Canadian Heritage Committee on Feb. 7th, 2011

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

It would be less embarrassing for Canada.

[Daniel Drapeau]

—if it's behind closed doors.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I find this shocking, that the international community said they're worried about Canada; they can't hurt our feelings. You've certainly done a good job of painting us as international pariahs, yet the global intellectual property index ranks us sixth out of 22 in terms of property, trademark, patent protection.

We're ranked fourth in the World Economic Forum. The recent February study to the USTR by major software competitors said that the ranking of Canada as an outlaw state was completely irresponsible. And it's not helpful.

You can come in and you can get everybody worked up, but the issue here is how we separate legitimate counterfeit issues from the fact that you set up a secret process that circumvents the WTO and sidesteps the WIPO treaty when this is where we deal with intellectual property.

Now you might say WIPO is not strong enough, but that has been, since 1996--and before that going back to the Berne Convention--how we do this. Now suddenly we have a whole separate deal. So we have a small, select club that is involved in ACTA. Who gets to join? Are we going to take this to WIPO and be WIPO-compliant, or does ACTA supercede the provisions that we've all agreed to internationally for WIPO?

That is where we deal with intellectual property. We deal with the other issues at the WTO. Now we have a whole different private setup among, what, six, seven, ten countries when the majority are outside of that. I don't see why that's of benefit to Canada.

[Daniel Drapeau]

Sorry, six, seven, ten countries? There are 27 countries. The EU is not just one country, but many countries.

I have issues with a number of points that you raise.

First is the characterization of what I've said on the secrecy issue. The whole process I think enables to arrive at a result.

On your comments about WIPO and the WTO, my question to you in return is, where is the WIPO or WTO treaty on anti-counterfeiting? There is none yet--

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Well, bring that forward.

But what you're doing is you're overriding the WIPO and WTO on the issues of copyright infringement.

Now the issue, for example, of ISP liability—

[Daniel Drapeau]

You focus on copyright infringement. I am telling you it is broader than copyright infringement.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

But you mentioned it was one of the key elements.

Now I'm interested in the issue of ISP liability, because you obviously think that our ISP liability isn't good enough. ACTA could deal with it; WIPO wouldn't.

But the issue here is that under the government, and the government has had their own legal opinions on the three strikes provision, which was one of the key elements that ACTA wanted, it wouldn't pass Canadian law--

[Daniel Drapeau]

The three strikes provision is not in ACTA--

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

It's not in it now; it was in previous drafts, because we managed to see the secret drafts. But it wouldn't pass Canadian law. So are you saying that our laws aren't good enough, that if we sign something at ACTA, we should then have to revise Canadian law because the ISP liabilities wouldn't meet that?

You're nodding.

[Daniel Drapeau]

You're certainly going to have to review the Trade-marks Act--

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

Go ahead, Mr. Drapeau.

[Daniel Drapeau]

You're certainly going to have to review the Trade-marks Act; you're going to have to review the Criminal Code.

As far as ISP.... And I'm happy that we raised the three strikes. Three strikes originated in France. When I first studied this, I told myself, “Well, we're a common law jurisdiction. Our British principle of each man's home is his castle would never allow three strikes.” Guess what? The British have it.

So I don't think that's really the issue. On top of that, it's not in the current version of ACTA.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you once again to our witnesses for their testimony. We appreciate—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

And put on the record, Mr. Chair, how much I respect you as a chair. I've always respected you, and I take back anything bad I ever said about you.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

My apologies for the mix-up. I apologize to Mr. Drapeau for the mix-up, but we appreciate your brief and your testimony.

We'll suspend for two minutes to allow the members of the public to leave, and we'll return in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

[Public proceedings resume]

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

We're back in public session.

Before we go on to the consideration of two motions, I just want to bring two items to committee members' attention. The first item I want to bring to your attention is that a bill has come to us from the House. It's Bill S-203, An Act respecting a National Philanthropy Day. It is sponsored by Mr. Warkentin, and we, as a committee, have to deal with it by May 31. So we have quite a bit of time, and if needed, we can always seek an extension. That's the first item I want to bring to members' attention.

