Evidence of meeting #7 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was amendments.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:10 p.m.
Senior Analyst, Copyright and Trade-mark Policy Directorate, Department of Industry
I believe you may be in the civil section and this is a criminal provision.
I want to verify.
5:10 p.m.
Senior Analyst, Copyright and Trade-mark Policy Directorate, Department of Industry
Those are the civil provisions.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I was just going to comment that, to my understanding, there was a strict liability clause, in that they had to have actually read the sections or knew the sections.
Is that correct?
5:10 p.m.
Senior Analyst, Copyright and Trade-mark Policy Directorate, Department of Industry
That's the idea.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
My understanding is that's been taken out so that it's a general intent mens rea under the Criminal Code, which is standard with all Criminal Code offences. There can be specific knowledge or general knowledge, the idea that somebody would know because they ought to have known, which is the clause that I think you referred to generally.
Is that fair to say—my analysis?
5:10 p.m.
Senior Analyst, Copyright and Trade-mark Policy Directorate, Department of Industry
Yes, I believe so.
The idea of section 19 and 20 is that they knew, not only that they were copying a mark and they didn't have authorization, but they also knew that it was going to be a civil infringement. So removing that....
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
In fact, it makes it much better for prosecution. Under the old law my understanding is that it was just about impossible to get any kind of finding of guilt because of the nature of the specific strict liability offence.
Is that fair to say?
5:10 p.m.
Senior Analyst, Copyright and Trade-mark Policy Directorate, Department of Industry
From the submissions we heard, yes that's true, as well as the current offences relating to fraud. It became very difficult.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
5:10 p.m.
An hon. member
I was going to say on division but we'll discuss it.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Holder Conservative London West, ON
Chair, I would like [Inaudible--Editor].
I'll carry the majority here.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
It threw me off with the Green Party weighing in with a G-7 there.
5:10 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
5:10 p.m.
Green
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Does G-7 carry?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
On G-8, then.
Mr. Lake, did you want to comment?
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
I'll again throw the ball to the officials and let them explain the technical aspects. This one is pretty technical and grammatical.
This is a very, very important change, right, Michael?
5:10 p.m.
Senior Analyst, Copyright and Trade-mark Policy Directorate, Department of Industry
They're all very important changes.
This language has been duplicated. The language as proposed by the amendment says, “has not consented to having the label or packaging bear the trademark”. We're ensuring consistency with the previous criminal offence relating to labels and packaging.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Shall G-8 carry?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 42 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 43)
We have NDP-6.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
I know that it is exactly the same as the provision proposed in amendment NDP-1. Mr. Halucha said earlier that it was already in Bill C-8. Yet a number of witnesses who were involved in the committee's study, including Mr. de Beer, a law professor, and Mr. Knopf, an intellectual property lawyer, told us that they consulted a number of intellectual property experts who expressed concern about the bill's vagueness when it came to parallel imports.
Those experts would like an amendment that states clearly that Bill C-8 will not target parallel imports. We added this so there would be no confusion in Bill C-8 between counterfeit products and parallel imports, which are legal.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
