Evidence of meeting #37 for Canadian Heritage in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was negotiations.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
Do you mean on a regular basis or just now?
What is in Bill C-32 that is absolutely necessary for us to go forward and sign a treaty like this one? What are the essential elements you absolutely need?
4:25 p.m.
Director General, Intellectual Property and Services Trade Policy Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
There are elements in Bill C-32 that relate to Canada's ability to comply with terms of WIPO agreements, and that, as they're carried over into the provisions of the ACTA, wouldn't be sufficient if the legislation wasn't passed.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
Let's speak in concrete terms. What can be done illicitly now in Canada that could no longer be done if we adhere to this agreement? How would our signature on this treaty change things here? Do you have a concrete example?
4:25 p.m.
Director General, Intellectual Property and Services Trade Policy Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Chairman, with your permission I'll ask Edith St-Hilaire, who is our negotiator of the ACTA, to give some examples of counterfeit activity that would relate to this file.
4:25 p.m.
Edith St-Hilaire Director, Intellectual Property Trade Policy Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
The ACTA agreement is divided into a few chapters. You have civil provisions, criminal provisions, border provisions, and provisions on cooperation among member states. One of the examples we have in the ACTA is that the competent authority at the border at this point cannot share information with rights holders if they know that counterfeit goods are coming to the border. They cannot tell the rights holder, “Look, they're coming; you can take action or do something.” It's not in our current legislation.
4:25 p.m.
Director, Intellectual Property Trade Policy Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
That it is in the ACTA.... That's one of the examples. There are some examples like that.
4:25 p.m.
Director, Intellectual Property Trade Policy Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Some of them are in the criminal area. If you have goods that are infringing, you have some criminal penalties. We don't necessarily destroy the goods. In ACTA there are provisions that say it's possible to destroy goods that infringe on IP rights.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
I would like to discuss the content of this agreement. I would like to know if Internet service providers will be made accountable and what roles will be given them by the ACTA.
4:25 p.m.
Director General, Intellectual Property and Services Trade Policy Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
We're just clarifying our own understanding of the question, Mr. Chair.
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
4:25 p.m.
Director, Intellectual Property Trade Policy Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
No, that's all right.
Forgive me for replying in English. I have the text of the agreement in English, and so it is easier to reply in that language.
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
4:25 p.m.
Director, Intellectual Property Trade Policy Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
As Mr. Ready was saying, we are doing the legal scrub of the French text.
Concerning the Internet service providers, there is a provision concerning
promote cooperative efforts between the ISP and the business community, which is encouraged.
It will also give the authority to order the ISP to disclose information that will identify the subscriber who used the service for infringing activities. That is something we currently have in our legislative framework.
Therefore, in terms of ISP liability, it will not change what we currently have in our legislative framework.
4:30 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Unless I am mistaken, in the ACTA, the ISP's responsibility is simply to provide information when they are asked to do so.
To whom must they provide information?
4:30 p.m.
Director, Intellectual Property Trade Policy Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
They must provide information to right holders.
4:30 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
To the right holders, and that is all? Are there any other provisions, other measures?
4:30 p.m.
Director, Intellectual Property Trade Policy Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
There is nothing for instance about the notice and takedown. When we were negotiating there were a lot of comments in this regard. People asked whether there was going to be a notice and takedown. But this is not a part of the agreement.
4:30 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
It is not in the agreement.
So there would be a notice as is mentioned in Bill C-32.
4:30 p.m.
Director, Intellectual Property Trade Policy Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
It is a matter of providing information.
4:30 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Providing information, simply.
Is there a provision in the ACTA concerning digital locks or protection measures?
4:30 p.m.
Director, Intellectual Property Trade Policy Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Yes, there are certain provisions. I did not want to go into detail concerning the digital chapter, since this is discussed in Bill C-32. There are certain provisions concerning—
4:30 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
In fact, my question is the following. Are the provisions in the ACTA exactly the same as those in Bill C-32? We could review each one of the elements, but my question remains the same: are they exactly the same?
