government revenue, but we can also make progress against serious and organized crime. For all these reasons, I urge all members of the House to join me in swift passage of the bill.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise and thank the member for Durham for his very informative and interesting speech. Speeches like his make me sad that the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons imposed time allocation on this very interesting debate.

In his remarks on this bill, he mentioned that it is very important, and I agree with him on that. He also described the work he used to do. I would like to know how Procter & Gamble, the company he used to work for, estimated that it has lost $1 billion because of counterfeiting. How was that figure calculated? Is that the figure for Procter & Gamble internationally or just in Canada? That is a pretty significant detail.

He mentioned repeatedly that Bill C-56 is an “attempt” to solve this problem, as though there were some uncertainty. Does that mean there is room for improvement?

I would like him to comment further on that.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his very kind comments in welcoming me. While I physically sit on his side of the House, I am not from his side of the House, but I also appreciate my colleagues in all the seats in this place.

The root of the member's question highlights the reason there was such inaction by the previous Liberal government on these important issues and in trademarks specifically. The transition in some parts of the bill, including modernizing trademarks law and empowering intellectual property register at the border, will be substantial changes.

The hon. member is correct in that regard, but the challenge in modernizing does not excuse us from acting. The previous Liberal government spent 12 years, with Canada being named each year as a special trade country to watch, alongside other countries like China and Saudi Arabia, just because it was difficult.

Our government has looked at this seriously in the last few years, and Bill C-56 is an important step to update our laws.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise tonight to speak in support of Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act.

In fact, I am happy to advise this House that my remarks tonight mark a unique occasion when as a member of Parliament I can stand in this House and speak on a government bill on important public policy that I spent a considerable amount of time advocating for in life before politics. I spent several years of my professional life as a lawyer, combatting the rise of counterfeit goods and its impact upon public safety and our economy.

I am also extremely proud to now be part of a government moving to address the negative consequences of the scourge of counterfeit goods. I will use part of my time to talk about this experience. I think it is important for this House to hear real-world accounts from the private sector on why this legislation is needed.

I hope to show my colleagues that the inaction or delay suggested by my friends in the NDP is simply not acceptable. The member for Timmins—James Bay mentioned, several times, the challenges of litigation tonight in debate. That is something I will touch upon because I have led such litigation efforts in this area.

Counterfeit goods are putting public safety at risk. Counterfeit goods are impacting economic activity and revenues. Counterfeit goods can lead to job losses for Canadians. Counterfeit goods and the proliferation of trademark infringement, passing off, and piracy have also become some of the fastest-growing sources of revenue for organized crime.

For many years I was the in-house corporate lawyer for Procter & Gamble in Canada. Not only is P & G a respected global company with branded products that Canadians use in their homes every day, it is also the largest private sector employer in eastern Ontario. With manufacturing facilities in Belleville and Brockville, Ontario, and head office operations in Toronto, P & G employs thousands in Ontario and makes products that are shipped across North America and around the world. It might surprise this House to learn that every Swiffer pad in the world was made in Brockville, Ontario, just an hour from here.

These are important manufacturing jobs in Ontario. They are also critically important to the global economy and trade. Jobs like these in Canada and around the world are put at risk with counterfeit goods.

It was estimated, at the time I worked there, that the scourge of counterfeit goods cost P & G close to $1 billion annually in lost revenue. In these challenging economic times, that is $1 billion that is not invested in innovation, investment, or job creation. This is just the impact on one employer, so we can multiply that literally by hundreds of companies and employers that sell or distribute branded products across Canada.

In 2006, I was confronted with the ugly face of counterfeit goods in my job. Everything I will talk about now highlights the excellent work that P & G and other companies in the industry did to raise these issues. I should also add that I am not violating any solicitor-client privilege; I am talking about publicly known information.

While the company had long worked with law enforcement to investigate counterfeit batteries and some isolated personal care products being counterfeited and sold in Canada, a public health advisory from Health Canada on counterfeit toothbrushes led me to devote considerable time and energy to this file. This advisory came about when a Canadian purchased a counterfeit toothbrush at a value vendor and choked on the bristles that became dislodged when they began brushing.

For such a seemingly innocuous product, there was a serious risk of health. Counterfeit goods contain unknown ingredients or materials. They are made improperly. They have no quality assurance. They are often manufactured in unhygienic surroundings. Only a few months earlier, counterfeit Colgate toothpaste, in the U.S., was found to contain antifreeze.

These events led me to create a brand protection team for Canada. I was fortunate to have Rick Kotwa, a 30-year OPP veteran and head of security for the country, to lead our investigative efforts. I was also lucky to have Jennifer Cazabon, an extremely sharp regulatory scientist, who helped keep public safety and regulatory issues at the forefront of what we developed as a brand protection program. The president of the company at the time, Tim Penner, saw how important this issue was for the company. He empowered our team to investigate and isolate counterfeit distributors across Canada.

Over the next few years we worked diligently on these issues, and we were truly astounded by the size of the counterfeiting problem in Canada and indeed throughout the world. With the backing of a terrific corporate leader like Tim Penner, P & G spent considerable resources pursuing investigation and litigation against distributors and retailers in Canada, despite the fact that we knew we would rarely be able to collect damages or our costs. The company took a leadership position, like many did, in this fight against counterfeit products.

What became clear to me very quickly was that the laws and regulatory structures in Canada needed to radically evolve to address this new and growing risk to public safety and the criminal activities related to it. I began to work directly with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Retail Council of Canada, the Food and Consumer Products Council, and the special purpose organization created for this very issue, the Canadian Anti-Counterfeiting Network.

I would like to thank these organizations, and their member companies, for championing these issues for many years. At these meetings, I got to know many of them, particularly Lorne Lipkus, someone who for more than a decade has been a lean, mean counterfeit-busting machine. He has raised public awareness on this issue more than anyone else in Canada. I thank these people. Our government is listening, with Bill C-56.

The Canadian Anti-Counterfeiting Network released its road map for change on counterfeiting and piracy in 2007. CACN, industry and employers across Canada have engaged with government in the years since 2007. There have been several years of careful consideration and consultation on these issues, at a variety of levels. Our government has listened, and Bill C-56 attempts to address the public safety risks and economic damage caused by counterfeiting. While the New Democrats continually rise tonight to say that more time is needed to explore or debate these issues, I say that the time to act is now.

Our government has been listening, particularly to Canadian employers and their industry groups, and documents like the road map. I want to highlight a few specific sections from the road map that are addressed by Bill C-56, and I would remind this House that it was released in 2007.

The combating counterfeit products act would provide better tools to investigate commercial counterfeiting and help to reduce trade in counterfeit goods by providing new enforcement tools to strengthen Canada's existing enforcement regime. These are specifically cited as recommendations 1.1 and 1.2 in the road map. The act would provide new criminal offences for the commercial possession, manufacture or trafficking of trademarked counterfeit goods, as per recommendation 1.4.

The act would create new offences for trademark counterfeiting, equipping law enforcement agencies and prosecutors with the tools they have been asking for to combat this problem. That is recommendation 4.1 from the road map.

Finally, the last item I will highlight is that this act would give border officers the authority to detain suspected shipments and contact the intellectual property rights holders. They would be able to do this because intellectual property rights holders would be able to file a request for assistance with Canada Border Services Agency. This in turn would enable border officers to share information with intellectual property rights holders regarding suspect shipments so they can be tracked. This addresses recommendations 6.2 and 6.4.

This bill is indeed the culmination of several years of consultations and direct advocacy from Canadian employers, and industry groups like the Canadian Anti-Counterfeiting Network and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, among others. I have highlighted specific portions of this proposed legislation that have come directly from these consultations.

Canadians must know that purchasing counterfeit goods is not a victimless crime. That purse and those watches fuel criminal activity. Counterfeit goods actually feed criminal networks around the world and are fast becoming the lifeblood for these organizations, which in turn bring tremendous harm and oppression to people in Canada and around the world.

In the last few years, Interpol has directly connected profits from counterfeit good sales to the funding of terrorism. In 2005, the RCMP declared organized crime to be the primary actor in the field of counterfeit goods sale and distribution in Canada.

In 2005, the U.S., Canada and Mexico, at the security and prosperity partnership meetings, addressed this issue as a major economic and public safety issue that fuelled organized crime across North America.

Finally, it is important to also note that in 2006, the U.S. trade representative placed Canada on the special 301 watch list for the 12th consecutive year. That is a trade watch list, because the intellectual property rights regime and regulatory structures in Canada were deemed inadequate. I might note that in 2006, that was the 12th year, almost perfectly coinciding with the previous Liberal government's time in office.

Our laws and regulations had not been addressed in a generation and criminal organizations were taking advantage of our weakness. Our trade partners were demanding that we get serious. Bill C-56 is part of our effort to get serious on combatting counterfeit goods.

Since our government came to office in 2006, we listened to employers, including the CACN and other groups, consulted through road map documents and various public groups and forums and what has been produced is Bill C-56. It is a balanced attempt to update our intellectual property rights regime in Canada.

Going back to what got me into this area, the Canadian who was fooled into buying the counterfeit brush. which steered my career down this path, was fooled because the criminals were literally stealing the good will associated with Procter & Gamble's toothbrush brand. The intellectual property behind the brand, from the trademarks to the industrial designs, were being used by criminal organizations to trick people into buying shoddy products that had not been manufactured in the way the brand would expect. These criminal groups could then funnel these profits into other criminal enterprises and even terrorist activities around the world.

In the last few years when I became aware of this issue, a few areas scared me, literally, out of sleep. Many believe the dog food crisis years ago in Canada was fuelled by counterfeit ingredients from a Chinese producer.

Counterfeit electrical goods have been seized and found by the Canadian Standards Association, not just before being put in homes and hospitals, but after they have been installed, where counterfeiters have stolen the intellectual rights and trademarks that the CSA uses in its seal and that electricians across the country have learned to trust when they install things in people's homes. Electrical goods are counterfeited.

Aircraft and military parts in the U.S. have been found to be counterfeit, not only putting the lives of the operators, the men and women in uniform, at risk, but putting people in and around their use at risk as well.

This problem is vastly greater than a handbag or a watch. It is public safety, first and foremost, and it is combatting organized crime on a secondary level.

The proposed bill will give border officers additional tools to work with government partners—Health Canada and the RCMP—as well as intellectual property rights holders to better ensure that commercial shipments are free from harmful counterfeit goods or from counterfeit labels.

Shipments of any provenance that do not meet the standards or that affect intellectual property rights will be detained and investigated and will not be permitted to get out to the Canadian consumer.

We also need to protect intellectual property in Canada to allow our businesses to invest, innovate and create jobs. The last time the Trade-marks Act was substantially updated was in 1954. There is now a wide range of possibilities for businesses to differentiate themselves. This bill recognizes the new and innovative ways that businesses use intellectual property to distinguish their goods and services from those of competitors.

These rights holders are employers and employ thousands of Canadians across the country. Protecting their intellectual property rights protects jobs. Sounds, scents, holograms, position marks, colours, numerals, figurative elements, 3D shapes, textures and now even taste are commonplace in the world of intellectual property. This bill would specifically allow for the registration of these non-traditional trademarks, giving them the same level of protection as a traditional mark.

Finally, the bill would improve the reliability of information found in the trademark register. It would simplify the overall trademark registration process by streamlining some of the requirements and removing all impediments to the use of electronic documents. It is important for Canada to have a trademark register that is accurate and up to date. This bill would allow the Canadian Intellectual Property Office, or CIPO, to easily and quickly correct blatant and obvious errors after registration, instead of the intellectual property rights holder having to go through the time and expense of seeking an order from the Federal Court.

While the central focus of this bill is the criminal, civil and border enforcement measures, there must be a high level of legal certainty that a legitimate owner's registered trademark is valid in order to get the most out of that regime. By streamlining certain registration procedures, this bill would ensure a high level of effectiveness, efficiency and validity for Canadian trademark owners, while saving them time and money in the process.

For example, if a Canadian business owner wishes to register his or her trademark, which was previously registered in another country, he or she will no longer need to provide certified copies of the foreign registration as proof. This would save both time and money, as applicants would no longer have to contact the foreign intellectual property office and pay a fee to obtain a certified copy.

In opposition proceedings, an applicant must reply to a statement of opposition with a counter-statement that responds to each allegation. With this bill, the counter-statement would need only state that the applicant intended to respond to the opposition, thereby lessening the burden on applicants when the opposition would be first filed.

Rules on the registrability of a trademark would be made clear. A key element in trademark law is that a trademark must be distinctive. That is, it must be capable of distinguishing the goods and services of the business from those of other businesses. The bill would ensure that any trademark that would be registered would meet the distinctiveness requirement.

Currently an application for a certification mark, which guarantees that a good or service meets certain standards, must be based on actual use. The bill would allow applications for certification marks based on the proposed use, thereby harmonizing with the approach taken by other types of trademarks.

In 1954, the last time this act was touched, it was difficult to imagine that electronic communication and the dissemination of documents would be so prevalent, so the Trade-marks Act and its provisions were very much paper-based. The bill would remove paper requirements and would allow for the filing and handling of all documents electronically.

I cannot assure the House enough that Bill C-56 is not only critical to the public safety of Canadians. Whether they brush their teeth in the morning, feed their pets or turn on their lights, they need to know the marks and seals that they have come to trust are legitimate and that people abusing this trust will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

We must also recognize that by shutting this door to counterfeiters, we are also shutting the door to criminal organizations. They have quickly moved in and found the margins, and the ability to operate by stealing the intellectual property of Canadian employers allows them a means to fuel their criminal organizations and activities, including terrorism, which our government spends millions of dollars combatting.

This bill is a good attempt at getting our regime updated. We have listened to industry.

I would be pleased to answer questions or comments from my colleagues on this important legislation.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-56, on behalf of my riding of Sherbrooke.

I have a vested interest in this issue because the Sherbrooke area in the Eastern Townships is very close to the border. This is therefore very important to me and concerns me deeply. I am sure that my colleague from Compton—Stanstead, who is now listening and probably thinking along the same lines, shares my interest and concerns. Indeed, the Minister of Immigration recently visited Stanstead, as a result of reports of the porous border. This happened against a backdrop of recent revelations and surprises about illegal immigrants.

However, it is also true, with regard to counterfeit goods, that the easier it is for dishonest people or criminals to cross our borders, the more our country suffers.

As the member for Sherbrooke, I am understandably very interested in our borders, given their proximity. Indeed, my riding is less than 30 minutes away from the U.S.

By the way, I would like to thank the member for LaSalle—Émard, who has worked on this file and continues to do so every day. She is passionate about this issue and about her work. I am convinced she will represent our views when the time comes, when the bill is being studied in more detail in committee.

We hope that that will happen soon because the government is addressing this at the last minute, as was mentioned earlier. It seems to be at the bottom of their list of priorities at the tail end of this parliamentary session. It is hard to believe the government when it says that this is a priority. We have been waiting for this bill for a long time. It was introduced on March 1, 2013. Today, the government is saying that it is a priority, just as the session is coming to a close. So much for good intentions and good faith.

We will be supporting the bill at second reading. It is common knowledge that this bill has been anticipated and talked about for years now. I think the discussions go back to 2007. There have also been talks with the United States, which is an important player in the fight against counterfeit goods. The United States is essential to our country because it is our major trading partner.

It is important for Canadian businesses and consumers that we fight counterfeiting, particularly when counterfeit goods can put Canadians' health and safety at risk. It is a rather important point that I also mentioned earlier when I asked the member for Halifax West a question.

The member mentioned that auto parts could sometimes be counterfeit. That clearly endangers the lives of some Canadians who go to the local garage to have their car fixed. They might wind up with counterfeit parts that are not up to Canadian standards. The brakes or airbags might not be up to Canadian standards.

This is a very important issue in the sense that it could endanger the safety and lives of Canadians when they think they are using a product that complies with current standards. However, they might eventually realize they are using a counterfeit product, meaning that some malicious person tried to copy an existing product. Those are not necessarily the safest of products.

There is also the matter of resources. I talked about that this evening during this debate on Bill C-56. I also mentioned it in my questions to my colleagues. I talked about the lack of resources at the Canada Border Services Agency.

The minister and most of the members who have spoken try to play with the numbers and say that since 2005, the total budget has increased, that it will decrease relative to 2012, but that in fact, since 2005, it has increased. They are playing with the numbers. However, the truth is that less money will be available for the agency in 2013. That is a number that is easy to come up with.

The Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism keeps saying that the budget has increased relative to 2005, but the reality is that the agency will have less money than it did last year. That is a budget cut. There are no two ways about it.

The government often likes to compare its spending to that of the Liberal government in 2005. It says this is an increase. However, the increase in funding allocated to the departments in question is below the level of inflation since 2005. Any administrator knows that if costs increase and the budget does not keep pace with the increase in costs, then this can be considered a budget cut. It is a simple calculation that seems to escape the government when it talks about increases from the time the Liberals were in power to now.

That is another debate we could have in the wake of the Conservatives' budget cuts. This bill puts additional responsibilities on border services officers. They are being asked to take on more responsibility and be on the lookout for counterfeiting, but they are not being given the resources they need. That point has been raised by a number of people since Bill C-56 was introduced.

The bill creates two new criminal offences under the Copyright Act. These offences have to do with the possession or export of infringing copies. The bill also creates offences for selling or offering for sale any counterfeit goods on a commercial scale. The bill also prohibits the importation or exportation of infringing copies or counterfeit goods and balances out this ban with two exceptions.

