Evidence of meeting #8 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was million.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Thank you, Ms. May.
I'll exhaust the comments from the members before I go to the officials.
Ms. Charlton.
December 4th, 2013 / 4:40 p.m.
NDP
Chris Charlton NDP Hamilton Mountain, ON
Thank you very much, Chair.
I kind of wish we had heard some testimony on this. We heard none, which isn't very helpful to me at this point. I know that some of the clauses in the bill would require that any wiretapping happened with the oversight of the courts. I expect that the court oversight would be balanced. By that, I mean that the courts would account for the exceptions under the Copyright Act in their deliberations. We also know that the Criminal Code already has safeguards in place to protect privacy, including reporting and notification requirements and a limit on the use of powers only as a last resort.
All of that being said, it's still not clear why this measure is required in the context of Bill C-8. No witnesses testified about this, either raising concerns or asking for those kinds of powers.
While those of us on this side of the table support Bill C-8, we do agree that this clause of the bill could have impacts beyond the scope of anything that was presented here at committee. For that reason, I'm going to be supporting amendment PV-1.
4:45 p.m.
Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Department of Industry
The amendment seeks to limit the tools available to the police who are investigating offences under the Copyright Act. As a result, the RCMP would be unable to seek judicial authority to conduct a wiretap as part of a criminal investigation involving the production of, for example, thousands of infringing DVDs, Blu-rays, or CDs for commercial distribution.
As indicated in earlier testimony before the committee by the RCMP, organized crime groups are diverse, and investigations normally involve many forms of contraband. The amendment would also create a differential treatment regarding the tools available for law enforcement investigations of copyright and trademark counterfeiting crimes.
Ms. May listed a number of the high crimes in the Criminal Code that are found in those provisions around wiretapping. I haven't done a formal count, but I think it's in the range of 150 to 200. Many of the provisions, which are quite close to the criminal provisions being created through Bill C-8 for copyright and trademarks, are already included in the Criminal Code, for example, forgery, theft, fraud, uttering or making counterfeit money, and smuggling. So there is an analogous set of offences that are in the act.
The proposal in Bill C-8 is effectively to add the two new criminal offences. I'll be clear that no civil offences are being added into the Criminal Code.
With regard to the issue of safeguards, which was raised, there are no new safeguards added in Bill C-8 regarding wiretapping. The safeguards are actually quite comprehensive and are already spelled out in the Criminal Code. There's no narrowing or expanding of wiretap provisions as a result of Bill C-8. In the act, we've established new criminal offences for trademark violation and, on the criminal side, for copyright, and in both cases, we're simply providing the RCMP with a warrant and sufficient evidence, with all of the safeguards in the Criminal Code in place, so that with a judge's concurrence they can seek a wiretap. This is undertaken in extraordinary circumstances. The RCMP reports publicly on the number of wiretaps it seeks. You can find that on Public Safety's web page. That's done in a very small percentage of overall investigations. I think the numbers range over the last five years from about just over 100 to the low 90s.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that.
I'm not suggesting that by inserting the new offences under Bill C-8 into the Criminal Code we've reduced the threshold for obtaining a wiretap, but what we've done is insert an offence that is at this point still vague. It could, on my reading, and also that of a number of lawyers who would like to have testified to the committee—taking Ms. Charlton's point—but weren't invited.
In particular I've been in touch with Howard Knopf of Perley-Robertson. He was involved as counsel in at least part of the Laurier Office Mart case, where a very minor offence, something like 332 dollars' worth of photocopying, ended in a costly court battle, particularly costly to the small family business that was involved.
Those kinds of offences could be caught under this provision to allow wiretapping.
I'd further submit that because government amendment G-7 has changed the threshold of mens rea to make it clearer that a person—and I think it was a good amendment. I thank the government members for bringing in G-7. But with the provision of G-7, to make it clear that a person actually has to have known that what they were doing was an offence, as opposed to knowing the particular sections of the act, and so on, we've reduced the threshold of mens rea. It even reduces further the need to treat this as a proper case for needing the investigative tool of wiretapping.
You would think English wasn't my first language, Mr. Chair.
I am a bit tired.
That said, I think this provision is one too many.
We don't need it. It inserts wiretapping opportunities where law enforcement won't need it, and the nature of offences could include very trivial offences, such as in the Laurier Office Mart case.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Seeing no other comments from members, Mr. Halucha, do you have anything additional to add?
4:50 p.m.
Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Department of Industry
No, sir.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
4:50 p.m.
Some hon. members
No.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Chris Charlton NDP Hamilton Mountain, ON
Can we deal with clause 59? We dealt with amendment PV-1, but we didn't deal with the clause as a whole.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Sure.
(Clause 59 agreed to)
(Clauses 60 to 62 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 63—Order in council)
We have amendment G-13.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Senior Analyst, Copyright and Trade-mark Policy Directorate, Department of Industry
This is a consequential amendment with respect to the civil amendment that was adopted. The contents originally from section 21 have a new home in section 22. We're just updating the reference from section 21 to section 22.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 63 as amended agreed to)
4:50 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:50 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:50 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Shall the committee order a reprint of the bill as amended for the use of the House at report stage?
4:50 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.
The meeting is adjourned.
