Industry Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Then we'll just go to the officials. I don't see any other comments.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

I thought I'd take that away from Mike.

[Michael Ryan]

The distinction with the previous one, with respect to filing an RFA and actual litigation, is that during litigation this amendment seeks to explicitly include a reference to frivolous or vexatious litigation and grounds for compensation.

As it stands right now, with respect to federal court rules or various provincial court rules, there are explicit references to this type of litigation and ways of dismissing these actions through pleadings, statements of claim, extra security for costs, or, in the end, punitive damages or heightened attorney fees. Costs could be awarded at the end of a decision that's been decided to be vexatious or frivolous or done in bad faith. In that context, the objective of the amendment is fully covered within the federal or provincial court's rules of civil procedure.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you very much, Mr. Ryan.

Are there any other questions or comments?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

We have NDP-4.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

As you'll recall, we had asked a number of witnesses, including the minister, whether there was information available on the number of detainments, which this bill was trying to deal with. And we had heard from witnesses that in fact there is no number right now about how many Canadian manufacturers have been convicted of importing or exporting counterfeit goods and that, on the whole, while we have estimates about the magnitude of the problem, we don't have any certainty.

In fact, when Mr. Thibeault asked Superintendent Slinn for those numbers, he said he didn't have them with him but that he'd send us a written response. You'll recall that he did send that response to the committee, and it says: The RCMP information systems do not capture or track a sufficient level of details in order to provide the number of Canadian manufacturers convicted of importing or exporting counterfeit goods.

As a result of that, we feel pretty strongly that there has to be some kind of mechanism to evaluate the effectiveness of this bill and to see whether we're actually achieving what all of us around this table hope to achieve. As a result, our amendment would require an annual report to Parliament with information on detainments made under the scheme. In particular, we're looking for the number of detainments made under section 101 of the Customs Act for works or goods, and of those, the numbers that could have health and safety implications; the number of requests for assistance for copyright and trademark; the number of requests for assistance that are extended for copyright and trademark on a one-time basis, and repeatedly; and the number of inspections conducted.

I think all of us who take this issue of counterfeit goods coming into Canada seriously need to know (a) the extent of the problem, and (b) whether this bill is as effective as we all hope it will be. If not, give us the opportunity to come back and see if we can strengthen it either through better enforcement or perhaps through amendments to the bill. The only way we can do that is if we get some actual accounting of the magnitude.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Mr. Lake.

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

It's my understanding that there are mechanisms that already exist for reporting, and maybe I'd just ask the officials about that.

[Megan Imrie]

Thank you.

Yes, there are mechanisms currently that would allow departments to report annually on their activities. CBSA, as part of the Public Safety portfolio, would consider the implementation of this bill as part of that regular annual reporting. Therefore, it wouldn't be a requirement to include this in this legislation.

That being said, we will ensure that the points you have mentioned are...so that we having good tracking of the number of requests for assistance, for instance; the numbers that are extended; and the length of detention. Those would definitely be important pieces of data that we would want to ensure are tracked for the efficiency of the implementation of the RFA process.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Ms. LeBlanc, you have the floor. Let me welcome you once again.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Thank you.

I support amendment NDP-4 introduced by Ms. Charlton.

During the study of Bill C-56, we noted that it was very difficult to understand the scope of counterfeit products, be it in Canada, the United States or anywhere else in the world. We also wondered whether this kind of bill was necessary. We thought so, but we had no solid evidence. Today, we want to ensure that we especially take into account counterfeit products that endanger people's health and safety.

I think an annual report to Parliament is important so that parliamentarians are truly informed as to the effectiveness of measures in place. As well, detailed data will help us have a better sense of the effectiveness of the measures in place and help us determine whether the problem is growing or diminishing.

That is why I wanted to add my voice in support of this NDP proposal.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

We have two more on the speakers list and then we'll go to the officials.

Madam Sgro.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Again to the staff, you indicated there are mechanisms to report yet no one knows how many cases we're going to see, or we've seen in the past, in spite of the fact that we were told there has been an increase of over 400% in counterfeiting. So what are the mechanisms? Somebody is tracking these cases or we wouldn't be sitting here dealing with Bill C-8 today.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I'm going to allow you to answer all at once.

Madam Charlton.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you. I appreciate your comments about the information already being collected and a number of different ministries doing bits and pieces of that collection of data.

If that's already being done, though, what's the barrier about actually reporting it out to Parliament as one source? I'm not understanding. It doesn't sound like it's a make-work project if it already exists. Perhaps that's not a fair question to you because you say it's being collected. Perhaps it's a question to the government, but if the information exists and will be collected, why not make it easily available, not just to parliamentarians, but to Canadians?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Ms. Imrie.

[Megan Imrie]

I'll clarify my comment earlier. There are mechanisms that exist to report to Parliament annually on departmental operations. We would incorporate that reporting on the operationalization of IPR as part of that mechanism, the annual report to Parliament. It wasn't suggesting that there's currently reporting on IP by CBSA, because we don't have this bill in place yet.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

So then, it would be desirable to have that as a result of this bill, and it's not impossible to do, right? It then becomes a political question: is the government willing to make it public through the House? That's not a fair question to you. That would be a question to Mr. Lake, and I guess we'll find the answer out by how he votes on this. You can't get anything past me.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Any other questions or comments?

Shall NDP-4 carry?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I just noticed that NDP-1 to NDP-4 are pretty much the same amendments as NDP-6 to NDP-9, which modify the Trade-marks Act in the same way. Would the NDP members be willing to apply the votes for 1, 2, 3, and 4 to 6, 7, 8, and 9 in the interest of saving time and not making the same arguments over again?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Sorry, NDP-7 is not the same. It's definitely not the same.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Are we talking about the same clause here?

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Let's just go through them one at a time.

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

So you're saying NDP-7 and NDP-2 aren't the same?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

We've exhausted all the amendments.