These two exceptions are important. The first has to do with personal use, so copies that are in an individual's possession or baggage. The second has to do with copies that are in transit control. If I have the time, I will discuss the notion of transit control later on.

The bill is truly focused on fighting crime. It is often criminal groups that choose to use counterfeit goods in order to make money. Organized crime groups are often the ones that are trading in counterfeit goods. This bill will does not directly target average people who may inadvertently be in possession of or have purchased counterfeit goods.

The bill also gives border officials new powers that authorize them to detain infringing copies or counterfeit goods. That is an important policy change, since up until now, border officials required copyright holders to first get a court order before they would seize infringing copies or counterfeit goods. This request to grant these powers to officers has been discussed since 2007, I believe.

In conclusion, I want to say that it is unfortunate that this bill assigns new responsibilities but does not provide any resources to carry them out. We are asking the officers to do more with less. The NDP thinks that is unacceptable. If you ask someone to take on added responsibilities, you have to give them the resources to do so.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Sherbrooke this evening.

We have heard about a number of issues that have surfaced. Once again, I will just say that Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act, amends both the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act. Its purpose is to strengthen the enforcement of copyright and trademark rights and to curtail commercial activity involving infringing copyright or counterfeit trademarked goods. It sounds pretty comprehensive.

A couple of things have surfaced through our party, and I would like to reinforce them. We believe that dealing with counterfeiting and infringement is important for both Canadian businesses and consumers, especially where counterfeit goods may put the health or safety of Canadians at risk. That is a good thing. We need stronger enforcement to make sure that this does not happen.

However, it is difficult to see how a bill like this would be implemented, since the Conservatives slashed $143 million in funding from CBSA last year, which further reduced front-line officers and harmed our ability to monitor our borders. I do not quite understand. We are increasing the task, and it is a good one, for border services officers, but at the same time, there are fewer people to do the job.

I have visited border services officers at our border crossings, and I know that these people work flat out. They have a tough job as it is. If we decrease their staffing, it is inconceivable how this particular legislation could be enforced. That is a question that needs to be discussed early at the committee stage or in further discussions.

Therefore, it is difficult to quantify the problem of counterfeiting and pirating in Canada and its economic impact. On this side of the House, we support the fight against counterfeit goods, especially when they pose a risk to health and safety, as I just mentioned. We need to determine if the Canada Border Services Agency will be able to implement these enforcement measures in light of the 2012 budget cuts.

The United States and industrial groups have been calling for measures to stop counterfeit goods at the border for a long time. It remains important to continue being vigilant in order to ensure that intellectual property laws strike a balance between the interests of rights holders and those of consumers or users. We are trying to strike a fair balance between the two.

The government has long been aware of how difficult it is to measure the magnitude of counterfeit and copied goods in Canada. This challenge was identified in the 1998 OECD report entitled The Economic Impact of Counterfeiting and Piracy and is due to the clandestine nature of counterfeiting. Much of the data consists of estimates based on real seizures, isolated testimony and data from the industries themselves.

In its 2007 report on counterfeiting, the industry committee recommended that the government establish a reporting system for investigations, charges, and seizures of counterfeit goods and pirated copies as a way to collect data. According to the more recent 2013 report, it is difficult to obtain a accurate estimate of the value of counterfeit and pirated goods on the market in Canada.

The NDP believes that it is important to fight counterfeiting for the sake of Canadian businesses and consumers. It is especially important when counterfeit goods put the health and safety of Canadians at risk. All the same, we do not know how the enforcement regime proposed in Bill C-56 will be paid for. This bill gives border services officers new responsibilities at a time of budget cuts.

In their 2012 budget, the Conservatives slashed the CBSA's funding by $143 million, effectively reducing the number of front-line officers and our ability to monitor our borders. According to the CBSA's report on plans and priorities for this year, 549 full-time jobs will be lost by 2015. That is significant. If the agency is losing 549 jobs at the same time it is being given new responsibilities, how is it supposed to implement this bill?

This bill will require customs officers to carry out very complicated assessments to determine whether goods entering or leaving the country infringe copyright or trademark. That is not easy. It is not like looking for something and finding it. It is more complicated than that and takes more time. When assessing whether copies are pirated, officers have to determine whether any of the exceptions in the Copyright Act apply. Even the courts have trouble figuring that out sometimes. The NDP wants to make sure that the CBSA has adequate financial resources to implement this bill.

This is a point we have been trying to make. If one has new responsibilities that are even more complicated, with new technology, then instead of cutting back resources, there should be additional resources of trained personnel added to the border services to deal specifically with this rising problem.

The industry committee recently conducted a study on intellectual property that, in part, examined these issues. Witnesses testified in favour of increasing border measures to tackle counterfeit and infringing goods. In its 2013 report, “Intellectual Property Regime in Canada”, the committee recommended border measures, including providing appropriate ex officio powers to customs officials, introducing civil and criminal remedies for trademark counterfeiting and allowing customs officials to share information with rights holders regarding suspect goods.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed that is the whole purpose of Bill C-56. It would give the government, the CBSA and the RCMP the tools that they need to seize and detain counterfeit goods as well as to protect Canadian businesses, innovation and jobs.

I would like to ask the hon. member what the opposition would do to support Canadian lives, health, economy and jobs. Will she support this bill?

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the second reading of Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act, and to bring to the attention of the House: first, the risks presented to Canadian consumers by commercial counterfeiting; and second, to the problems this creates for businesses that employ Canadians.

Not that long ago, consumers did not need to worry about the risks and dangers of counterfeit products. The term “counterfeiting” itself was generally associated with making false currency and few people had even heard of intellectual property crime. Then, over time, things began to change. Counterfeit T-shirts or brand name replicas showed up in flea markers. Travellers from abroad returned home with supposedly brand name watches bought at cheap prices from street vendors. Yet, within a few days, the watches stopped working or the bands left coloured stains on their wrists. Supposedly, brand name luggage or footwear was bought at such bargain prices that it seemed too good to be true, and it was. Generally, these products fell apart in very short order.

Today, Canadian consumers are wiser and more wary. Sadly, we are increasingly exposed to counterfeit goods in our domestic market and Canadians and Canadian businesses have been victimized and hurt. Today, the problems imposed by counterfeit products extend far beyond the breakdown of a cheap wristwatch or a pair of shoes. Today, counterfeiting can pose a range of very serious health and safety risks to consumers.

Today, fraudulent reproductions of many trusted trademark or copyrighted products infiltrate the legitimate market. Every day counterfeit products enter Canada, from electronics and electrical components to automotive parts and machinery, from batteries and toys to perfumes and pharmaceuticals. The level of sophistication of counterfeit products has increased, along with the range and diversity of products which are counterfeited. On the one hand, some counterfeit operations may not be sophisticated at all. The RCMP reports instances where counterfeiters simply went through dumpsters at construction sites to recover used and discarded circuit breakers. They repackaged them and sold them as new.

However, other operations are very sophisticated, indeed, where dangerous items are made in large quantities for sale to Canadians who may not know the origin of the materials in the products that they buy. For example, investigators intercepted a package at a Vancouver postal authority. It led them to a warehouse that contained 15,000 counterfeit pills packaged in blister packs. The estimated total value of these seized counterfeit drugs exceeded $1 million. At the same warehouse, the investigators also seized clothing and accessories that had been labelled with counterfeit brands, which threaten the production and work of our own Canadian innovators and workers. The resale value of these counterfeit goods was estimated to be in excess of $5 million.

There is no doubt that counterfeit products have become more sophisticated. In addition, the production and supply chain has also become more sophisticated, as well as the method of importation. Some counterfeiters ship the counterfeit labels separately from the products to avoid detection. Once in Canada, the labels are then affixed to the finished products.

Shockingly, counterfeit labels are not only limited to brand names but to the safety certification labels. These are labels that consumers trust to show that a product meets certain industrial standards, knock-off labels that purport product testing and certification by the underwriters, laboratories or the Canadian Standards Association. These labels are meant to deceive the consumer into believing the product meets Canadian safety standards. In fact, electrical equipment that carries a false CSA label may pose hazards to the unsuspecting consumer through malfunction, fire or electrocution.

The falsification of safety certification labels clearly demonstrates some of the risks that consumers face when they buy a counterfeit product, but there are many more examples.

In the past three years, the number of RCMP investigations involving counterfeit pharmaceuticals has more than doubled. Counterfeit pharmaceuticals have already caused a death in Canada. In 2006, a woman from British Columbia bought medication from an unlicensed pharmaceutical website that purported to be Canadian. The medication was, in fact, manufactured overseas. It had been contaminated with toxic metals during its production and the woman subsequently died.

Last year, the RCMP investigated another case of counterfeit caplets that purported to be bee pollen. They actually contained carcinogenic substances that were banned for sale in Canada.

There are many examples of how counterfeit or pirated products have victimized the people who have purchased them, whether through the health and safety risks that I have outlined, or the inconvenience and monetary loss of buying products that do not live up to the standards of the brand. Counterfeit products make it more difficult for consumers to trust the marketplace.

The bill before us represents a major step forward in protecting consumers from counterfeit products and counterfeit services. It gives the enforcement authorities and rights holders the tools they need to crack down on counterfeiters.

Rights holders can submit a “request for assistance” to the Canada Border Services Agency, CBSA, to provide information to border service officers about their brand and products. With this information, border service officers will be able to contact the rights holders when commercial shipments that are suspected of containing counterfeit products are detained at the border. The rights holders can then launch civil proceedings. In fact, rights holders can seek civil remedies for the manufacturing, distribution and possession with intent to sell counterfeit goods instead of waiting until those goods are put up for sale in the marketplace as is currently the case today.

As well as these civil remedies, there are also new criminal offences in the Trade-marks Act for which law enforcement agencies can lay charges. Selling, distributing, possessing, importing or exporting counterfeit goods for the purposes of trade will be prohibited.

Let me emphasize the phrase “for purposes of trade”. This is important because the bill would not target individual consumers who knowingly or inadvertently bring back a counterfeit product to Canada for personal use. Border services officers would not seize private iPhones suspected of containing pirated copies. Nor would they seize a suspected counterfeit wristwatch or a handbag. In fact, the bill contains a specific exception at the border for goods intended for personal use as part of the traveller's personal baggage. Therefore, Bill C-56 would target counterfeiters who make a business of importing and exporting knock-off products.

Many may ask this. Where is the harm in cheap products? However, Canadians recognize the dangers of purchasing counterfeit items.

Last year, Microsoft Canada commissioned a survey. The survey revealed that 84% of Canadians said that they did not knowingly purchase a counterfeit product, less than half of the consumers surveyed felt they knew how to identify counterfeit and genuine products and 71% of Canadians agreed that counterfeit goods were harmful to the economy.

It is clear from these survey results that the Canadian public agrees with this bill and has a strong interest in and a growing understanding of the problems posed by counterfeiting. Again, 71% of Canadians agree that counterfeit goods are harmful to our economy.

I would now like to draw the attention of members to the problems that large-scale commercial shipments of counterfeit goods create for the businesses that employ Canadians. Indeed, we see significant support for the measures in Bill C-56 from innovative Canadian entrepreneurs and creators who are the most impacted.

In a globalized economy, strong, modern marketplace framework rules protect innovation. In a knowledge-based society, this is particularly true of the laws governing intellectual property, or IP.

Intellectual property covers a broad range of innovation, and I will focus my remarks today on trademarks and copyright, the protection of which are at the heart of Bill C-56.

Over the years, this government has taken important steps to update IP laws to keep them in line with the demands of the 21st century. Hon. members will recall that last year we passed the Copyright Modernization Act. Since then, many of its provisions have come into force as of last November. As a result, I am proud to say that Canada has now implemented a responsive copyright regime that balances the needs of content creators and users.

The bill before us today would update Canada's IP enforcement regime governing trademarks and copyright and would provide new tools to strengthen the protection of these rights. It would give rights holders the tools they need to work with law enforcement authorities to protect their intellectual property at the border and domestically.

Counterfeiting threatens Canadians' health, safety and economic well-being. It is not a victimless crime.

Over these past months, the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, chaired by the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, heard from many witnesses as it prepared its report on Canada's intellectual property regime. That report was tabled March 18. I recommend it to anyone who seeks a better understanding of the IP regime in Canada.

During the hearings, the committee learned about the impact that counterfeiting has had on the competitiveness of Canadian businesses and the Canadian economy as a whole. Hon. members can imagine what impact a low-quality, counterfeit product could have on a customer who has paid for what was assumed to be a high-quality and genuine product. One can imagine how difficult customer relations might be when dealing with a consumer who has bought a product in good faith and found it to be not up to the company's standards. Certainly, a counterfeit product would damage the reputation of the brand, as well as the store or the company selling it. This makes both the company, as well as the consumer, a victim of counterfeiting.

The integrity of our economy is threatened when consumers are exposed to counterfeit items and as a result lose confidence in the marketplace. It leads to reduced revenue for the rights holders and therefore, reduced growth, reduced incentive to invest and hire, and reduced incentive for the creation of innovation. Commercial counterfeiting carried out by criminal organizations is not a victimless crime.

A company like Canada Goose Inc. makes a concerted effort to combat counterfeiting. Its website gives tools to help potential customers determine whether the product they are buying is genuine. However, as the committee report outlines, some companies prefer not to draw attention when counterfeiters knock off their products. The chair of the Canadian Anti-Counterfeiting Network told the committee that having a name associated with a counterfeit product may damage the market for some products, so some companies do not want to tarnish the image of their own brand.

Although some businesses can be reluctant to sound the alarm about their products, there has been a marked rise in the number of counterfeiting cases that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has documented. It estimates that between 2005 and 2012, the value of counterfeit and pirated goods seized has increased fivefold from $7.6 million to $38 million. Last year, for example, there were 726 occurrences of intellectual property crimes reported by the RCMP. Some 45% of those cases involved apparel and footwear. Another 20% involved piracy of audiovisual and copyrighted works. Nine per cent involved consumer electronics and a further 9% involved personal care products, like toothpaste, shampoo and soap that Canadian families rely on to be safe and healthy.

The bill before us would give the RCMP, the Canada Border Services Agency and the rights holders the tools that they need to combat and curtail counterfeiting.

Under the current system, a court order is required before border services officers can seize commercial shipments of counterfeit products. The Entertainment Software Association of Canada pointed out that this in effect requires a rights holder to know beforehand that goods are about to be smuggled across the border. As one can imagine, this would be difficult.

Under Bill C-56, however, if rights holders suspect that shipments of counterfeit goods may be crossing the border, they would need only send the CBSA a request for assistance, with information to help identify their brand. The border services officers would have access to information needed to identify, detain and refer suspected shipments to rights holders. The rights holders could then pursue the matter civilly with the courts.

The bill also provides a new criminal offence for the commercial possession, manufacture or trafficking of trademark counterfeit goods. The rights holders community has welcomed this bill. For example, Canada Goose Inc. has said, “The strengthened border measures will play a vital role in protecting jobs for Canadian manufacturers, as well as unsuspecting consumers looking for bargains from those that would do them harm.”

The Entertainment Software Association of Canada stated:

Equipping border service agents with the necessary tools to seize counterfeit products...will help take a bite out of this ongoing problem. Protecting IP is critical to the Canadian economy, especially for content industries like ours, which depends on talent, imagination and creativity to generate returns.

The Canadian Anti-Counterfeiting Network stated:

...counterfeiting has grown into a criminal activity that supports everything from organized crime to terrorism.... [That is mainly because] in the current landscape the risk of getting caught is low while the profit margin is extremely high. With this new legislation the risk assessment will begin to change.

These are just some examples of the support that has come from businesses and business organizations.

Finally, I would like to quote from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. The collective businesses state, “We urge all political parties to support the bill and to ensure the speedy passage of this important legislation.”

I could not agree more. Canadian employers and law enforcement are working to prevent the damage caused by commercial counterfeiting to Canadian lives, our economy and Canadian jobs. Let us do our part in this House. I urge all hon. members to join me in supporting the swift passage of this bill.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her hard work.

She just said that she has been working on this for months because she thought that Bill C-56 was a priority for the government. It is clear that this bill was at the bottom of its list of priorities. The parliamentary session is winding down and this might be one of the last bills that the Conservatives intend to have passed. So much for priorities, since the government is introducing this at the last minute.

I wanted to come back to the matter of the additional resources that Canada Border Services Agency will have. Earlier, we saw the Minister of Immigration working his mathematical magic with the cuts. He would have us believe that nothing happened and that there will be more money.

He said that in 2005, the agency had a little over $1 billion; in 2012, it had $1.8 billion, and with the cuts, it would have $1.3 billion. According to the minister's logic, since the numbers are higher than they were in 2005, the government did not reduce the budget. Most ministers use that same logic. They say that if the amount in 2013 is higher than when they came to power in 2006, then there were no cuts. However, the agency we are talking about here today is being forced to do more with less, like many other departments that experienced cuts.

Can my colleague talk about the fact that the agency will have more responsibility and fewer resources if Bill C-56 passes?

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying earlier, the clock is ticking, and while this government is unravelling, mired in scandal, we have before us a bill introduced by the Minister of Industry. It is a great honour for me to speak this evening as the official opposition industry critic.

The Conservatives boast about being good economic managers and supporters of industry and economic growth, but they dragged their feet on the only bill in recent memory that affects industry and seeks to tackle problems related to counterfeiting.

Now they want to rush the bill through. What is the urgency? What do they have to hide? What are the real reasons behind this sudden interest in Bill C-56? Are they trying to change the channel, divert attention from this government's mismanagement, or did pressure from trade partners finally get to the Minister of Industry?

