Finance Committee on June 4th, 2015

[Jeffrey Astle]

I don't believe there has been a failing. I believe that the associations that represent lawyers, as well as the associations that represent the various law societies, have been consulted. There has been in-depth study. They've had the opportunity to provide their input. I believe the government has acted appropriately in putting protections in place now to protect the clients of those advisers in the appropriate manner.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

And yet, the Law Society of Upper Canada, which shared its concerns about these amendments, considers that this created a precedent. The fact that this accelerated process is foisted upon a committee that does not have the necessary expertise may lead to certain deplorable consequences. That is the opinion of the Law Society of Upper Canada.

[Jeffrey Astle]

I've had an opportunity to read the Law Society's letter. It reflects positions that were put forward in 2004, as well as in 2013. They're the same arguments that have been presented over the last decade. I don't believe it sets an appropriate precedent. In fact, it recognizes the need for legislative enactment to extend privilege in an appropriate manner.

If there are other situations where privilege should be extended, I'm sure a similar process of consultation and study will occur.

It protects the status quo to a certain extent. I don't think it necessarily sets a precedent, other than providing protection where a gap currently exists, which, I might add, protects the communications of lawyers with their clients, where there is a gap currently.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You have 30 seconds left.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

I am finished. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Côté.

We'll go to Mr. Van Kesteren, please.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for being here.

I'd like to go to the RCMP and maybe clear up some things so we have a better understanding of what this bill is going to do with regard to the dates that the long-gun registry was deleted.

You testified in your remarks that this was done in October 2012 for most of Canada and April 2015 in Quebec. Is that correct?

[D/Commr Peter Henschel]

That's correct.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

If we look at clause 230 of the bill, the date referred to is October 25, 2011, but if we look at clause 231 the date referred to is April 5. Could you explain to the committee the difference in the dates and why these provisions are necessary?

[D/Commr Peter Henschel]

I'm not in a position to explain that. As I said earlier, we were not involved or consulted in the drafting of this legislation. It would be inappropriate for me to provide any comments as to the reasons.

I think the dates are for the tabling and then the coming into force of the legislation, if I'm not mistaken, but I don't have any further comments.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Okay. Thank you.

We have heard that the NDP and the Liberals have made some allegations that the RCMP deleted data before the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act received royal assent. Would you comment on that?

[D/Commr Peter Henschel]

As I said in my opening comments, the actual data was deleted in October of 2012 following the approved implementation plan, which was, I guess, close to six months after the coming into force.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

All right.

Some have suggested that the information regarding the cost to delete the long-gun registry, or whether the long-gun registry was deleted at all, could be blocked from the release of this legislation. Do you feel that's accurate?

[D/Commr Peter Henschel]

Again, without getting into the technicalities of the legislation, my understanding is that it would require data that's in the registry to be deleted, or data that was part of the registry to be deleted.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Thank you.

Years ago I had the privilege of serving on the access to information, privacy, and ethics committee. At that time, the Privacy Commissioner stated that they were really short-staffed, that they were under an awful lot of pressure to release documents, and that's why some of these documents took so long to be released. I asked the question, where are most of these requests coming from? I'm leading up to something; you haven't been able to tell me a lot of things, but I'm just curious. And incidentally, that came from the prison system. Prisoners were spending lots of time asking for information from the Privacy Commissioner.

You spoke about a request, an information request, that you had received from Quebec, I believe. It involved those records from Quebec. Can you tell the committee where that request came from? Is that public knowledge?

[Rennie Marcoux]

I'll start by answering the first part of your question. Very few people in the RCMP or any other organization are actually authorized to know the identity of the person who submits an access to information or privacy request. In that sense, we're not sure exactly who submits the request, but generally, based on my knowledge of it, I would say a high percentage comes from the media in terms of access to information.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

It was just a curiosity question, I suppose. Thank you. That's all very helpful.

Mr. Astle, oftentimes we talk about the omnibus bills. This is just a question of curiosity as well. Why was this not done sooner? It's obviously something that was necessary. Other jurisdictions are actively moving in that direction, or have moved in that direction. Why wasn't this entrenched in law sooner?

[Jeffrey Astle]

I have asked that question myself. I think part of it is that it's a relatively nuanced subject. It's taken some time to discuss with officials and with members of Parliament, for example, to educate them on the issue and why it's important. It just takes a bit of time, I think, on some topics, such as intellectual property, to get people comfortable with the subject matter and have them understand fully the situation.

I think the amendments currently before us coincide with a great deal of effort that has been undertaken by our institute, for example, in the last year or more in pursuing this and seeking to raise the level of understanding. It coincides with efforts in other jurisdictions that are ongoing as well. The entire intellectual property community worldwide is working on this. It just happens to be now that it's taken root.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

How far behind were we from major countries like the United States and the European Union?

[Jeffrey Astle]

The enactments that have occurred in other countries have occurred sporadically over time. Some of the amendments in the U.K., I believe, were in the 1990s, and in Australia and New Zealand a little later.

The United States is currently studying this, because with the number of states involved and the complexity of their union, they need to understand it. I participated in consultations that occurred in Washington in the last couple of months. I have been actively working with other organizations on an international scale to try to push these forward. The protections are to the advantage of clients and those who wish to innovate and seek to protect their innovations.

So it's all good, and it's just a matter of trying to establish a net worldwide where one can rely on these protections.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Van Kesteren.

Mr. Adler, please, for your round.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Thank you, and witnesses, thank you all for being here today. We really appreciate your time and input.

I do want to ask my first question of the RCMP, and then I want to go on to Mr. Astle. I want to further pursue privilege with you.

Let me put my first question to the RCMP. There is some concern that the long-gun registry was used by the RCMP members in High River to seize more guns. I have read the audit of the destruction of the data, and I have read the Civilian Review and Complaint Commission's report into the incident.

I'm satisfied that the long-gun registry was deleted as advertised. However, if information came to light that someone had illegally obtained and used gun registry data to seize firearms, would the legislation before us today stop them from facing the consequences?

[D/Commr Peter Henschel]

To start with, yes, I can confirm that the data was deleted, and it is not available. As far as the legislation that's before you is concerned, I think to provide a response on that would probably require our colleagues at Justice to give you that answer. But I can assure you that the data is gone and is not available.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Astle, small business is crucial to Canada's long-term prosperity, and Canadian families depend on the jobs they create and the services they provide.

That is why our government has been continuing to foster an environment for small business to grow and prosper. In fact, we've reduced red tape for small business, and we're in the process of lowering the tax rate from 11% to 9% over the next four years. We provided more assistance to small business. We have lowered EI premiums. We've frozen them. We've provided financing for small business with the small business job credit.

Could you please comment on how privilege, more specifically privilege contained within this legislation, will help small business prosper.

[Jeffrey Astle]

From my perspective a smaller business is more likely to have a single patent they are relying upon to protect the innovation that's securing their future. It's important that whatever protection the small business has sought to obtain is going to be effective and not be undermined by the very discussions that were necessary to seek the advice to get that patent in the first place.

Those small businesses will need to seek advice from their advisers here in Canada and should be given the same degree of protection they would be given in another jurisdiction in similar circumstances. So I think it would be helpful to small businesses.