The second item is that four orders in council have been given to us for four appointments. There are two appointments to the board of trustees of the Canadian Museum of Immigration; one appointment to the board of trustees of the Canadian Museum of Nature; and the reappointment of Kevin MacLeod as Canadian secretary to the Queen.

If members of the committee wish to review any of these four appointments, let the chair know and we'll figure out when we'll call those witnesses.

Those are the two points of information I draw to your attention.

We'll now go to the consideration of the notice of motion from Mr. Angus.

Mr. Angus, would you care to move your motion?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Yes, I'd like to move my motion forward and speak to the issue.

February 9 is the closing date for public comment on a change in regulations of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission in terms of the obligations of licence holders of television, radio, and specialty television networks in order to maintain accurate reporting. The actual wording is “not to disseminate false or misleading news”.

The CRTC was approached on this issue back in 2000 by the parliamentary regs committee. Now it's not the committee's function to say whether they like a regulation or not; it's to ensure that the language is clear enough and that it would meet any legal challenge. Nobody has ever challenged the CRTC regulations. In fact, in the CHOI-FM decision in 2005, in which the CRTC pulled the licence from CHOI-FM because of many of its outrageous comments, it was upheld in the Federal Court that the CRTC had a right to hold the licence holder accountable for its use of the airwaves in many belligerent and misleading manners.

The question that the regs committee put in 2000 to the CRTC was in light of the Supreme Court decision on Zundel that had struck down some language about the dissemination of false and misleading news. It had asked for clarification. This seems to have gone nowhere for the better part of 10 years.

It was raised again. Again, is the language clear enough? The CRTC seems to have come back with the words—and this is the change—“knowingly misleads and endangers human life”. The “endangers human life”, as part of the obligation of violating a licence, is new. The word “knowingly” would certainly change the criteria for licence holders because you would have to prove definite culpability of the licence holder, and that isn't in there at this time. And there is concern that it actually would be struck down by the court.

I brought this forward to committee not because we believe we want to second-guess the CRTC on every single decision it makes, but if we change the broadcast standards that we have in Canada, it could have profound implications, not only for the way news is covered but for the way we relate to our airwaves. I think it would be worth hearing from the CRTC and from some representatives from civil society in terms of the potential implications of such a regulatory change.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

Madame Lavallée.

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

As far as my colleague Charlie Angus’s motion is concerned, I would just like to point out that people are interpreting the CRTC proposal as making it possible to report news which although false is plausible. You have no idea, Mr. Chair, the plausible facts I could give about you even though I know them to be false. We have to look at the CRTC proposal and clarify it with them. Consequently, the Bloc Québécois will be supporting the NDP motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I have to be honest. It seems Mr. Angus indicated we don't want to review every decision the CRTC makes, but I'd argue that in minority politics, it seems we do want to review every decision the CRTC makes. That seems to be the new reality.

I'm also concerned that there seems to be an ongoing attack on free speech in this country. I'm not exactly sure where it comes from and I'm not exactly sure why. I'm concerned that's really what this motion is getting at. Some folks would indicate that you're presenting something as news that you know to be false, when really what you're presenting is your vantage point. People have varying vantage points on what is the news. In fact, I would argue that I could witness something and my take on what I witnessed might be somewhat different from that of each and every person around this table, but I would be providing true witness as to what I felt I saw. We all see things through a lens. I think that's what the CRTC is recognizing in this ruling.

I'm interested to hear what the Liberal Party has to say. We drag the CRTC before this committee quite often. We beat them up somewhat regularly, and I don't see this as something the committee needs to do. In fact, the committee is pretty busy. I've got some important things that I'd really love for us to do, but I do think that if it's the will of the committee to see it, I don't have a strong objection to it; I just look at it and think it smacks of an attack on free speech.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Del Mastro.

Mr. Rodriguez.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

I don't think it's a question of dragging them here all the time, and I understand where you're coming from. On the general principle, I agree with you. I don't think we should second-guess the CRTC, but in this case I'd like to hear them clarify the process and the decision. I'd like to hear from them on this one--just a meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Okay.

Mr. Angus.