Canadians and the people of LaSalle—Émard have lost all confidence in this government. They do not believe that this government is fit to govern.

More and more Canadians mistrust the government. They feel it has something to hide. They feel that the Conservatives are not fit to govern.

As the industry critic for the official opposition and the representative of the people of LaSalle—Émard, I rise in the House today to speak to 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.

As soon as this bill was introduced on March 1, 2013, the NDP got to work. We met with many stakeholders. All of them recognized the importance of effectively combatting counterfeiting, and they all said that Canada has to have the tools to do it. They also raised a number of questions about the enforcement of the bill and expressed doubts as to whether the government was really willing to wage an effective war on counterfeiting.

Once again, the Conservatives used this bill in a misleading way. The wording of the bill is not misleading; rather, the government's actions are inconsistent with an effective fight against counterfeiting.

That is the first point I wanted to make. In order to combat counterfeiting at our borders and in Canadian ports, we need human and financial resources. We therefore find it difficult to understand how we will be able to enforce this ambitious bill when the Canada Border Services Agency is facing $143 million in cuts, not only to front-line services but also to intelligence services that are crucial to fighting illegal activities such as counterfeiting.

What is more, 549 full-time jobs will be lost between now and 2015. We have also learned that the Minister of Canadian Heritage wants to interfere in customs officers' legitimate collective bargaining process, once again, without understanding how that undermines labour relations.

The RCMP's budget and resources have also melted away like snow on a warm day. The government needs to put its money where its mouth is, as we say. The Conservatives rarely do that.

The NDP recognizes the importance of combatting counterfeit products, particularly those that could jeopardize the health and safety of Canadians.

Despite the lack of conclusive data, we recognize that this is having an impact on Canadian industries.

We condemn the cuts to the Canada Border Services Agency and the RCMP, which are our front-line defence against counterfeiting, as I mentioned.

The second point I want to talk about is the government's lack of action. Once again the Conservatives have dragged their feet. The cuts we condemn show that they are not serious about combatting counterfeiting.

The problem of counterfeiting has come up many times in recent decades. A report was tabled in 1998. The issue of counterfeiting has come up over the years, and we must acknowledge the impact this issue has had on Canadian industries and consumers.

I want to talk about what has been happening in recent years. In 2007, a report by the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology entitled “Counterfeiting and Piracy are Theft” described the impact counterfeiting has on the Canadian economy. The report made 16 recommendations. In its supplementary opinion, the NDP made two recommendations. A number of these recommendations were ignored, even though industry stakeholders, trading partners and even Canadian consumers continued to raise the issue.

Furthermore, during the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology's study of intellectual property, which concluded in 2012-13, a number of stakeholders criticized the government's inaction.

Here is what Martin Lavoie, the director of policy for Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, said in committee:

We have been advocating since 2006 for more resources for customs agents to stop the transit of counterfeit products...

The Minister of Industry introduced this bill in the House on March 1, 2013, after which we heard absolutely nothing. Now here he is as we are on the verge of adjourning for the summer. I am sorry. On May 30, 2013, at 12:26 a.m., we had a rather pathetic speech from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development. She kept breaking into fits of laughter, which shows how seriously the government takes counterfeiting.

The third point I want to talk about is the lack of conclusive data regarding counterfeiting in Canada. I cannot help but denounce the cuts made to Statistics Canada, which continue to have an adverse effect. I am not the only one who feels that way. The stakeholders we heard from at the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology did as well.

Canadian industries, exporters, manufacturers and small and medium-sized businesses need these statistics, which are snapshots of our economy. They are not the only ones who need them. We, as parliamentarians, use them to make informed decisions. If we do not have hard data that show the trends in recent decades, we cannot predict future trends. These data give us an accurate picture of Canada's economic situation, employment, prosperity, innovation and so on.

Conclusive data allow parliamentarians, legislators and public servants to establish policies that are not based on anecdotal evidence, but on solid data and recognized scientific methods. That is what is happening here with counterfeiting. We know that there is problem, that goods have been seized and that the issue has been raised everywhere in the world. However, unfortunately, it is very difficult to grasp the magnitude of the problem and the best way to address it.

A lot of data have been provided but, as I said earlier, it is difficult to evaluate the methods used to gather those data. In addition, data are not always collected using scientific methods that would help us understand the magnitude of the problem.

The data provided have been of more of an anecdotal nature, and they do not give us an idea of how widespread the problem is internationally. That is why it is important that Canada and the rest of the world have access to these data. This has been brought up many times.

I have some data here that I can share with those who are watching. In Canada, much of the information comes from statistics on actual seizures. For example, Industry Canada reports that:

The retail value of counterfeit goods seized by the RCMP increased from $7.6 million in 2005 to $38 million in 2012.

Still, more details would be useful. In 2009, the OECD estimated that international trade in counterfeit goods and pirated copies could be worth as much as $250 billion. In the same study, the OECD renewed calls for better access to information, saying once again that there are not enough data.

Moreover, anecdotal evidence suggests that counterfeit goods can threaten consumer health and safety. Counterfeit electrical components—I believe someone mentioned this already—and toxic stuffing in a goose-down jacket are two examples of that. I can confirm that because a Canada Goose company representative testified before the committee and I had the opportunity to see the jacket and the material inside it.

Again, the NDP will support Bill C-56 because counterfeit goods can threaten Canadians' health and safety and tarnish the name and reputation of Canadian companies like Canada Goose. A company with a name like that could not be more Canadian. We recognize how important it is to fight counterfeiting effectively.

In its 2007 report, the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology called on the Government of Canada to establish an annual reporting system to provide statistics on the efficacy of the Canadian intellectual property enforcement system. The committee went on to list what it wanted to see in the report: the number of investigations, the number of charges laid against counterfeiters and pirates, the number of criminal sentences obtained, the number of counterfeit and pirated shipments seized by the Canada Border Services Agency and the country of origin and approximate value.

My question for my colleague is this: did the government act on that recommendation? That would give us some data to work with.

The lack of conclusive data makes things harder for everyone—the investigators, officers and legislators studying the issue—when the time comes to find ways to fight counterfeiting effectively. We believe that having good data and an accurate picture of what is going on would enable us to implement effective measures.

Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act, would amend both the Copyright Act and the Trademark Act. Its purpose is to strengthen enforcement of copyright and trademark rights and to curtail commercial activity involving infringing copies of counterfeit trademarked goods. This bill would add two new criminal offences under the Copyright Act for possession and exportation of infringing copies and would create offences for selling or offering counterfeit goods on a commercial scale. I want to stress that because it is an important point in the bill. It would create a prohibition against importing or exporting infringing copies and counterfeit goods, and would introduce some balance to that prohibition by creating two exceptions.

The first exception would be for personal use. If someone crosses the border with something in his or her possession or baggage, which the person bought and did not know was counterfeit, that would be for personal use. However, we want to ensure that we study that closely at committee to ensure the exception would be solid.

The second exception, and it is an important one, would be for items in transit control. That would be items that would be transiting in Canada but not passing the border. They are not necessarily in Canada, but in transit control.

Another point is that it would grant new ex officio powers to border officials to detain infringing copies or counterfeit goods. That would be a significant policy shift. Until now, border officials required the private rights holders to obtain a court order before seizing infringing copies or goods. Therefore, that would be an important change. It would grant new ex officio powers to the Minister of Public Safety and border officials to share information on detained goods with rights holders. Also, it would widen the scope of what can be trademarked to the features found in the broad definition of “sign”, including colour, shape, scent, taste, et cetera.

While the granting of ex officio powers to customs officials has been a recommendation of the counterfeit report of 2007 and reiterated by stakeholders, two main issues were raised with this provision in Bill C-56. First, the Canadian Anti-Counterfeiting Network's first recommendation in one of its reports stated, “provide the RCMP and the Department of Justice [or border official]”, which it did not mention, but I think is what it meant, “with adequate financial and human resources to effectively address counterfeiting”. These were industry representatives who were stating that.

On the other hand, Dr. Michael Geist, from University of Ottawa, raised the issue of the complexity, and my colleagues from heritage and ethics, who studied Bill C-11 extensively, can attest to that. He discussed the complexity of detecting copyright infringement and also raised the question of changes in court oversight. Dr. Geist said, “While officials are not intellectual property experts, the assessment includes consideration of whether any of the Copyright Act's exceptions may be applied. These determinations are complex--courts often struggle with this issue...”, and so on.

While meeting with them in consultation with my NDP colleagues, Dr. Geist, industry, and stakeholders, raised a lot of issues regarding this bill.

In closing, I would like to reiterate that the NDP recognizes the importance of controlling counterfeit goods, especially those that could pose a risk to the health and safety of Canadians.

We recognize that counterfeiting hurts Canadian industries. We condemn the cuts that affect front-line workers who fight counterfeiting.

I sincerely hope that the government will appreciate the importance of studying this significant bill in committee and the resulting recommendations.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. friend about the way in which he thinks Bill C-56 is working in relation to what are known as parallel imports. We are not talking about materials that were illegal where made but where copyright has been accessed. There has been a Supreme Court decision on this matter. The way in which the bill has been drafted leads experts in this area to be concerned that parallel imports may fall under the ambit of the act and be treated as criminal activity when, in fact, they are not. I wonder if my hon. colleague has any comments.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my friend hit the nail on the head. I mentioned this during the course of my speech. Counterfeit goods are not about buying a pair of counterfeit Hilfiger jeans or about buying a knock-off watch. We find these goods in our automobiles. We find them in prescription drugs we buy through the Internet. Not only are they dangerous to our seniors, to our children and to people who drive automobiles, but they take away jobs. I know that the NDP members do not care a whole lot about job creation. They also do not believe in paying their taxes, so they do not really care when the government is losing out on tax revenue, because they do not pay taxes anyway.

The NDP members have to get their heads out of the sand. I see the House leader over there shaking his head. I can hear it all the way over here.

Job creation on this side of the House is important to our government, and that is why we have created over one million net new jobs since July 2009. We believe in protecting Canadian manufacturing and the Canadian economy, and that is why Bill C-56 needs swift passage.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise today. It is a privilege to speak in support of Bill C-56, combating counterfeit products act.

One of our government's top priorities has been to help build safer communities for all Canadians. Now, more than ever, safe communities and economic prosperity go hand in hand. That is why our government has a robust agenda in place to disrupt fraud and to ensure that those who engage in these illegal activities face severe penalties. That is why, for example, we passed Bill C-59, so that criminals convicted of white-colour crimes can no longer be released from prison after serving only one-sixth of their sentence.

Similarly, counterfeit crimes are becoming more prevalent. They are a tangible threat to our economy that undermines innovation and the integrity of Canadian brands. It is not so simple as when one's aunt or cousin goes to China or Taiwan and buys a knock-off watch or purse, or when one buys something similar out of the trunk of a car in Toronto. That is only the tip of the iceberg. Counterfeiting threatens economic growth and job creation, as well as the health and safety of all Canadians. With this legislation, we are standing up for Canadian businesses and consumers to ensure they do not become victims of counterfeit crime by vast criminal organizations.

Bill C-56 deals with counterfeit goods and the ability of our border services and law-enforcement officials to take on this steadily rising problem. By counterfeit, we mean fake replicas of an original product. More specifically, it is an unauthorized reproduction of goods that are protected by a trademark. By registering these rights, the trademark owner is protected against the unauthorized use of the intellectual property. That means that any reproduction of the intellectual property owner's trademark is protected by Canadian law. Copies produced without the consent of a copyright holder are commonly known as pirated goods.

Let me be crystal clear: counterfeit goods are illegal. However, until now, rights holders have not had strong recourse to do anything about the theft of their intellectual property. The ability to enforce intellectual property rights and apply penalties on those manufacturing and profiting from intellectual property infringement has not been as comprehensive as is required in today's globalized world. Bill C-56 intends to rectify this. Commercial large-scale counterfeiting and related crimes pose a very serious threat to the health and safety of Canadians. They involve a vast array of products, ranging from clothes to medications to toys, cosmetics, batteries, electronics, books and multimedia.

Counterfeiting is on the rise in Canada, as it is in the rest of the world. These activities used to be localized, centred on high-end luxury designer goods. They were knock-offs closely resembling legitimate goods. However, this has developed into a worldwide industry that is much more dangerous than before. This is due to the technological process and the increase in global trade. Another reason is the perception by some that counterfeiting and piracy are victimless crimes. I assure members that they are not.

Canadians are often the innocent victims, purchasing goods they believe to be legitimate and safe. However, Canadians need to be confident that the products they buy are genuine and safe and will not cause harm to themselves or their families. The harm associated with the trade in counterfeit goods is significant. It not only includes health and safety risks posed by goods of inferior quality, but decreased consumer confidence in the marketplace, lost tax revenue for the government, and lost profits for intellectual property owners who suffer as a result of such infringement.

Bill C-56 would target the manufacturers and distributors of counterfeit and pirated products, those who profit from this crime. We are going after large-scale operations that victimize Canadian consumers.

Our government knows that the most effective way to stop the proliferation of counterfeit goods is by targeting those who create and sell the goods. Bill C-56 is designed to ensure that federal agencies and rights holders focus their efforts on those criminal operations that seek financial gain from the sale of these goods and not the individuals who purchase these goods for personal use.

For several years, Canadian businesses and industry associations have been relentlessly recommending changes to Canada's intellectual property legislation to better address the modern practices involved in counterfeiting. Our government consulted, and we listened. In 2012, the recommendations were discussed during hearings of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, and we are making strides in addressing these needs.

We highlight the importance of protecting intellectual property to foster an environment that encourages economic prosperity, innovation and competition. In the rapidly changing global economy, protecting intellectual property is essential for international trade and overall economic growth. It is critical to ensuring that Canada remains competitive. The RCMP calculated that more than 4,500 cases of intellectual property crimes were investigated in Canada between 2005 and 2012. The retail value of counterfeit and pirated goods seized by the RCMP increased from $7.6 million, in 2005, to a staggering $38 million in 2012, a fivefold increase.

Other countries are also reporting an upward trend in both counterfeiting cases and total retail values. This is important. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce is convinced that organized crime groups are involved in counterfeiting in Canada, especially as these crimes see high profit margins and low risks of being caught. Organized crime groups typically use the Internet to acquire and sell counterfeit goods and are mostly involved in distribution operations, which are usually routed from the United States and Asia.

The exponential growth in the use of technology such as the Internet has increased the often unsuspecting consumer's accessibility to products which may be counterfeit. Counterfeiting is an issue of safety for Canadian consumers, as well as an issue of ensuring economic prosperity for Canadian businesses. We know that there is great profit to be found in counterfeit goods. Sophisticated organized crime groups involved in the lucrative sale of illegally produced counterfeit products may subsequently reinvest their products into other illegal activities, such as drugs and firearms, which threaten the safety and security of our communities.

The legislation before us today would go a long way to enhancing our efforts to combat this serious crime. The best way to stop illegal counterfeiting is to curtail the commercial distribution and sale of counterfeit and pirated goods in Canada. This bill would increase the capacity of the Canada Border Services Agency to deal with these crimes at the point of entry into Canada. It would allow border service officers and law enforcement officials to disrupt the availability of counterfeit and pirated goods in our markets.

The Canada Border Services Agency will now have the authority to detain these goods and alert the companies that invested in research and development to seek remedy in the courts. This would result in diminishing the financial incentive of organized crime groups seeking high profits with low risk. The bill would also help reduce trade in counterfeit goods by providing new enforcement tools to strengthen Canada's existing intellectual property rights enforcement regime both at our borders and within Canada, as well as bolster our existing protections against commercial counterfeiting activities. At the same time, it would ensure robust protection for Canadians who own or travel with items for personal use.

In the last couple of years we have taken concrete action to protect intellectual property, including passing the Copyright Modernization Act. However, more needs to be done, which is why this bill is imperative. Currently, a number of Canadian laws protect intellectual property rights.

As I mentioned earlier, an intellectual property right generally gives the holder protection against unauthorized use of their product. The Trade-marks Act and the Copyright Act allow intellectual property owners, be they individuals or companies, to institute civil proceedings when their rights have been infringed upon. However, these civil proceedings are so difficult, long and costly that the majority of victims feel that it is pointless to undertake them.

Bill C-56 intends to change that. It would provide rights holders with new tools to protect their intellectual property rights and take effective civil action against infringers. It creates new offences for trademark counterfeiting similar to those already in place for copyright piracy. As well, it would provide new criminal offences for the commercial possession, manufacture or trafficking of trademark counterfeit goods and copyright-infringement copies.

With this bill, rights holders would be able to file what is called a “request for assistance” with Canada Border Services Agency, which in turn would enable border service officers to share information with rights holders regarding suspect shipments. Border service officers would also have the authority to detain suspected shipments and share information with the rights holders. The bill would also strengthen the Trade-marks Act to support enforcement activities and better align Canada's intellectual property regime with international standards.

Counterfeiting is a very serious intellectual property violation that hurts us and like-minded countries. Canada has pledged to provide effective legal protection in accordance with the international agreements with our allies, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement.

National security and economic prosperity go hand in hand, and protection of our intellectual property is integral to this. Once passed, Bill C-56 would provide new tools to border service and law enforcement officers to enhance the security of Canada. It would reduce the presence of counterfeit goods in Canada, thereby protecting the integrity of our economy, supporting Canadian growth and job creation and helping to protect Canadians from the health and safety risks posed by harmful counterfeit goods.

