Industry Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2013

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Thank you.

[Paul Halucha]

Just to make it clear, it would be permitted under the act.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Does G-1 carry?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The next is BQ-1.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Witnesses and experts who appeared before this committee said that they were afraid that Bill C-8 would have some unexpected negative consequences. For instance, one major consequence we can see is an unfair financial burden being imposed.

That is exactly what could happen as a result of subclause 44.07(1). In those specific cases, the charges for storing, handling and, if applicable, destroying the samples could fall on the shoulders of a victim whose copyright has been stolen, rather than on the shoulders of the importer of the goods in question.

A witness from Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters said: “We believe that the importers should be responsible for these costs, since they are the ones introducing these goods...”.

That is why I suggest replacing “The owner of copyright” with “The importer” in that subclause.

Since I unfortunately cannot discuss that with you, I hope you see my point of view.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Plamondon.

Ms. Quach, you have the floor.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I understand my colleague's concerns. However, I think the rights holders, not the importers, receive all the information about the products, whether or not they are counterfeit. They are the ones who get the information. The importer is often a small business. If Mr. Plamondon's amendment were passed, the burden would fall again on the shoulders of small and medium-sized businesses, although they do not have access to the information that would be disclosed to border services officers.

Having said that, the experts here can correct me if they need to.

[Megan Imrie]

May I answer in English?

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

We have simultaneous interpretation.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

It will be translated.

[Megan Imrie]

Great. Thank you.

I have a couple of points, and my colleague may have more to add. It's similar to our conversation previously.

In the cases of suspected goods, they are not necessarily infringing goods, so there is a process of determining through the court whether what is being imported is actually infringing. With regard to putting the onus on the importer, as we discussed earlier, it may be determined through the courts that they are not actually infringing goods. I think that's an important point.

The other point is that the rights holders are currently not responsible for the storage and destruction costs of suspected goods that are the subject of a criminal investigation. Likewise, if Health Canada is conducting an investigation, the costs for those are not assumed by the rights holders. That does mitigate the costs for the rights holder.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Could you slow down a little, please? The interpreters are having trouble following you.

[Megan Imrie]

Okay, I am sorry.

Finally, at the end of the civil court action, rights-holder costs will typically be included, as I mentioned, in the final court judgment.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Do you want to add to that?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I'm going to go back to the officials for one last word on this. I don't really have anything to add. You can sense where this is going, given where we've been on the previous ones.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I don't know. I think we just asked if there was anything else to add here.

Shall BQ-1 carry?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

G-2.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I think G-2 and G-3 are both really technical amendments. To save time, if you guys are okay with it, I'll have the official speak to both of them at the same time right now.

[Michael Ryan, Senior Analyst, Copyright and Trade-mark Policy Directorate, Department of Industry]

Thank you.

With respect to G-2, it seeks to amend a provision that allows the owner, importer, or exporter to pay security to the court after an action has been initiated to have the goods released. A court would determine on what security or conditions those goods could be released. It provides a balance to allow that they may be maintained. But a person who is interested, the owner of the goods, may seek the court's direction on getting them released pursuant to a payment of security. That's with respect to G-2.

G-3 is a clarification on a safeguard. If litigation proceeds, and if it is ultimately dismissed, it is not an infringing good. Not only is the owner, importer, or consignee able to recover damages for what was determined to be inappropriate seizure or detention, G-3 also adds reference to the exporter, since exporters can also have their goods detained, pursuant to Bill C-8.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

This sounds very similar to the Woodmen's Lien Act in Alberta, and other acts where a dispute about a product is available and people can put up a bond, in essence, in relation to this. It's very common in many pieces of legislation across the country. Is that fair to say?

[Michael Ryan]

I believe so, yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Are there any other comments on G-2 or G-3?

Shall G-2 and G-3 carry?

(Amendments agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

NDP-3 is essentially the same as NDP-2, unless someone wants to make a case for that.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

I'll definitely make a case for it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Thibeault, you're allowed to do that, then.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm being hopeful and optimistic that my friends across the way will be loving with this amendment.

I know it's similar to my previous amendment, but I think this addresses the cost that may be borne by small businesses for the wrongful or mistaken detention of goods. As it's currently written, Bill C-8 contains a no-liability provision for the crown and provides for the damages against rights-holders in cases where court proceedings are dismissed or discontinued.

In attempting to strike a balance between consumer and industry interests, I think Bill C-8 places the cost of detaining suspect goods on the rights-holders. However, as we heard during the testimony of Dr. Geist, C-8 is clearly lacking a misuse provision to ensure that actors are not engaging in frivolous claims as a means of acting anti-competitively.

I could speak to it further but I'd like to hear from the officials.

Thank you.