Canadian Heritage Committee on Jan. 31st, 2011

[Edith St-Hilaire]

No, the provisions are not identical. When we negotiated the agreement, we worked very closely with Heritage Canada and Industry Canada to try to work out a base level. That is what is in the ACTA. It provides flexibility to all of the parties that were a part of the negotiation to implement the agreement in the way that is most appropriate to their domestic system.

In our case, we wanted to ensure that this will not have an impact on Bill C-32. This will allow the parliamentary process to go forward without having to consult the ACTA. It would be a basic level, and the internal process could go forward without being influenced by what is negotiated here.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

So it is exactly the same.

[Edith St-Hilaire]

It is not the same. It is more general, if I could put it that way, quite simply.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

It is less detailed.

[Edith St-Hilaire]

Yes.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

What will happen if we amend Bill C-32 in committee to improve it?

[Robert Ready]

I think the minister answered that question at a certain level of detail.

I could return to something that I mentioned in my introductory commentary.

We believe that the framework created in the ACTA is sufficiently broad to provide for the proposals that are currently in the legislative committee on Bill C-32, and sufficiently broad to address the different ways in which the various member countries of the ACTA grouping deal with some of these issues, which aren't the same across the membership.

We believe that a basic level of framework is provided by the ACTA, with scope for implementation in a Canadian context and in other countries.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much, Mr. Ready.

Merci, Madame Lavallée.

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you also to our witnesses.

First off I would like to talk about the consultation process. Mr. Ready, earlier you mentioned the process to consult federal departments. Moreover, the provinces were also invited to contribute, but we do not know in what way they were involved in all of this consultation process. And of course, depending on the agreement, there will be a profound impact on cultural industries.

In each of those cases, how were the consultations carried out?

[Robert Ready]

Thank you, Chairman.

To reiterate, the government held consultations in an on-line capacity with respect to the ACTA. The government held a number of round tables with interested parties, including probably some of the groups you have in mind.

The ACTA was the subject of a briefing in the C-Trade committee, which is a grouping of federal-provincial officials that my department uses for consultation with provincial officials. After some reticence on the part of some members, the text has been put in the public domain.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

When you talk about round tables, are you referring to a number of meetings with the same organizations? Or could it also just be one meeting with some of the groups? What role do the provinces play in this whole process?

[Robert Ready]

There were two round tables. I believe the names of the participants on those round tables are available on the website, in addition to their inputs. The provinces would have been briefed on a scheduled basis through this mechanism called C-Trade.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Does that mean that there was an actual consultation or that there would be a consultation only if the provinces were willing to answer some questions?

[Robert Ready]

From my perspective, it was real consultation, in the sense that information was provided and federal officials were there to receive feedback.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

All right. Thank you.

Ms. St-Hilaire, you talked earlier about the impact on ISPs. You said that there was now an obligation to disclose information. The first step is to ensure cooperation between ISPs. The second step is to impose an obligation on ISPs to provide the required information. Could you tell me what the penalties would be if they systematically refused to do so? What would the consequences be if they refused?

[Edith St-Hilaire]

I'm sorry, we'll have to take it under advisement.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

You are going to send your answer to the committee? Okay.

Has the department assessed the financial consequences, if any, for consumers? I am referring now to an area that is related, but a bit different. In international trade, we often enter into agreements without knowing what the costs and impacts are.

Were studies done before the negotiations to establish the consequences of the various directions the negotiations could take?

[Robert Ready]

The department hasn't done a specific study on that question related to the ACTA.

I would go back to the earlier information we provided. A number of international organizations, the OECD, and Canadian organizations have presented before other committees of Parliament information related to the scope and scale of illicit activity and some of the impacts that counterfeit drugs, counterfeit machinery, and so on, can have on Canadians.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much, Mr. Ready and Mr. Julian.

Mr. Armstrong.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

In the OECD report, in terms of culture, was there any threat posed to Canadian culture as a result of the illegal counterfeiting of products coming into Canada?

[Robert Ready]

There are no data that I'm aware of with respect to that particular question, although clearly if there are violations of copyright protection around the world, that has an impact on the producers of those materials.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

What was the actual motivation for these countries involved in this agreement in Tokyo? What was their actual motivation to engage in these negotiations in the first place?

[Robert Ready]

The motivation was that the evidence from international organizations was such that this is a significant and growing problem internationally. It doesn't just restrict itself to activities within the borders of one country; it manifests itself in terms of international trade and commerce and requires an international—at least in part—solution.

This was a group of countries that felt in a like-minded way that there were areas of enhanced enforcement cooperation, enhanced clarity around the types of legal frameworks that might be put in place to help combat this threat to Canadians at the end of the day.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

And during these negotiations what steps were put in place to ensure transparency when these negotiations were ongoing?

[Robert Ready]

As the minister indicated, Canada has always felt strongly about transparency in this kind of a process. We were subject to the consensus of the negotiating parties, and for some time this meant that there was no consensus to release negotiating texts until ideas had crystallized a little bit. The text was released by the parties and has been released subsequent times since the conclusion of the negotiation.

In a Canadian context, of course, there were the round tables and the online consultations that I indicated to Mr. Julian.