In summary, this new legislation would protect Canadian consumers. It would protect Canadian manufacturers and Canadian retailers. It would protect the Canadian economy from the health and economic threats presented by counterfeit and pirated goods coming into our country.

Our government focuses on what matters most to Canadians, and our government will continue to stand up for Canadian consumers and businesses, ensuring that they do not fall victim to trademark counterfeiting. We will continue to create strong, modern rules to protect our economy and the health and safety of Canadians.

The bill before us today is just one more way we are moving forward with our plan for safe streets and communities, which is one of our key priorities on behalf of all Canadians. This plan focuses on strengthening legislation, tackling crime, supporting victims' rights and ensuring fair and efficient justice.

Today, with this legislation, we are covering off all the bases of the plan. We are strengthening current legislation by introducing new tools for rights holders to protect their intellectual property rights and take civil action against infringers. We are tackling serious and organized crime and are closing off one more avenue of financial profit for those who undertake illegal activity. We are supporting the rights of victims, not only those innocent Canadians who buy the counterfeit products but those rights holders whose trademark rights are illegally infringed. We are ensuring fair justice by giving rights holders the ability to pursue civil action.

Now is the time to implement legislation that will definitively address this issue. I therefore urge all members of the House to support the bill before us today and to work toward its expeditious passage.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to ask my colleague a question. He works very hard on the committee I chair.

My question this evening concerns Bill C-56. I asked one of my colleagues this question earlier on and he answered it quite well. Nevertheless, I would like the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay to say more about the potential dangers of counterfeit products. For example, my Liberal colleague talked about counterfeit airbags and other assorted auto parts.

What are the dangers associated with counterfeiting, and particularly, what are the risks to the safety of Canadians who think they are using products that meet Canadian standards, when they are really using fakes?

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the second reading of Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act.

Counterfeit goods hurt our economy. They undermine innovation and the integrity of Canadian brands. They threaten economic growth and they threaten job creation. Moreover, they threaten the health and safety of Canadians.

The bill before us takes important steps to modernize Canada's intellectual property legislation to address counterfeiting. I would like to speak to the impact this bill will have on those who have created a copyrighted work or have invested in a registered trademark. I would then like to demonstrate how our measures will protect Canadian consumers and families while targeting commercial counterfeiting.

Bill C-56 introduces changes in four key areas: border enforcement, greater civil tools to enforce intellectual property rights, reduced red tape burdens on rights holders and improved criminal offences. These are all worthy objectives and deserve our support, which it seems we are achieving tonight. They will help protect legitimate businesses from unfair competition by those who minimize costs and maximize profits through counterfeiting.

It is difficult to obtain a precise estimate of how big a problem counterfeiting truly represents in Canada. The rights holders are often reluctant to report that their products are being counterfeited. They are concerned that their brand image will suffer as a result.

The RCMP calculates that between 2005 and 2012, over 4,500 cases of IP crime were investigated in Canada. During that period, the retail value of counterfeit goods seized by the RCMP increased fivefold, from $7.6 million to $38 million.

Sales of counterfeit items represent lost income for a legitimate rights owner for a genuine product. Given that many incidents of counterfeiting are not reported, we can assume that the actual cost in lost sales to rights holders is much more.

Counterfeiting costs the legitimate rights holders in other ways. It costs in terms of the effort to maintain customer relations with consumers, who may be dissatisfied with the quality of a product, not realizing that it was not produced by the legitimate rights holder. It also has a cooling effect in terms of innovation. It makes rights holders more reluctant to invest in the development of new, innovative products if they know that their research will only serve to enrich others who will knock off cheap counterfeit versions of their products. The counterfeiters have no R and D costs. They have no advertising costs. They are piggybacking on the investments made by the legitimate rights holders.

It costs in terms of giving serious and organized crime a foothold in the marketplace. According to Interpol, the profits are so high in counterfeiting that it serves as a magnet to those who seek ways to finance other criminal activity, including drug trafficking, human smuggling and robbery. Some people may believe that counterfeiting is a victimless crime. This is clearly untrue.

Over the years, many hon. members have devoted their time and knowledge to studying the challenge of counterfeiting. I would remind the House that both the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology and the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security studied the problem in 2007. Again, last year, the industry committee called witnesses to testify about the impact of counterfeiting and other intellectual property issues.

I am sure that hon. members were attentive to the tabling of our committee's report in March on Canada's IP regime. It makes several recommendations regarding counterfeiting and piracy of trademarks and copyrights.The committee recommends, for example, that legislation should introduce both civil and criminal remedies for trademark counterfeiting. The bill before us would create such a regime for both civil and criminal remedies. It would provide rights holders with expanded civil causes of action. Holders of registered trademarks would be able to stop counterfeit goods earlier in the supply chain, before they reached the market. Under the current system, rights holders can pursue civil action only if the offender has sold or distributed a counterfeit product. In other words, the manufacture or possession of counterfeit products is not against the law.

Under clause 21 of the bill before us, “A person shall not manufacture, cause to be manufactured, possess, import, export or attempt to export any goods”. Clause 21 also addresses the increasing phenomenon of counterfeiters shipping the knock-off products separately from the counterfeit labels. The practice is to attach the labels at the last minute so as to avoid detection. Under the bill before us, rights holders can pursue civil remedies against those who manufacture or ship labels intended to be later attached to those counterfeit goods.

The committee report calls for a combination of civil and criminal remedies. On the criminal side, the bill would ensure that selling, distributing, possessing, importing or exporting counterfeit goods for the purpose of trade would be prohibited and subject to fines and possible jail time. In addition, new criminal offences for possessing and exporting pirated goods for commercial purposes would be added to the Copyright Act.

In its report on Canada's intellectual property regime, the standing committee recommended that Customs officials be allowed to share information with rights holders regarding suspected goods. The bill would grant border service officers the authority to search for and detain suspected counterfeit goods and to inform trademark owners of the detention.

Under the current regime, a rights holder must obtain a court order to stop a suspected shipment. Under the current system, rights holders must know, among other things, that counterfeit goods are coming from a particular location in an approximate time period, and they must also provide enough information to identify the goods, as required by the court.

There are many ways in which this system is inadequate for the rights holder. Perhaps the rights holder knows that goods are coming from a particular factory but cannot identify when or how. Perhaps the trademark holder does not gather enough evidence to convince a court to act. Perhaps the Canada Border Services Agency encounters suspected counterfeit goods, but under the Customs Act, does not have the authority to take action or notify a trademark or copyright owner in the absence of a court order. Perhaps the rights holder does not know that a shipment is coming, and under the current regime, the trademark holder remains in ignorance. In each of these cases, enforcement at the border is not an option.

This bill before us would remedy that situation by granting border services officers the authority to detain suspected counterfeit goods on their own initiative. It would also facilitate detention through the request-for-assistance system. Through this system, rights holders would be able to provide Canada Border Services Agency with information about their copyright or registered trademark as well as contact information. The border services officer would use this information to help identify and detain suspected counterfeit goods and would have the authority under the Trade-marks Act or the Copyright Act to detain them. Through the consequential amendments to the Customs Act contained in this bill, the border services officer would then have the authority to contact the rights holders to share relevant information regarding these goods to determine whether the goods were indeed counterfeit, and that the rights holder would have the option of pursuing civil action.

In other words, the CBSA would be able to provide the rights holders with limited, necessary information that would help in a civil case.

The bill before us would give the rights holder, the CBSA and law enforcement the tools required to crack down on counterfeiting. As a result, we would reduce the damage that counterfeiting inflicts on the Canadian economy, including reduced sales for legitimate businesses and lost tax revenue for governments.

I would also like to draw the attention of the House to the impact of the bill on consumers and the protection it would afford to individual Canadians.

The legitimate businesses whose products have been copied illegally are not the only victims of counterfeiting. Because counterfeit products forgo safety regulations, certifications and quality controls, the consumer who purchases them has also been victimized.

For example, purchasers of counterfeit pharmaceuticals have no way of knowing whether the active ingredient is the required dosage for their prescription. Purchasers of counterfeit batteries do not know that the product may be prone to exploding or leaking. Purchasers of counterfeit children's toys may be putting children in danger of choking hazards or toxic paints. Purchasers of counterfeit electronic items may be buying products that could ignite or explode.

Consumers have become the victims of counterfeit products in many different ways, but today I would like to remind the House that it is in no way the intention of this bill to victimize them any further by confiscating products they have purchased for their own personal use.

Let me remind the House of where the laws governing counterfeiting are made stronger and clearer.

Under the current law, there are many gaps in the ability to go after counterfeiters in either the criminal or civil courts. There is no action that can be taken for goods that have not yet reached the marketplace. An individual is not violating a trademark owner's rights by manufacturing or importing counterfeit goods that will be sold.

It is possible to import counterfeit goods to sell in Canada, it is possible to have a warehouse full of trademark-infringing goods to be sold in the future and it is also possible to make counterfeit goods to sell in Canada or counterfeit labels that will be put on those goods.

Presently it is unlawful to sell counterfeit goods on the street or in a store. It is also unlawful to sell goods with a mark that might be confused with a registered trademark. This bill would close any loopholes by giving trademark owners the ability to stop counterfeit goods at all stages of the distribution chain, from manufacturing to retail sale. It would also create a civil action for selling or offering for sale labels or packaging that is to be applied to counterfeit merchandise.

I want to be very clear that these provisions are designed to target the commercial operations of counterfeiters. They provide federal agencies and rights holders with the tools to confront criminals who gain commercially from the sale of these goods. We believe that the best way to stop illegal counterfeiting is to crack down on commercial counterfeiting at its very roots.

The measures apply only to those who knowingly possess counterfeit goods for commercial purposes. They are not targeted at the private, non-commercial activities of individuals. They are not designed to prosecute individuals who have purchased counterfeit or pirated products. We are not going after individuals who may own a pirated DVD or a counterfeit watch bought from a sidewalk vendor. Counterfeit items found in an individual's luggage for personal use will not be seized by Border Service officers.

In fact, the bill provides a specific exception at the border for individuals who happen to have counterfeit or pirated goods that are intended for personal use as part of their personal baggage. This exception is in no way intended to encourage the personal use of counterfeit goods, but it protects Canadians and enables Border Services officers to focus their attention on the root cause, which is the commercial abuse of trademarks and copyright, a growing problem in Canada and around the world.

I expect that the new civil and criminal measures included in the bill will give rights holders and law enforcement the tools they need to bring commercial counterfeiting cases before the courts. This will raise the profile of the problems that counterfeiting has created in Canada's economy and the health and safety risks they pose to consumers. The measures in the bill are designed to help federal agencies and rights holders target their efforts to confronting criminals who gain commercially from the sale of these goods.

Many Canadians regard buying counterfeit goods as unethical, as our industry committee was told in meetings throughout the past quarter, although some see it as a victimless crime. However, awareness is growing, and I believe there will be significant public support for reducing the damage done to Canadian jobs and the health and safety risks to consumers that are caused by these counterfeit goods.

I would remind the House that the bill before us responds to many of the recommendations made by the committee. It would enable Border Services officers to detain counterfeit items and to share limited information with rights holders. It would introduce new civil and criminal remedies for trademark counterfeiting and copyright piracy. It would grant an exception to consumers who bring across the border counterfeited or pirated goods for their personal use. It would provide additional criminal offences and tools to strengthen Canada's enforcement laws.

The bill represents an important step in the government's ongoing efforts to create the marketplace framework laws, including intellectual property laws, that foster innovation, jobs and economic growth in Canada. I would ask hon. members to join me in protecting Canadian consumers' health and safety and in protecting the work of innovative Canadian entrepreneurs and the jobs they create.

I hope all hon. members will join me in supporting swift passage of Bill C-56.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-56, which is important even though it has some problems and should be improved. We need to debate this today.

Government members need to recognize certain issues. I hope that they will do so in committee, and that they will agree to adopt some important amendments.

For example, there is the fact, as I mentioned to my hon. friend from Scarborough Southwest, that this bill does not cover goods in transit. I am sure that our American neighbours would not be impressed if, for example, a counterfeit shipment travelling from Asia to Vancouver and then on to Los Angeles was not seized here. We are saying that it is their problem and we are not going to take any responsibility for it. That is not what we would ask of them in return. That is something that needs to be fixed.

Additionally, as legislators, we should not simply be ramming through flawed legislation just because the government has a majority. What we see here is a bill that has sat on the order paper for three months now, since it was introduced. The government has not moved it an inch since then. It has not brought the bill forward until today, near the end of the session, when the government is bringing forward its 45th or 46th time allocation.

The government is trying to rush through a whole series of bills, having the House sit until midnight for the last four weeks of the session, and not really giving any of these bills the kind of consideration that they deserve. The government is not allowing for the possibility that any of them might really be improved in committee. As my hon. colleague said, when was the last time that we saw the government side actually accept an amendment from the opposition? That is worrisome.

There are also questions about who would bear the cost of seizure, storage and destruction, particularly when it comes to small businesses. They are concerned about products coming into the country that are counterfeits of what they produce or that affect their copyright. I hope that we will get some clarity on these issues and the legislation that is under consideration in the brief period we are going to have.

I have also heard concerns about the increased powers that would be given to border officers, without any oversight from the courts. We have to keep in mind, as my friend said, that last year the government cut $143 million from the Canada Border Services Agency. Therefore, there is less ability there to do those kinds of jobs, but the government is giving them more to do. They are trying to do the jobs they have and the government is giving them much greater responsibility, and a very complicated responsibility, in assessing which goods coming in may be counterfeit or in breach of copyright and which ones are not.

We need to make sure that this legislation does not result in illegal or illegitimate seizures and violations of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We also have to ensure that border officials receive the proper training to deal with these very complicated matters. Sometimes, it is a question of what is copyrighted and what is not. We know from the discussion we had on the copyright bill last year that it can sometimes be complex, even for the courts. To ask our border officials to do this without much training and without giving them decent resources to provide that training is unreasonable. How is it going to work effectively if we add to their workload on the one hand, while reducing their resources on the other? These officials do a tremendously important job and we need to give them the tools they need to be able to do that job.

People like Professor Michael Geist, who is an expert on these issues and the chair of Internet and e-commerce law at the University of Ottawa, are raising copyright issues around this bill. Some voices—not a lot, I will admit, but some—even argue that this legislation may be a backdoor way of bringing back ACTA. I do not think that it is. There is very little in this bill that relates to it, but I appreciate those concerns and respect them. We should examine those concerns and hear from witnesses on topics like that at a thorough examination of this bill in committee.

It is clear that there are many issues, which we, as members of Parliament, have a duty to carefully examine in relation to this bill. That is why it will require the thorough assessment that I just spoke of when it goes to committee.

I hope the government does not simply employ its usual bullying tactics of ramming through another bill because it can. That is wrong and the government knows it.

I also hope we take the time to hear from many voices who support this so-called combating counterfeit products bill. Of course, we have to wait and see. The proof is in the pudding. When it actually gets into effect, we will see how well it does that. I think it will have some positive effect, but it will work better if we can improve it at committee.

Recently I met with members of the Mechanical Contractors Association of Canada and the Canadian Institute of Plumbing and Heating, who want to discuss Bill C-56 as part of their Parliamentary Awareness Day. They made some very coherent arguments in favour of this legislation. I think most, if not all, members of this House would agree with them.

Bill C-56 amends the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act to add new civil and criminal remedies. It would add new border measures in both acts in order to strengthen enforcement of copyright and trademark rights, and to curtail commercial activity involving infringing copies and counterfeit trademark goods.

Whether it is hockey sweaters, radio parts, or the jackets my friend talked about, all kinds of things come in and look like the real thing, but they are not. That is why it is important to be aware of and to deal with this. It has an impact on our economy and our jobs in Canada. We ought be mindful of it.

This would also amend the Trade-marks Act to, among other things, expand the scope of what can be registered as a trademark, allow the Registrar of Trade-marks to correct errors that appear in the Trade-mark register, and to streamline and modernize the trade-mark application and opposition process, all of which is positive.

As an aside, I wish we could see similar kinds of measures to examine the question of official marks, which are very problematic. One can have a group within a province, an association of some type of profession, for example, an association of massage therapists. They were given an official mark for Canada. The idea of these marks is that they can apply all across the country. There could be two groups of massage therapists in Nova Scotia. If one of them gets approved by the people in Ontario and the other one does not, then only one of them gets to use certain phrases that go along with the official mark. That makes no sense at all when the first group was limited to one province. There is a need to examine and amend the official marks legislation as well.

Our caucus recognizes the health and safety risks to Canadians, as well as the detrimental effects to the economy posed by counterfeit goods entering Canada. We believe this bill needs to be amended, but with a little co-operation from the government we believe that can be achieved at committee. The Liberal Party recognizes the need to provide new enforcement tools to help strengthen Canada's existing enforcement regime for counterfeit goods.

My colleagues on the industry committee will recall seeing the counterfeit Canada Goose jackets we heard about a few minutes ago, and hearing about the horrible stuff that can be in these fake jackets. It certainly is not the kind of thing that is going to keep people warm in the deep-freeze of Canadian winters. We have all heard stories of counterfeit circuit breakers being installed in government buildings, or of faulty Christmas tree lights causing house fires. These are counterfeit products that are dangerous for Canadians.

To give an idea of how widespread this problem is, let us consider the fact that 1,800 cases of counterfeit electronic parts, apparently made in China, have been discovered in U.S. cargo planes, helicopters and other military aircraft. Yes, I said military aircraft. Imagine what that is like and how scary it would be for those operating one of them, particularly in a place of conflict or danger.

This is a very big issue for government, businesses and consumers. With regard to consumers, counterfeit pharmaceutical drugs can be an issue. The drugs are improper, and it could be that the doses are too low or it is the wrong material entirely. That is pretty scary as well.

In April, the RCMP, provincial and local police conducted an operation at a flea market in Hamilton, and they seized about $100,000 in counterfeit goods. That included designer purses, jeans, sunglasses and DVDs. We do not think of these as endangering public safety or health, but they certainly have an impact on jobs in Canada.

Overall, the retail value of counterfeit products seized by the RCMP has increased over fivefold from 2005 to 2012, from $7.6 million to $38 million. This is just the estimate, of course.

The Liberal Party believes that Canadian businesses must be protected to ensure the well-being of the domestic enterprises and the health and safety of Canadians. It is also important, of course, to protect the jobs of Canadians and the integrity of the Canadian economy as a whole.

We would like to see a robust public education program regarding the possession, production and distribution of counterfeit goods. We would like to investigate and further study the challenges that the Internet and e-commerce pose as a loophole to the seizure and reduction in the presence of counterfeit products. We are talking about seizing shipments at the borders. When things are coming in one at a time by mail, by UPS, or whatever, it is a much more difficult for our border services to deal with.

With the current government's ongoing deficits, we question how the Conservatives would fund this new prevention and investigative system, particularly with the $142 million cut to CBSA last year. Border officers are by no means copyright experts. They would be given new and increased powers that are not overseen by the courts, which may lead to illegitimate seizures and violations of the Charter of Rights. That is certainly a problem. We also believe that small businesses should be exempted from the costs that would be imposed by the bill.

Several areas of concerns, other than those I have mentioned, have been raised. With the increased number of seizures due to increased powers being given to border officers and the RCMP, how would the government fund such extensive investigative legal operations, particularly in view of the cuts I talked about? Should genuine or non-counterfeit products be seized and destroyed, how would the government compensate companies and individuals? How would the government determine whether importers of counterfeit products are aware that these products are counterfeit? Why are there no provisions for counterfeit goods being transshipped through Canada?

Bill C-56 does strive to reduce the presence of counterfeit trademark goods being sold and distributed in Canada by providing new enforcement tools. The bill would bolster Canada's enforcement regime at the border, and domestically, and would address negative impacts of counterfeit goods by giving border officers the authority to detain suspected commercial shipments and contact rights holders. It would allow Canadian businesses to file a request for assistance with the CBSA, in turn enabling border officers to share information with rights holders regarding suspect shipments. Those are valuable and worthwhile things, especially if people have the resources to do it.

The bill would provide new criminal offences for commercial possession, manufacturing or trafficking of counterfeit trademark goods. It would provide legitimate owners with new tools to protect their rights and take civil action against infringers. It would create new offences for a trademark counterfeiter. It would provide better tools to investigate commercial counterfeiting.

We support the intent of the legislation, and we will support it at second reading to have it sent to committee. We support where it wants to go. However, we think it needs to be improved, and I hope my hon. colleagues would be open to amending and improving the bill at committee.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, here we are again, debating another bill that was put under time allocation, which is 44 or 45 times now.

The irony in this instance is that the government could have had an agreement with the opposition to speed the debate of this bill so that we would be using less time in the House than it took to bring in the time allocation motion, vote on it and then provide a full day of debate, because we in the NDP do want to see this bill go back to committee, where it can be approved. Therefore, we will be supporting it at second reading.

Again, we had time allocation brought in before the Minister of Industry, the person presenting the bill, had even spoken to it. We did not have one full speech in this House. There was a speech by the member for Simcoe—Grey, who spent half of her speech laughing at jokes being told to her by other caucus members. We did not have one full speech before time allocation was brought in.

I would say humbly that this is not democracy. This is not how Parliament is supposed to work. We are supposed to have the opportunity to have full debates in the House on the various issues that are brought forward.

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 now otherwise titled the “combating counterfeit products act”, is an important issue. It is my honour to rise today to present the lead-off speech on Bill C-56 for the NDP and the official opposition.

Normally our industry critic, the member for LaSalle—Émard, would be leading off on second reading comments on this bill. Our critic had planned to give her remarks on Friday when this bill was supposed to come up for debate; however, because of time allocation and the government playing games, we are here Wednesday evening instead, again preventing certain members of Parliament from participating in this debate in the way that they would like to.

In their rush to introduce yet more record-breaking time allocation motions—as I said, we are at 46 now—the Conservatives rescheduled all the House business this week.

As the NDP's deputy industry critic, it is indeed my privilege to address this bill on behalf of the official opposition. This is a bill the NDP takes very seriously, as opposed to the Conservative government, it would appear, because this bill was presented originally in March. It did not come up for debate until the end of May. Recommendations for this bill were made in a committee report in 2007, again in 2009, and then there were more recommendations from the industry committee in an intellectual property study that was done earlier this year. It has taken the government a very long time to start bringing these forward for implementation.

We have yet to have a whole speech by the Minister of Industry on this bill. Even then, if it was not going to be the minister, we would have thought that maybe it would be the parliamentary secretary, the member for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, but that was not the case.

When the government presents a bill, it is supposed to justify why it is bringing that bill forward. It has yet to do that and has already implemented time allocation.

Instead of a full presentation by the government, what we had was the parliamentary secretary for human resources and skills development getting up and presenting a very short speech on this bill. In her speech she spent a lot of the time laughing and did not seem to be taking the bill seriously. It was so bad that the Speaker had to interrupt and ask if she was able to continue.

I mention all this because it seems to speak to the Conservative government's contempt for Parliament and to its continual practice of introducing legislation that can never be properly implemented because its budget cuts make it impossible.

There are many clichés we would use, but the Conservatives keep putting forth pieces of legislation that are either empty shells or just cherry-picked from among the many recommendations that we need to implement to have solid pieces of legislation. They put forth rules and regulations that perhaps cannot be enforced, because those budget cuts mean that no one will be there to enforce them.

Recent examples include Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, which the Conservatives put forward without the funding in place to make many of its provisions actually meaningful. Another one, Bill C-54 would make changes to how we would deal with people deemed not criminally responsible, however, it would download the responsibility for mental health care onto the very provinces, which are having their health care budgets slashed again by the Conservative government.

Bill C-56 is another example of the Conservatives playing the shell game they so like to play. It is legislation that on one hand imposes some good rules and on the other hand, through the budget, cuts the jobs of those who are supposed to be enforcing these new rules. I will come back to that point later in my remarks.

Let me say upfront, again, that the NDP will support the bill at second reading so it can be sent back to committee and, we hope, fixed to maximum its impact. However, it would indeed be a first at our committee, if we actually saw recommendations and amendments that we brought forward voted on and passed by the Conservatives on the committee. That would be groundbreaking.

The bill dealing with counterfeiting and copyright infringement is important for both Canadian businesses and consumers, especially where counterfeit goods may put the health and safety of Canadians at risk. We will support the bill so it can go back to committee for further study and we want to ensure we maintain the necessary balance on copyright and trademarks.

For instance, the bill would give ex officio powers to our border officers, which the NDP has been calling for since 2007. However, it is very difficult to see how this will be implemented when, last year, the Conservatives slashed $143 million in funding to CBSA, which further reduced front-line officers and harmed our ability to monitor our borders.

CBSA expects to lose several hundred front-line officers by 2015. It is also important to note that in the past the government repeatedly has refused to take a balanced approach to copyright. The NDP believes that intellectual property requires an approach that strikes a balance between the interests of rights holders and the interest of users and consumers.

I will now take a few minutes to explain some of the details of the bill.

Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act, would amend both the Copyright Act and the Trademark Act. Its purpose is to strengthen enforcement of copyright and trademark rights and to curtail commercial activity involving infringing copies or counterfeit trademarks.

The proposed bill will add two new criminal offences under the Copyright Act for possession and exportation of infringing copies and creates offences for selling or offering counterfeit goods on a commercial scale. It creates a prohibition against importing or exporting infringing copies and counterfeit goods and introduces some balance to that prohibition by creating two exceptions: first, for personal use, items that are in one's possession or baggage; or second, items in transit. It also, as I said, grants new ex officio powers to border officials to detain infringing copies or counterfeit goods, a significant policy shift. Until now, border officials required a warrant before seizing infringing copies or goods at the border.

It also grants new ex officio powers to the Minister of Public Safety and border officials to share information on detained goods with the right holders so they can actually see what is being brought in and take measures themselves to combat that counterfeit and trademark infringement.

That is important, because the businesses do a great job of trying to protect their own products. Seeing what is coming into the country illegally and what products are counterfeited can give them ideas about how to combat that counterfeiting better for themselves.

The proposed bill widens the scope of what can be trademarked to the features found in the broad definition of sign, including colour, shapes, scents and tastes. Measuring the problem in counterfeit goods and copies in Canada and its corresponding impact on the economy is difficult.

The New Democrats, nevertheless, support dealing with counterfeiting, especially where health and safety concerns are at stake. As I have mentioned, it remains unclear to me and many others how the CBSA could implement these enforcement measures in the face of the cuts from budget 2012.

The United States and many industry groups have long called for border measures on counterfeiting. It remains important to continue to be vigilant to ensure that intellectual property laws balance the rights and interests of rights holders with those of consumers and users.

The government has long been aware of the difficulties in measuring the scale of counterfeiting for copies and goods in Canada, a challenge that was identified in a 1998 OECD report on “The Economic Impact of Counterfeiting”. One of the difficulties results from the clandestine nature of counterfeiting. Much of the data is estimated and based on actual seizures, which is anecdotal or comes from industry itself, in which case the collection methods may vary or be unavailable to assess.

In 2007, the industry committee report on counterfeiting recommended that the government establish a reporting system that would track investigations, charges and seizures for infringing copies and counterfeit goods as a means of collecting data.

A recent Industry Canada report published this year notes that, “It is difficult to obtain a precise estimate of the market for counterfeit or pirated products in Canada”. Why? Because, again, the government has delayed bringing this legislation forward. Even now that it has, the Conservatives have not put provisions into the bill to implement those measures I just spoke of so we can start collecting more robust data to more accurately determine the economic impacts of counterfeit and trademark infringement in Canada.

As I said, much of the information in Canada comes from statistics about actual seizures. Industry Canada notes that the retail value of counterfeit goods seized by the RCMP increased from $7.6 million in 2005 to $38 million in 2012.

In 2009, the OECD estimated that the international trade in counterfeit goods and infringing copies could be valued at up to $250 billion U.S. It is a mind-boggling number that there would be that many counterfeit and trademark infringed goods travelling around the world. Law-abiding companies are losing out on much of that revenue.

The same study also reiterated previous calls for better information. We know anecdotally that counterfeit products can pose risks to the health and safety of consumers, whether we are talking about counterfeit electrical components or unsanitary stuffing in goose-down jackets.

I mention unsanitary stuffing in goose-down jackets because when we were at committee, many different Canadian businesses and organizations presented before the committee. One such company was Canada Goose, which is certainly a Canadian success story. However, representatives of Canada Goose brought with them some counterfeit Canada Goose jackets they had collected. The things contained within those counterfeit jackets would make one's toes curl. There were things like feces in the lining, feathers that were not properly treated and sanitized before being stuffed in the jackets. Certainly they were not goose down or coyote fur. Many different animals were being used.

Unfortunately, it was very difficult, on the surface, to detect these jackets as being counterfeit. When we put a real Canada Goose jacket next to a counterfeit jacket, they looked identical. It was not until we took a microscope to it or started to pull the jacket apart that we started to see that one of the jackets was indeed counterfeit.

Other representatives that came before the committee were from Hockey Canada. They talked about the last Olympics we had in Canada and about professional sports jerseys. They found, through studies they conducted and at the Olympics, that sometimes in professional sporting events, up to 70% to 75% of the jerseys being worn at the games were counterfeit. Consumers are unwittingly buying illegal and counterfeit products when they try to support their sports teams. At the Olympics in Vancouver, many stops and arrests were made of individuals selling counterfeit Olympic paraphernalia and products.

It is a growing problem because there is a financial incentive there. There is money to be made in counterfeit goods. We certainly have a responsibility to try to stop as much of it at the border as we can. As for the stuff that gets across the border, we have to deal with it here and hold the appropriate people responsible.

In many cases, as I have said, it is very difficult for consumers to detect whether they are buying legitimate products. However, vigilance is also important and people who have any concerns about products they are buying should go to the manufacturers' websites and contact people in law enforcement if they think they have bought something illegal. There are many things people can do to prevent these crimes and, indeed, to ensure the products they are buying are legitimate.

Dealing with counterfeiting is important to both Canadian businesses and consumers. It is especially important where counterfeit goods put the health and safety of Canadians at risk. Yet again it remains unclear how the enforcement regime being proposed by Bill C-56 will be resourced. This bill would add significant new responsibilities to the duties of border officials during a time of significant budget reductions.

In budget 2012, the Conservatives imposed $143 million in cuts to CBSA, reducing front-line officers and further reducing our ability to monitor the borders. This is interesting. This year's CBSA report on plans and priorities alone indicates a loss of 549 full-time employees between now and 2015. At a time when there is more trade, goods and people crossing the border, we will be cutting front-line officers? It makes absolutely no sense.

Under Bill C-56, customs officers would be asked to make highly complicated assessments on whether goods entering or exiting the country infringed on any copyright or trademark rights. Such an assessment for infringing copyright would include, for example, consideration of whether any of the exceptions under the Copyright Act would apply, something with which the courts often struggle. The New Democrats want the CBSA to be adequately funded to implement this bill without compromising the other responsibilities of protecting Canadians and our borders from things like drugs, guns and other threats.

The United States has lobbied for stronger enforcement measures in Canada for counterfeit and pirated goods for many years. In the 2012 special 301 watch report, the office of the U.S. trade representative stated that the U.S. “continues to urge Canada to strengthen its border enforcement efforts, including by providing customs officials with ex officio authority to take action against the importation, exportation, and transshipment of pirated or counterfeit goods”.

In its June 2012 report on counterfeiting in the Canadian market, the Canadian Intellectual Property Council, a sub-group of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, identified counterfeiting as a barrier to competitiveness and specifically recommended that customs officials have ex officio powers, that Canadian law be amended to bring criminal and civil sanctions for counterfeiting and piracy and that enforcement officials be encouraged to seek strong remedies for infringements.

It bears saying that many of the requests the United States made are, indeed, in this bill. Providing ex officio powers to the CBSA in order to track, monitor and confiscate copyright and trademark infringed goods are terribly important to our long-term safety.

In its recently tabled report, “Intellectual Property Regime in Canada”, the committee recommended border measures that we supported, including providing appropriate ex officio powers to customs officials, civil and criminal remedies for trademark infringement and counterfeiting, allowing customs officials to share information with rights holders regarding suspected goods. All members of the committee agreed that consumers acting non-wilfully should not be subject to excessive fines.

The New Democrats on the committee, of which I am one, filed a dissenting opinion that called on the government to also consult with consumer groups, as well as industry groups, in an effort to combat counterfeiting and piracy, that border officials receive appropriate authority to do their work while respecting civil liberties and due process and that the CBSA be adequately funded to combat counterfeiting without compromising its other important responsibilities to protect Canadians and defend our borders.

The House resumed from May 30 consideration of the motion that Bill C-56, an act to amend the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Bill C-56—Time Allocation Motion

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, like many on this side of the House, I am appalled at once again having to go through time allocation and having our time limited on such an important subject. I do agree with the minister that Bill C-56 is an important bill that we need to address.

In 2009, recommendations were made by the industry committee to do exactly what the minister talked about. Why is it taking so long for the government to act when we can protect consumers and Canadians a lot sooner?

At the industry committee, we heard from businesses that said cuts to the CBSA would impact and harm Canadian consumers.

Here we are again, having an opportunity to debate a bill, but time is being cut. We can bring forward good amendments to make the bill stronger, to protect Canadians, but we cannot do it when the Conservatives keep pulling the rug from underneath us.

[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--

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

moved that Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Safer Witnesses Act

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I addressed these issues before when I spoke about such things as ensuring that there were additional resources for witness protection provided to municipal governments, municipal police forces and provincial agencies to beef-up their witness protection programs. Another was to make a change that when the RCMP took over an investigation or witness protection because the crime involved drugs that it would not pass all the costs on to the municipal or provincial governments, but that it would bear the costs itself or help to pay for them.

Bill C-56, another bill that we will be speaking to soon, would make amendments to copyright and counterfeiting, which brings up border issues as well.

The member quite rightly has said that there have been cuts to the Canada Border Services Agency. We are not doing our neighbours, particularly those to the south, any service when the CBSA is no longer tracking outbound shipments of drugs. That is not helping to make their streets safe. Nor is it making our streets safer because we know that when drugs get exported oftenimes the resources, the money gained from those illicit activities comes back to Canada in the form of other drugs, guns and money that goes to organized crime.

Therefore, we should be stopping that drugs from crossing the border as best we can. Cuts to drug-sniffing dogs and front-line services at the Canada Border Services Agency do not make any sense when we are trying to fight crime.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this does not happen very often, but we are talking about a bill to which all of the parties are in agreement. We did not make any changes in committee, yet we are spending five hours tonight discussing something with which we are all in agreement.

I am having a bout of déjà vu because I think I heard exactly this speech earlier today from the member for Crowfoot. It seemed almost identical to the one the member for Crowfoot gave.

The five hours tonight cost $50,000 an hour in overtime, in one day, which could help us hire 80 summer students.

Let us use the money intelligently and debate the real issues and move on to Bill C-56, which is next on the agenda.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, now that we have been sitting for a week under our Conservative government's plans for a harder-working, productive and orderly House of Commons, I would remind all hon. members of what we have been able to achieve since just Victoria Day.

Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012, was passed at report stage and third reading. Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act, was passed at second reading. Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, was passed at report stage and we started third reading debate, which we will finish tonight. Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act was passed at report stage and, just moments ago, at third reading. Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, was passed at second reading. Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, No. 1, was reported back from committee yesterday.

Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, was passed at report stage and we started third reading debate. Bill S-6, the first nations elections act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, which was reported back to the House this morning by the hard-working and fast running member for Peace River, has completed committee. Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act, was debated at second reading.

We will build on this record of accomplishment over the coming week.

This afternoon, as I mentioned, we will finish the second reading debate on Bill C-51. After that, we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-56, Combating Counterfeit Products Act.

Tomorrow morning, we will start report stage on Bill C-60, now that the hard-working Standing Committee on Finance has brought the bill back to us. After I conclude this statement, Mr. Speaker, I will have additional submissions for your consideration on yesterday's point of order.

After question period tomorrow, we will get a start on the second reading debate on Bill S-15, Expansion and Conservation of Canada’s National Parks Act. I am optimistic that we would not need much more time, at a future sitting, to finish that debate.

On Monday, before question period, we will debate Bill S-17, Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013, at second reading. In the afternoon, we will hopefully finish report stage consideration of Bill C-60, followed by Bill S-2 at third reading.

On Tuesday, we will return to Bill S-2 if necessary. After that, I hope we could use the time to pass a few of the other bills that I mentioned earlier, as well as the forthcoming bill on the Yale First Nation Final Agreement.

Wednesday, June 5 shall be the eighth allotted day of the supply cycle. That means we will discuss an NDP motion up until about 6:30 p.m. This will be followed by a debate on the main estimates. Then we will pass to two appropriations acts.

Next Thursday, I would like to return back to Bill C-60, our budget implementation legislation, so we can quickly pass that important bill for the Canadian economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, as you know, our government has moved forward this week to conduct business in the House of Commons in a productive, orderly and hard-working fashion, and we have tried to work in good faith.

We began the week debating a motion to add an additional 20 hours to the House schedule each week. Before I got through the first minute of my speech on that motion, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley interrupted with a dubious point of order to prevent the government from moving forward to work overtime. His was a bogus argument and the Speaker rightly saw the NDP delay effort as entirely devoid of merit and rejected it outright.

During its first speech opposing the motion to work hard, the NDP then moved an amendment to gut it. That amendment was defeated. The NDP then voted against the motion and against working overtime, but that motion still passed, thanks to the Conservatives in the House.

During the first NDP speech on Bill C-49 last night, in the efforts to work longer, the NDP moved an amendment to gut that bill and cause gridlock in the House. I am not kidding. These are all one step after another of successive measures to delay. During its next speech, before the first day of extended hours was completed, the NDP whip moved to shut down the House, to go home early. That motion was also defeated. This is the NDP's “do as I say, not as I do” attitude at its height.

Take the hon. member for Gatineau. At 4 p.m., she stood in the House and said, “I am more than happy to stay here until midnight tonight...”. That is a direct quote. It sounded good. In fact, I even naively took her at her word that she and her party were actually going to work with us, work hard and get things done. Unfortunately, her actions did not back up her words, because just a few short hours later, that very same member, the member for Gatineau, seconded a motion to shut down the House early.

I am not making this up. I am not kidding. She waited until the sun went down until she thought Canadians were not watching anymore and then she tried to prevent members from doing their work. This goes to show the value of the word of NDP members. In her case, she took less than seven hours to break her word. That is unfortunate. It is a kind of “do as I say, not as I do” attitude that breeds cynicism in politics and, unfortunately, it is all too common in the NDP.

We saw the same thing from the hon. member for Davenport, when he said, “We are happy to work until midnight...”, and two short hours later he voted to try to shut down the House early. It is the same for the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing and the hon. member for Drummond. They all professed an interest in working late and then had their party vote to shut down early. What is clear by their actions is that the NDP will try anything to avoid hard work.

It is apparent that the only way that Conservatives, who are willing to work in the House, will be able to get things done is through a focused agenda, having a productive, orderly and hard-working House of Commons. This afternoon, we will debate Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, at report stage and third reading. After private members' hour, we will go to Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act, at second reading.

Tomorrow before question period, we will start second reading of Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act, and after question period, we will start second reading of Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act.

Monday before question period, we will consider Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act. This bill would provide protection for aboriginal women and children by giving them the same rights that women who do not live on reserve have had for decades. After question period, we will debate Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, at second reading, a bill that makes a reasonable and needed reform to the Criminal Code. We are proposing to ensure that public safety should be the paramount consideration in the decision-making process involving high-risk accused found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. It is time to get that bill to a vote. We will also consider Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012—and yes, that is last year—at third reading.

On Tuesday, we will continue the debates on Bill C-48 and Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act.

On Wednesday, we will resume this morning's debate on Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act, at third reading.

On Thursday, we will continue this afternoon's debate on Bill C-51. Should the NDP adopt a new and co-operative, productive spirit and let all of these bills pass, we could consider other measures, such as Bill S-17, the tax conventions implementation act, 2013, Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act, Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, and Bill C-57, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act.

Optimism springs eternal within my heart. I hope to see that from the opposition.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Madam Minister, for being with us today. We appreciate your being here. We share all of your concerns on health and safety in the workplace. The NDP hopes that all Canadian workers will not be risking their lives while trying to earn a living, and will be able to continue to benefit from the possibility of associating and organizing to negotiate their working conditions, that is to say, safe working conditions.

I want to ask you some questions on a matter that is of great concern to us. As the Minister of Labour, you are responsible for labour relations, and so I want to take advantage of your presence here to ask you some questions regarding division 17 of Bill C-60. In that provision, Treasury Board gives itself some unprecedented powers to intervene in the collective bargaining of crown corporations. Those corporations have very particular missions and mandates and should indeed be independent and at arm's length from the government.

I was just at the Standing Committee on Finance where a professor from Queen's University, Mr. George Smith, told us that this interference was a breach of the spirit of the Canada Labour Code. According to that code, negotiations must take place between the employer, that is to say the crown corporation, and its employees. Thus, the federal government should not get involved in those negotiations.

Do you not think that this interference is unnecessary, and, as Mr. Smith pointed out, that it may jeopardize labour relations and collective bargaining and make them completely dysfunctional?

[Judy Dezell, Manager, Gas Tax Implementation, Association of Municipalities of Ontario]

Thank you for including the Association of Municipalities of Ontario in your study of Bill C-60.

I would like to address division 18 of the bill, which proposes the indexing of Canada's gas tax fund.

AMO administers the gas tax fund to all municipalities in Ontario, except Toronto. We distribute the fund twice a year on a per capita basis. Municipalities can count on this stable and predictable administration model and invest the fund where they need it the most. Our unique model has been proven to deliver.

Between 2005 and 2011, Ontario municipalities invested more than $2.1 billion gas tax dollars in over 3,800 projects. These projects have produced 3,900 kilometres of safer roads, 240 safer bridges, 230 additional transit buses added to municipal fleets, over 106,000 tonnes of waste diverted from Ontario landfills, and 136,000 metres of new and rehabilitated water, storm, and waste water pipes, among many other positive outcomes.

Canada's gas tax fund improves the lives of Ontarians by making our communities safer, more efficient, and prosperous. The fund has helped communities keep construction-related jobs in the face of economic uncertainty. In response, Ontario municipalities are transparent in reporting where they invest the fund and in sharing project benefits with the community. The way the fund is administered in Ontario has proven to be effective, efficient, and accountable. A number of third party evaluations have confirmed this fact.

Despite the direct benefits of Canada's gas tax fund, it is no secret that Ontario's infrastructure is under pressure. Much of it was first built in the 1950s and 1960s, and needs to be upgraded or replaced. In some Ontario communities, population growth is increasing the burden on local infrastructure and fuelling demand for new investments. Other municipalities have a lot of assets to maintain but a shrinking population base and declining tax revenues.

In 2008, the joint provincial-municipal fiscal and service delivery review determined that Ontario municipalities face a $60 billion infrastructure gap that will take 10 years to close. That means every community in Ontario needs $6 billion per year every year for 10 years. This is a gap in our core critical infrastructure, such as transit, water, waste water, storm water, solid waste, and roads and bridges. It does not include other key areas of municipal infrastructure, such as recreation, culture, and in Ontario, social housing. The infrastructure gap exists in all Ontario municipalities, no matter the size or location.

While working to address this need, we are very pleased that Parliament made the gas tax fund permanent in 2011. We are also pleased that budget 2013 committed to expanding the list of eligible project categories and to indexing the fund starting in 2014-15. Expanding the list of project categories makes the fund even more flexible and allows municipalities to address the needs that are unique to their communities.

Division 18 of Bill C-60 seeks to implement indexing, and we applaud this. Indexing is absolutely essential so that the fund grows over time to meet inflation and the rise in construction costs. Indexing ensures municipalities can rely on Canada's gas tax fund as a stable, predictable, and long-term source of funding to address the infrastructure gap felt in all communities.

However, based on our understanding of the formula proposed in the bill, municipalities will have to wait before they experience the positive outcomes of indexation. The need for investment is now, not only because of the infrastructure gap but because investment drives the economy of the future. Municipal infrastructure provides the support to the social, cultural, and commercial activity that leads to a dynamic and prosperous Canadian economy.

If we are correct and the formula is not changed, we ask that the government tell us how much in gas tax funds will be transferred now and in future years, so that municipalities can plan for the long term. Predictability is one of the most important and welcome features of the gas tax fund. It is especially important in Ontario, since municipalities are now working on long-term asset management plans.

The plans consider how much it will cost to rehabilitate and replace infrastructure in order to meet desired service levels. Predictability is the key to implementing these plans since it ensures that funding will be there when it is needed the most. We hope that the federal government considers the immediate need for safe, efficient, and sustainable communities when it implements the gas tax fund indexing in division 18 of Bill C-60.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for being here with us today.

Concerning the amendments to this bill proposed by the government, I would like to know this: how, in the restaurant or hotel industry, can a foreign worker program help to resolve a permanent problem? Mr. Davidson, who owns a restaurant in Saskatchewan, told us earlier that he had trouble finding employees. As opposed to Mr. Sinclair's problem, that problem persists throughout the year.

First, how can a temporary worker program contribute to solving that issue?

Second, do you think that the proposed amendments involve concrete support for employers, in order to help them develop a Canadian labour force?

Third, are there concrete methods to verify whether employers are abusing the system? For instance, are employed asked, under this law, to prove that there is a real shortage?

Do you see these aspects in the proposed amendments to Bill C-60?

Extension of Sitting Hours

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

Mr. Speaker, I will pick up where I left off. Obviously my hon. friend did not hear this and has not read the motion. I will respond to his macho riposte at the end of his comments by pointing out that the motion would do three things: first, it would provide for us to sit until midnight; second, it would provide a manageable way in which to hold votes in a fashion that works for members of the House; and third, it would provide for concurrence debates to happen and motions to be voted on in a fashion that would not disrupt the work of all the committees of the House and force them to come back here for votes and shut down the work of committees.

Those are the three things the motion would do. In all other respects the Standing Orders remain in place, including the Standing Orders for how long the House sits. Had my friend actually read the motion, he would recognize that the only way in which that Standing Order could then be changed would be by unanimous consent of the House.

The member needs no commitment from me as to how long we will sit. Any member of the House can determine that question, if he or she wishes to adjourn other than the rules contemplate, but the rules are quite clear in what they do contemplate.

As I was saying, the reason for the motion is that Canadians expect their members of Parliament to work hard and get things done on their behalf.

Canadians expect their members of Parliament to work hard and get things done on their behalf.

We agree and that is exactly what has happened here in the House of Commons.

However, do not take my word for it; look at the facts. In this Parliament the government has introduced 76 pieces of legislation. Of those 76, 44 of them are law in one form or another. That makes for a total of 58% of the bills introduced into Parliament. Another 15 of these bills have been passed by either the House or the Senate, bringing the total to 77% of the bills that have been passed by one of the two Houses of Parliament. That is the record of a hard-working, orderly and productive Parliament.

More than just passing bills, the work we are doing here is delivering real results for Canadians. However, there is still yet more work to be done before we return to our constituencies for the summer.

During this time our government's top priority has been jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity. Through two years and three budgets, we have passed initiatives that have helped to create more than 900,000 net new jobs since the global economic recession. We have achieved this record while also ensuring that Canada's debt burden is the lowest in the G7. We are taking real action to make sure the budget will be balanced by 2015. We have also followed through on numerous longstanding commitments to keep our streets and communities safe, to improve democratic representation in the House of Commons, to provide marketing freedom for western Canadian grain farmers and to eliminate once and for all the wasteful and inefficient long gun registry.

Let me make clear what the motion would and would not do. There has been speculation recently, including from my friend opposite, about the government's objectives and motivations with respect to motion no. 17. As the joke goes: Mr. Freud, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. So it is with today's motion. There is only one intention motivating the government in proposing the motion: to work hard and deliver real results for Canadians.

The motion would extend the hours the House sits from Monday through Thursday. Instead of finishing the day around 6:30 or 7 p.m., the House would sit instead until midnight.

This would amount to an additional 20 hours each week. Extended sitting hours is something that happens most years in June. Our government just wants to roll up our sleeves and work a little harder, earlier this year. The motion would allow certain votes to be deferred automatically until the end of question period, to allow for all honourable members' schedules to be a little more orderly.

As I said, all other rules would remain. For example, concurrence motions could be moved, debated and voted upon. Today's motion would simply allow committees to continue doing their work instead of returning to the House for motions to return to government business and the like. This process we are putting forward would ensure those committees could do their good work and be productive, while at the same time the House could proceed with its business. Concurrence motions could ultimately be dealt with, debated and voted upon.

We are interested in working hard and being productive and doing so in an orderly fashion, and that is the extent of what the motion would do. I hope that the opposition parties would be willing to support this reasonable plan and let it come forward to a vote. I am sure members opposite would not be interested in going back to their constituents to say they voted against working a little overtime before the House rises for the summer, but the first indication from my friend opposite is that perhaps he is reluctant to do that. Members on this side of the House are willing to work extra hours to deliver real results for Canadians.

Some of those accomplishments we intend to pass are: reforming the temporary foreign workers program to put the interests of Canadians first; implementing tax credits for Canadians who donate to charity; enhancing the tax credit for parents who adopt; and extending the tax credit for Canadians who take care of loved ones in their home.

We also want to support veterans and their families by improving the determination of veterans' benefits.

Of course, these are some of the important measures from this year's budget and are included in Bill C-60, economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1. We are also working toward results for aboriginals by moving closer to equality for Canadians living on reserves through better standards for drinking water and finally giving women on reserves the same rights and protections other Canadian women have had for decades. Bill S-2, family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, and Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act would deliver on those very important objectives.

We will also work to keep our streets and communities safe by making real improvements to the witness protection program through Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act. I think that delivering these results for Canadians is worth working a few extra hours each week.

We will work to bring the Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, into law. Bill C-48 would provide certainty to the tax code. It has been over a decade since a bill like this has passed, so it is about time this bill passed. In fact, after question period today, I hope to start third reading of this bill, so perhaps we can get it passed today.

We will also work to bring Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act, into law. The bill would support economic growth by ensuring that all shippers, including farmers, are treated fairly. Over the next few weeks we will also work, hopefully with the co-operation of the opposition parties, to make progress on other important initiatives.

Bill C-54 will ensure that public safety is the paramount consideration in the decision-making process involving high-risk accused found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. This is an issue that unfortunately has affected every region of this country. The very least we can do is let the bill come to a vote and send it to committee where witnesses can testify about the importance of these changes.

Bill C-49 would create the Canadian museum of history, a museum for Canadians that would tell our stories and present our country's treasures to the world.

Bill S-14, the Fighting Foreign Corruption Act, will do just that by further deterring and preventing Canadian companies from bribing foreign public officials. These amendments will help ensure that Canadian companies continue to act in good faith in the pursuit of freer markets and expanded global trade.

Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act, would implement that 2009 treaty by amending the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act to add prohibitions on importing illegally acquired fish.

Tonight we will be voting on Bill S-9, the Nuclear Terrorism Act, which will allow Canada to honour its commitments under international agreements to tackle nuclear terrorism. Another important treaty—the Convention on Cluster Munitions—can be given effect if we adopt Bill S-10, the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act.

We will seek to update and modernize Canada’s network of income tax treaties through Bill S-17, the Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013, by giving the force of law to recently signed agreements between Canada and Namibia, Serbia, Poland, Hong Kong, Luxembourg and Switzerland.

Among other economic bills is Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act. The bill would protect Canadians from becoming victims of trademark counterfeiting and goods made using inferior or dangerous materials that lead to injury or even death. Proceeds from the sale of counterfeit goods may be used to support organized crime groups. Clearly, this bill is another important one to enact.

Important agreements with the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador would be satisfied through Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, which would, among other things, create the Sable Island national park reserve, and Bill C-61, the offshore health and safety act, which would provide clear rules for occupational health and safety of offshore oil and gas installations.

Earlier I referred to the important work of committees. The Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations inspired Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act. We should see that committee's ideas through by passing this bill. Of course, a quick reading of today's order paper would show that there are yet still more bills before the House of Commons for consideration and passage. All of these measures are important and will improve the lives of Canadians. Each merits consideration and hard work on our part.

In my weekly business statement prior to the constituency week, I extended an offer to the House leaders opposite to work with me to schedule and pass some of the other pieces of legislation currently before the House. I hope that they will respond to my request and put forward at our next weekly meeting productive suggestions for getting things done. Passing today's motion would be a major step toward accomplishing that. As I said in my opening comments, Canadians expect each one of us to come to Ottawa to work hard, vote on bills and get things done.

In closing, I commend this motion to the House and encourage all hon. members to vote for this motion, add a few hours to our day, continue the work of our productive, orderly and hard-working Parliament, and deliver real results for Canadians.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue the debate on today’s opposition motion from the NDP. Pursuant to the rules of the House, time is allocated and there will be a vote after the two-day debate.

Tomorrow we will resume the third reading debate on Bill S-9, the Nuclear Terrorism Act. As I mentioned on Monday, I am optimistic that we will pass that important bill this week.

Should we have extra time on Friday, we will take up Bill C-48, the Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, at report stage and third reading.

When we come back from constituency week, I am keen to see the House make a number of accomplishments for Canadians. Allow me to make it clear to the House what the government's priorities are.

Our government will continue to focus on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. In doing that, we will be working on reforming the temporary foreign worker program to put the interests of Canadians first; implementing tax credits for Canadians who donate to charity and parents who adopt; extending tax credits for Canadians who take care of loved ones in their homes; supporting veterans and their families by improving the balance for determining veterans' benefits; moving closer to equality for Canadians living on reserves through better standards for drinking water, which my friend apparently objects to; giving women on reserves the rights and protections that other Canadian women have had for decades, something to which he also objects; and keeping our streets and communities safer by making real improvements to the witness protection program. We will of course do more.

Before we rise for the summer, we will tackle the bills currently listed on the order paper, as well as any new bills which might get introduced. After Victoria Day, we will give priority consideration to bills which have already been considered by House committees.

For instance, we will look at Bill C-48, which I just mentioned, Bill C-51, the Safer Witnesses Act, Bill C-52, the Fair Rail Freight Service Act, and Bill S-2, the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, which I understand could be reported back soon.

I look forward also to getting back from committee and passing Bill C-60, , the economic action plan 2013 act, no. 1; Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act; and Bill C-21, the political loans accountability act.

We have, of course, recently passed Bill C-15, the strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act and Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act. Hopefully, tomorrow we will pass Bill S-9, the nuclear terrorism act.

Finally, we will also work toward second reading of several bills including: Bill C-12, the safeguarding Canadians' personal information act; Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act; Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act; Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act; Bill C-57, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act; Bill C-61, the offshore health and safety act; Bill S-6, the first nations elections act; Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act; Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act; Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act; Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act; Bill S-15, the expansion and conservation of Canada’s national parks act, which establishes Sable Island National Park; and Bill S-17, the tax conventions implementation act, 2013.

I believe and I think most Canadians who send us here expect us to do work and they want to see us vote on these things and get things done. These are constructive measures to help all Canadians and they certainly expect us to do our job and actually get to votes on these matters.

I hope we will be able to make up enough time to take up all of these important bills when we come back, so Canadians can benefit from many parliamentary accomplishments by the members of Parliament they have sent here this spring.

Before taking my seat, let me formally designate, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a), Tuesday, May 21, as the day appointed for the consideration in a committee of the whole of all votes under Natural Resources in the main estimates for the final year ending March 31, 2014. This would be the second of two such evenings following on tonight's proceedings.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to point something out for the record of the committee. I am referring to the tendency to use Canada's economic action plan and the budgets as steamrollers that do not allow committees to do a proper job. This trend is starting to be a real concern for the future of our country's democracy. I am pleased to have the floor, but we almost did not have a full round at this meeting with senior officials when we are studying the very important issue of temporary workers, given everything that has happened over the past several months.

As we say in my riding, it's a bit of a mess.

Let's look at the example of an engineer who wanted to come to Canada to work for three days. My office had to help him out. He was not getting his permit. This man had an expertise that no one else had in North America. He was applying for a three-day permit while our Mexican workers who work on farms come to work late.

Gentlemen, on the front lines, the current work situation

is a bit messy.

Suspending the accelerated process is a sort of admission of these challenges. However, suspension implies that the process will be reinstated. We are not looking for lip service. What approach will you take to ensure that the new powers granted under Bill C-60 will be used despite losing almost 40,000 members of your staff? What will be the approach to ensure that the program will be less messy if it is brought back?

[Viviane Michel]

Finally, the harmonization of concurrent jurisdictions and the various laws in force on reserves, under the Indian Act and Bill S-2 will be a considerable challenge and, with the particular features of the legislation in force in the province of Quebec, the challenge will be virtually impossible to overcome.

[Viviane Michel, President, Quebec Native Women]

[The witness spoke in her native language]

Good afternoon, everyone.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank the committee for this opportunity to express our concerns about 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.

Quebec Native Women has repeatedly expressed its concerns about this issue. We would like to provide you with our comments and recommendations on the latest version of the bill.

Bill S-2 is supposed to remedy the legislative gap that exists for first nations couples living on reserves after the break-up of the relationship or the death of one of the spouses. That includes the division of property and matrimonial rights or interests. However, the bill, in its present form, does not fully address the issue of matrimonial property and will not fully protect those who are most vulnerable.

I would like to highlight some factors that contribute to the complexity of this bill that, at worst, will create more problems for aboriginal women and children than it will solve and, at best, it will be wishful thinking only bringing temporary solutions to vulnerable women.

First, although we commend the government’s efforts to enable first nations to develop their own matrimonial real property code consistent with their own traditions and customs, the bill does not take into account the jurisdiction of first nations over reserve property and their right to self-determination as it grants jurisdiction to provincial courts for enforcement. As a result, a provincial court will be imposing on communities the use of their own lands. In addition, if they do not develop their own code, the proposed legislation establishes federal laws that will be imposed on first nations. Even if first nations have an opportunity to create their own laws, it will only be a form of delegated authority.

Second, aboriginal women’s groups have been asking all along that additional resources be provided so that first nations communities can both develop and enforce their own laws. Yet no funding or resources will be provided to first nations to access those provincial courts, which will therefore be too costly or complex for them in a number of cases. We are carefully watching the government’s intent to establish a centre of excellence for matrimonial real property, which could assist idle communities in drawing inspiration from established best practices, but will not force them to use those practices, nor will it provide assistance to all the communities across Canada.

According to the website of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, a maximum amount of just under $5 million over five years will be earmarked for the centre. That corresponds to six full-time employees for five years helping 500 aboriginal communities across Canada to develop their own legislation. Not only does that seem like an impossible feat given the remoteness of the communities and the lack of human and financial resources within many band councils, but it also means postponing the detected implementation problems to the medium term. Supporting the development of those new family codes is a good idea if resources are also provided directly to the communities so that they can develop their own matrimonial real property laws.

Third, we want to ensure that minimum standards for the protection of aboriginal women are observed and that the following factors do not penalize women and their abused families or families affected by grieving or separation: exclusive membership codes, lack of housing, lack of legal resources and assistance within communities, as well as a different legal system.

From my experience as a first responder, the best resources to help aboriginal women are those that are culturally adapted and easily accessible within their own communities. Aboriginal women’s groups and their communities must work together in order to develop a fair and equitable system that is based on cultural traditions and customary law. Consideration should also be given to setting up multi-tier aboriginal mediation systems and other practices or aboriginal legal and decision-making systems for matrimonial real property. There also has to be a recognition of the systems that are already in place.

Bill S-2 proposes a solution based on the common law of the federal system without considering the legal provincial diversities. In fact, this bill is asking provincial courts to implement a common law system to handle family law disputes and, as a result, to adapt to a number of legal systems, including the system implemented by various nations and communities, if applicable. The Civil Code of Québec does not grant the same rights to spouses and common-law partners. However, the opposite would be true for provisional laws.

Another consideration is having a judge who is familiar with the Indian Act. It becomes a very complex situation. Also, the bill would not protect aboriginal women living in communities governed by specific treaties such as the James Bay and Northern Québec Agreement, as well as the Northeastern Québec Agreement that brings some specific features to the Cree and Naskapi territories. In its present form, the bill will probably have no legal impact on the Cree and Naskapi communities and they will have to make laws so that matrimonial real property matters can also be incorporated in their own legal system. That is another legal framework that needs to be considered in the province of Quebec.

Since the rights and recourses by provisional federal rules will be handled by various provincial, federal and aboriginal legal systems, the federal government should conduct further analysis to determine whether this situation has an impact on Quebec’s aboriginal communities and, if that is the case, to establish what the consequences would be. Ultimately, what makes aboriginal women vulnerable currently in cases of separation or domestic violence is the lack of housing and the non-settlement of land claims for all aboriginal nations across Canada. This type of settlement would enable communities to address the demographic pressure on their people and their needs for economic development. This is how the Harper government must do its part if it wants to help aboriginal women escape violence.

Bill S-2, in its present form, does not address this main concern. Furthermore, by refusing to take it into consideration, all it does is send the problem to the provincial courts and band councils. The unilateral approach taken by the government to resolve this issue through legislation will also fail to address systemic problems. The lack of resources, particularly the lack of housing in the communities, will be challenging, and so will the implementation of some provisions regarding the forcible removal of a spouse who will not easily find alternative housing in the community.

In addition, there is also an issue with public safety in the communities. The lack of human and financial resources in the police forces will make it difficult to effectively enforce emergency protection orders. We appreciate the changes to improve the bill, especially the 12-month transition period, but we note that it is a short transition period given that the legal framework being set up in the communities is not good.

Let's talk about family rights. Not all communities are in the same place. They do not have the same human and financial resources to establish this regulatory framework and then implement it.

[Nathalie Levman]

To be fair, Bill C-452does say “or”. The crown would have to prove only one. You're quite right that some of these expressions have no legal meaning in Canadian law whereas in section 279.04 as currently drafted, each word is carefully chosen and has been judicially interpreted. So arguably, it would be more easily interpreted by a Canadian court, which is, of course, the point.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Minister of Industry]

Thank you, Chair.

Hello to all the members of the committee.

It is a pleasure to be here today.

I see that time is flying by. A lot of work was done this past year. I would like to bring you up to speed on that work and on the Department of Industry's priorities. We can obviously talk about the measures that will follow from economic action plan 2013.

The issues concern, first, strengthening the manufacturing sector; second, stimulating business innovation; third, promoting entrepreneurship and venture capital; fourth, improving market frameworks; and, fifth, supporting the digital economy. That has been adopted and it is ongoing. Work is under way. I will be pleased to give you more details on that.

I am here with my Deputy Minister John Knubley, Ms. Bincoletto, who is Chief Financial Officer at the Department of Industry, Ms. Thivièrge and Mr. Stewart. Feel free to ask us questions. We have the necessary people to answer them. We will do it to the best of our ability.

Mr. Chair, after several consecutive years of uneven economic growth, the entire world is still at a crossroads. As the government, we will continue our efforts to navigate this turbulent global situation and to promote job creation, economic growth and long-term prosperity for Canada.

Our efforts have produced results. No fewer than 465,000 jobs have been created, exceeding the peak reached before the recession. That has been the strongest employment growth of the G7 countries during this crisis. In addition, Canada's real GDP is well above pre-recession levels. This is the best performance in the G7.

We will continue investing in growth drivers, job creation, innovation, investment and skills. We remain determined to keep taxes low—which will probably not displease my colleague here on my left—and return to a balanced budget.

In terms of today's meeting, Industry Canada will be allocated $1.16 billion through main estimates in 2013-14, which will directly support our jobs and growth agenda. In addition, subject to the will of Parliament, Industry Canada and the industry portfolio will implement measures put forward in economic action plan 2013 and associated priorities.

One of Industry Canada's priorities is to help manufacturers succeed in the global economy. Let's note that manufacturing accounts for 1.1 million jobs across Canada, generates 13% of the Canadian GDP, and conducts almost half of the R and D performed in Canada. Key areas I will highlight include the automotive, aerospace and space sectors, defence procurement, and advanced manufacturing.

As you remember, Prime Minister Harper announced last January an additional $250 million over five years for the automotive innovation fund.

In March, our economic action plan announced ongoing funding to sustain and improve the strategic aerospace and defence initiative, with $110 million over four years to create an aerospace technology demonstration program, and forthcoming consultations on the creation of a national aerospace research and technology network. These measures would strengthen Canada's position as a global leader in the production of aerospace and space goods and services.

Our economic action plan 2013 also committed to reform the current procurement process, develop key industrial capabilities, and consider ways to target industrial and regional benefits. These actions will promote export opportunities and help ensure that all major procurements include a plan for Canadian industry participation.

Industry Canada will also work with the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario in order to develop world-class manufacturing initiatives, supported through a five-year program beginning in 2014, for an amount of $200 million.

The government's venture capital action plan was announced in economic action plan 2013. It is a set of measures designed to enhance promotion of the Canadian venture capital system. Funding of $60 million over five years will be allocated to support business incubators and accelerators and to expand their services. In addition, $18 million over two years will be allocated to the Canadian Youth Business Foundation to support our young entrepreneurs. The Business Development Bank of Canada will also be making additional investments in firms graduating from business accelerators and will establish new entrepreneurship awards. Businesses, in many cases, suffer shortages when they start up. Some projects are squeezed. This form of funding will therefore be accessible to our businesses.

Innovation is an important factor that we continue to enhance in order to promote growth, improve productivity and raise our standard of living.

Last year, I told the committee that Minister of State Goodyear was directing work on our response to the recommendations made by Tom Jenkins's expert panel. We have acted on those recommendations. In budget 2012, we committed to paying $1.1 billion over five years to double support, for example, for the IRAP, the industrial research assistance program, to make the business-led networks of centres of excellence program permanent and to recentre the mandate of the National Research Council in order to focus it on demand and to make it more business-oriented.

In action plan 2013, we have also announced additional support in this field in the form of funding for our granting councils, such as the NRC and Genome Canada. I know that you have looked at that in greater detail with Minister Goodyear.

Another major priority, in addition to keeping taxes low, cutting red tape, and promoting fair tariff trade, is strengthening our marketplace framework policies, which set the conditions for companies to compete, innovate, and invest. We also introduced changes to our investment review process, including guidelines for state-owned enterprises, timelines for national security reviews, and the threshold reviews under the Investment Canada Act.

Following the passage of the Copyright Modernization Act last year, we are continuing to improve our intellectual property protections. We recently introduced, as you know, the combatting counterfeit products act.

It is still important to promote a world-class digital economy. In the next stages, we want our future innovation to be driven by digital technologies in order to support this digital economy and make Canada a digital leader. We have taken several essential measures such as adding a digital component to the NRC and refocusing the mandate of the Business Development Bank of Canada. A digital technology adoption program is now offered through BDC. The 700 MHz spectrum auction, which will be held by the end of the year, will stimulate a lot of activity in the digital economy.

I am determined to move forward with these measures and issues, to examine ways to strengthen the digital economy, support digital skills, encourage technology adoption by business and promote access for Canadians. I know the committee is currently examining this question, and I will be delighted to review the work it does.

Mr. Chair, I believe that, by focusing on the priorities I have outlined here today, Industry Canada and the government will help enhance competitiveness and support our government's goal, which is to create jobs and stimulate growth for all Canadians.

Thank you.

[Derek Nighbor, Senior Vice-President, Public and Regulatory Affairs, Food & Consumer Products of Canada]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, my name is Derek Nighbor. I'm a senior vice-president with Food and Consumer Products of Canada. I welcome the opportunity to be here today.

We are the largest national industry association representing Canada's leading food, beverage, and consumer products companies, which manufacture or distribute the household products that sustain Canadians and enhance their quality of life. We represent roughly 75% to 80% of what you would see in your local grocery store as products on the shelves.

From an employment perspective, our industry provides high-paying jobs to approximately 300,000 Canadians in both rural and urban areas in every region of Canada. We are in fact now the top employer in manufacturing in Canada, with a great potential to be even bigger and better.

Today l'II provide an overview of our industry's priorities, followed by a few key challenges and suggestions and maybe some ideas for future committee discussion on how the federal government can help our sector grow in Canada.

Here is a quick industry overview.

Our industry is proud that Canadians enjoy some of the safest food and beverage products in the world. I think this is something we often take for granted, given our large land mass and the high level of safety that we have at top of mind in our industry. We work closely with government to maintain Canada's global reputation as having a world-leading food safety system. This is great for export potential, and product safety is and will remain the number one priority for our member companies. We support a predictable and transparent regulatory system that is based on sound science. We believe this is absolutely essential for consumers to have confidence in the products they buy and for our businesses to successfully operate and grow.

I want to talk about consumer education, because Canadians are increasingly interested in learning more about the food and beverages they are consuming and want to take greater control over their health through their diet and the products they choose. To help consumers make informed product choices, FCPC and our member companies have made great strides in promoting nutritional literacy among Canadians. Since 2005, for example, we've provided the government-regulated nutrition facts table on processed product packages. Just last year, we worked very closely with Health Canada to implement revamped allergen labelling on our packages. Our industry did not look for exemptions on allergen regs. We did the right thing and supported those who could have severe allergic reactions from foods or beverages that they consume.

Another thing we're very proud of is that in order to help consumers better understand the nutrition facts table, we partnered with Health Canada and a number of retailers across the country to launch a collaborative campaign called the Nutrition Facts Education Campaign. The purpose of that campaign was to help Canadians better use and understand the nutrition facts table, especially the per cent daily value portion of that table.

We had 34 companies and Health Canada, with a number of retailers promoting in-store. The table helps give Canadians the tools to make informed food choices for themselves and their families. Early results from that campaign, which is three years in now, have been quite positive, showing that 52% of Canadians who have seen the campaign and the campaign logo say that it has changed the way they shop for groceries.

On product choice I want to talk about the options in the grocery store and the innovation happening in industry. We have made great strides in developing new, innovative products in response to consumer demand—foods with lower sodium and lower fat levels, with trans-fats eliminated, and vitamins and minerals added. As Canadian consumers increasingly search for a wide variety of nutritional choices, it's important that we meet their expectations and help them manage their health through diet. A recent FCPC survey of our member companies showed that 92% have responded to changing consumer needs by launching new, innovative products or making reformulation changes to existing products. If we think of the grocery store today compared with that of ten years ago, we can see the real difference that is happening in our communities.

I'm going to move to plant operations briefly to talk about water conservation. This is another area in which our beverage members have done a lot of work, making a lot of investments in the plant to reuse water, to reduce water usage, and overall to be more environmentally responsible. Another survey we did with our member companies showed that more than 90% of our member companies have made water reduction a priority in the production process, and half have identified industry initiatives to reduce consumption within their office or plant operations. Juxtaposed against international benchmarks, we're seeing that Canadian companies may in fact be pulling ahead of their global peers in this space.

That's the good stuff. I want to talk a little bit about some of the challenges we're facing.

Regulatory barriers continue to be a challenge, although I'll acknowledge a lot of the work that Health Canada has done to make some improvements on product approvals. Once again, when we're talking about product approvals, safety is paramount. We're not looking for fast-tracking of approvals. We're looking for thoughtful, efficient approvals, often turning to other jurisdictions that may have approved these products for the sharing of leading science.

As I said, our members develop the innovative products that consumers demand for the Canadian market, but it's with getting approvals in a timely manner that we're seeing some challenges. Registering a product or getting a product approved by Health Canada can take on average five years longer than it does in the United States. I say this not in advocating for a U.S. model, for there are many issues with the U.S. model, but we are definitely seeing significant delays in Canada that don't need to be that way.

As I said, though, in the past several months we have seen some changes via Bill C-38. There's been some modernization and simplification of Health Canada's regulations without putting consumers at risk. For example, I believe the Canadian Beverage Association, when they were here, talked about the approval of the sweetener, stevia, which provides a greater choice for consumers interested in carbohydrate-reduced diets. That was a very big approval, and one that we were waiting for a long time.

We support the current efforts. Of course, we'd like to see things move more quickly and would support any efforts this committee can make to continue looking for more efficient, thoughtful ways to make the regulatory environment more responsive to the needs of consumers and to business.

Packaging stewardship and recycling—those of us from Ontario know the blue box very well—is an area of greater and increased cost, but a responsibility that industry takes very seriously, in terms of reducing waste. Provincial governments are responsible for these programs, but we're dealing with the provincial governments on the patchworks of regulations that govern them from province to province. There is a lot of administrative cost in complying with province by province waste diversion rules and regulations. I think it's of interest to this committee, although you don't have direct responsibility, to understand that this is a growing cost factor affecting all folks along the food and beverage value chain.

I want to talk about counterfeit goods very quickly and also about what we call diverted product. That could be a juice that might have been destined for the U.S. market but that, through a broker or a retailer of some kind, somehow came into the Canadian market, maybe without French labelling, maybe with an American nutrition facts table, or maybe directly from Asia with no English labelling at all.

Our concern here, on the food side of things, is the issue of safety and also fairness in the marketplace. If you think of the robust allergen regulations we have in Canada, as some of those products make it onto the shelves in some of our stores there could be some real risk. I want to table this as an issue for this committee to consider working on with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, to give it greater attention. The agency has done some work, but we continue to see a lot of diverted product that is meant for another market being sold in Canadian stores.

I want to credit the government for work done on Bill C-56, the combatting counterfeit products act. I know that MP Erin O'Toole, in his previous life as a legal counsel, worked a lot on the issue. We were really happy to see this bill. You might think about exploding batteries or razor blades and a whole host of fast-moving consumable products that are counterfeit. It's really important that border services and others in law enforcement be aware of this risk and that we work with members on the supply chain to deal with those issues.

Just quickly, as a last point before summary, let me speak about the skilled labour shortage.

Our industry requires a high level of scientific and technological expertise to develop products and to operate facilities across the country. We're increasingly facing shortages in this area and are concerned that they are only going to get worse. We're really lacking in educational training programs that focus on the scientific and technical expertise required to meet skilled labour demands for our industry, and we encourage measures to help meet this demand, including government partnerships with universities and colleges.

In summary, I want to restate our commitment to increasing nutritional literacy and consumer choice for Canadians and to reducing our environmental footprint. To help our industry grow, we need modern regulations to address this patchwork of recycling program issues, the growing presence of counterfeit and non-compliant products, and the issue of skilled labour.

I look forward to working closely with the government and parties on both sides of the aisle on these issues to help our industry innovate and grow in Canada.

Thank you.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Calla, you also said it was mandatory for by-laws to be published in a medium other than just written newspapers. It is important to take advantage of the Internet and Web sites and other methods to let people know that consultations are being held.

To your knowledge, does this private member's bill, Bill C-428, specifically provide for such measures to ensure optimal participation by communities?

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you for joining us today. Your being here is clearly important because the visit of the member for Calgary Northeast has left us with far more questions than answers with regard to Bill C-425.

Certain notions are still fairly ambiguous, as is the application of the whole bill, especially when it comes to the risk of individuals becoming stateless. In addition, the number of people who will be affected by the bill is very small. The Canadian Forces' representatives who testified told us that the legislation would affect about a dozen individuals annually.

Minister, I would also like to ask you about the amendments you mentioned you would like to propose. When will you introduce a concrete amendment proposal, so that the committee can examine it as quickly as possible?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Pecknold, as I said to Mr. Dandurand earlier, we are talking about a very delicate situation here. We have to deal with witnesses, to confront organized crime and street gangs and so on. I represent a constituency that has street gangs, and I can tell you that the situation is not as you see it on TV or in the movies.

In your view, can the fact that Bill C-51 provides for an extension to municipal and provincial levels present a danger to some extent? The more information is being circulated, the greater the risk of leaks. There are moles everywhere, even inside departments and police forces.

How can we protect the information in order to make sure that witnesses are truly protected?

Could you give a practical answer to that question?

[Brigitte Alepin]

When I read Bill C-48 as it relates to all the measures the Canadian government is putting forward to address the taxation of Canadian multinationals, one thing is clear. On the one hand, the government really seems to want to end a form of tax fraud involving tax havens. It is targeting taxpayers, ordinary citizens who are not respecting the tax system by putting their money in tax havens. My sense is that the Canadian government wants to crack down on that practice.

On the other hand, however, when it comes to tremendous corporate and personal wealth, the government seems to want to create a legal way to exempt the super wealthy from paying taxes. There seems to be a two-tiered system to deal with the whole matter of tax havens, international transactions and so forth. If you're not a multinational or you aren't super wealthy, the government is watching you, given that a multitude of rules can be applied to stop your aggressive tax planning tactics. But if you're in the opposite position, the government seems to want to make it easier for you not to pay taxes. The upstream loan rules set out in Bill C-48 are an example of the government contradicting itself.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

When I listen to my colleague Brian speak, it reminds me of when I was on the Standing Committee on International Trade. We would object to free trade agreements because they contained measures we did not agree with, not because we were opposed to free trade.

Coming back to you, Ms. Alepin, I found your presentation very enlightening. I was especially interested in what you said about the blatant contradiction as regards the provisions that will come into effect under Bill C-48 . They make a lot of sense, as you pointed out at the beginning of your presentation, but they conflict with the double taxation avoidance agreements between two countries. All of that is very interesting.

Right now, we are studying tax havens. At the end of the day, however, the real problem probably isn't the fact that people are trying to evade taxes but, rather, that the state is giving them the mechanisms to do so, or taking contradictory approaches.

Under this study, we have examined the issue of transfer prices because that is another serious problem. As you told my colleague Ms. Nash, the real problem, when all is said and done, is that the government is working against itself by signing these non-taxation agreements.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Merci, monsieur le président, and thank you to our guests for joining us this morning.

I'm especially pleased to have a chance to ask questions because in the province I come from and the riding I represent a high degree of importance is placed on fisheries and the environment. We have a group of community-minded volunteers in my riding who call themselves the Sea to Sky Fisheries Roundtable, who are very well acquainted with fisheries issues. There are about a dozen people, including former fisheries minister John Fraser, as well as Dave Brown, and John Barker who heads up the West Vancouver Streamkeeper Society.

They have participated with me in various fisheries-related things in the four years since I was first elected, among other things, calling for some sort of inquiry into the missing sockeye salmon, encouraging our committee to investigate aquaculture issues, and working with officials in the department to build a wonderful salmon spawning viewing platform in the Squamish area. They are very engaged. They have raised the following three issues. I'm going to ask three questions and hope you have time to deal with them.

First, they have supported measures to increase the portion of salmon stamp revenues that are sold on tidal fishing licences, so those revenues come back into the Pacific region and go toward funding salmon initiatives. It would be good to hear the department's response to that.

Second, changes to Bill C-38 and the effects on fish habitat were raised previously. We've heard there is an active consultation process. This was asked by the parliamentary secretary in the previous meeting. I would like to hear how meetings like the ones our round table had are being incorporated into the process of defining those regulations. How is this process working? How can people track how their participation makes a difference?

Third, the consolidation of DFO offices is being depicted as something that will enhance effectiveness, but there are concerns that it really results in a loss of DFO officers, including in the riding I represent.

I'd love to hear your responses.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, we have heard from the government that it would like Bill C-48 to be passed as quickly as possible. This is an approximately 1,000-page long document. Liberals, Conservatives and ourselves all agree that this is not a particularly controversial bill in terms of its content and technical aspects.

However, two things should be kept in mind. First, the content is made up of the recommendations from the Canada Revenue Agency and the Department of Finance, comfort letters and tribunal rulings. In other words, this is an update of provisions that have generally or often already been applied. It is a confirmation of those provisions. This is legislation that brings it all together.

The second point that we are currently discussing is the issue of process. For ten years there were no legislative updates. We feel that this highlights a very specific and serious problem with the way in which technical bills such as this bill dealing with tax amendments are brought forward and tabled.

From our perspective, we could be accused of not properly playing our role as an opposition if we didn't raise this specific issue of how legislative measures are tabled; we must ensure that this is done efficiently for the sake of taxpayers, accountants, and tax practitioners, but also for the sake of parliamentary process.

I think that we should specifically consider process and how these measures are tabled. That is why I feel that it is very unfair and probably inefficient on the part of the government to ask us to hurry up. In the end, we will not have the opportunity to discuss process if we don't do it now. Once the bill is passed, there will not be unlimited opportunities to come back to the issue.

Furthermore, a little earlier the Minister of State told us that the recommendations that had been tabled by various chartered accountants' organizations and by the Canadian Tax Foundation were definitely interesting and he understood them, but they wouldn't necessarily be implemented.

I would like Mr. Chapman and Mr. Hayos to tell us how long this debate has been going on. Did it happen during previous parliaments? Is this more or less the same debate that you have already heard? If so, based on your experience, can you tell us why we are in this situation in 2013, in Parliament, in terms of process and in terms of amendments still being chosen for consideration in a very random way?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

That one is out of order.

We're going to continue on after clause 117 which is the Criminal Code.

We have clauses 118 all the way through to 135. I'm hoping we can group these together because these are all consequential amendments to conform Bill C-15 and the National Defence Act with all these other acts. Can we do that right up to 135? Then we'll come back to the stood clauses.

We'll let Mr. Harris quickly go through. They're all consequential amendments. They're all about conformity of Bill C-15, the National Defence Act, and all associated acts.

(Clauses 118 to 135 inclusive agreed to)

International Trade

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

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear: Bill C-56 is a way to support and protect Canadian families.

Counterfeiting is a growing problem that must be stopped. Counterfeiting deceives Canadians and poses risks to the safety of Canadians. We must ensure that the legislation is updated and appropriate in order to equip the authorities with effective tools to fight counterfeiting, which is exactly what was introduced on Friday. If the NDP is responsible, I hope they will support us.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a number of countries have rejected this unacceptable agreement. The anti-counterfeiting trade agreement—ACTA—was drafted behind closed doors and would incriminate the daily users of cultural content. This agreement will turn our border officers into instant copyright experts, without the adequate legal support.

Canada must seriously study the problem of counterfeiting. However, the failure of Bill C-30 means that Canadians do not have faith in this Conservative government.

Is Bill C-56 not simply a way to support ACTA through the back door?

Combating Counterfeit Products Act

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Peter Jon Mitchell, Senior Researcher, Institute of Marriage and Family Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and committee members, for the opportunity to appear before you today in regard to Bill C-273 on behalf of the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada, a social policy think tank that conducts and compiles research on issues pertaining to the Canadian family.

Just last week another study was published in a peer-reviewed journal that linked the damage done by bullying during childhood to the increased risk of mental health related issues in young adulthood. The consequences of unaddressed bullying are severe.

As I continue to review research and engage with parents, I encounter a high level of anxiety and a sense of helplessness among parents of bullied children. Many of our attempts to stay ahead of the cyberbullying issue are akin to refereeing a soccer game from outside the stadium. As parents and caring adults, we prepare our children, acknowledging that once they enter the online world they're on their own. It is as if we are left peering at the field of play through a gap in the fence. Caring adults are largely absent in the online world of children and teens. Bullies know it, and they thrive where adults are absent.

Conceptually, enforcing the full weight of the Criminal Code on bullies appeals to the popular sense of justice, but this simplifies what is often a complex issue where many bullies are also victims. Functionally, the criminal law occupies the far end of the continuum in a series of bullying interventions among children and youth, the demographic that I want to speak to today.

The Criminal Code can protect victims and the community from escalating harm, but it is a very particular tool within limited circumstances. Before speaking to the specific merits and concerns that I have with Bill C-273, I want to acknowledge two limits to the function of the Criminal Code that should ground our expectations on what it can accomplish.

Use of the Criminal Code will not eradicate bullying.

First, applying the criminal law does not address the nature of bullying. At its core, bullying is a relational issue that requires relational intervention. Canadian clinical and developmental psychologist Gordon Neufeld understands bullying to be an instinctual, social, and emotional issue. Children, like adults, instinctually connect and attach to others, forming caregiving and care-receiving relationships. This is easily observed when watching children play. Neufeld argues that these naturally forming hierarchies facilitate the drive to care for others, but where instinct should draw upon empathy, the bully, often impaired by his or her own emotional trauma, is compelled to expose and exploit perceived weaknesses. Unmaking a bully takes time and requires relational capital.

Second, the Criminal Code is limited in the ability to prevent and deter young cyberbullies. As Wayne MacKay, who chaired the Nova Scotia Task Force on Bullying and Cyberbullying, noted in his report, “...the criminal law, while necessary and useful in certain serious cases, is a limited and often ineffective tool against the social problem of bullying.”

Professor MacKay notes that criminal law has limited impact on prevention and deterrence for young people. In fact, until very recently, the Youth Criminal Justice Act omitted the principle of deterrence during sentencing, in part because of this assumption that youth are less likely to be deterred by criminal sanctions.

American criminologist Thomas Holt summed it up well when he argued, “It's very hard to say that any 14-year-old with a cell phone who can text is going to think about a cyberbullying law when they're communicating with their peers.”

The best response to bullying is a community-level approach that brings together parents, caring adults such as educators, and children and youth. Research demonstrates that home and school environments are key to preventing the escalating nature of bullying.

Authentic relationships between youth and adults are critical to shielding victims and unmaking bullies. Justin Patchin, a criminologist at the U.S.-based Cyberbullying Research Center, who testified before the Canadian Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, said elsewhere, “The vast majority of cyberbullying incidents can and should be handled informally: with parents, schools, and others working together to address the problem before it rises to the level of a violation of the criminal law.” But of course there are situations where the Criminal Code is necessary to protect victims and the community from escalating harm.

What are the merits of Bill C-273?

First, the bill brings the stated sections of the Criminal Code into the 21st century by addressing common tools of communication. Some have argued that the Criminal Code is already sufficiently broad to encompass electronic bullying behaviours, particularly section 264. The amendment to section 264 may be unnecessary.

Second, the modifications are modest and clarify existing sections of the Criminal Code rather than proposing new sections of untested criminal legislation.

Finally, there are some serious concerns around the implementation of Bill C-273.

First, we can expect that clarifying the Criminal Code in this manner will lead to an increase in its use. Increased use of these provisions may draw more youth into the criminal justice system, many of whom would fare best if dealt with outside the justice system.

Second, the committee should consider how the increased use of the Criminal Code will impact school-based responses to bullying. Could the adversarial nature of the criminal justice process inhibit community-based responses to bullying?

Finally, it remains unclear whether legislation reduces bullying. In the United States between 2000 and 2010, over 125 pieces of legislation were passed mostly at the state level yet the problem seems to remain as persistent as ever in the U.S.

To conclude, bullying among children and youth requires a community-level approach. On some occasions cyberbullying may escalate to a point where the Criminal Code is necessary to protect victims and the community. Bill C-273 appears to be a modest modernization of existing Criminal Code provisions, but at what cost?

Consideration should be given to the possibility that the increased use of the Criminal Code will create a chill on the community-level approach, particularly by drawing more youth into the criminal justice system.

Refereeing cyberspace is a difficult task. Our best approach is to empower parents, educators, and children and teens themselves to work together.

Thank you.