Evidence of meeting #141 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was authors.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
What you're saying is that the legislation isn't adequately protecting against foreign actors.
4:05 p.m.
Executive Officer, Intellectual Property Law Section, Canadian Bar Association
Yes, that's right, especially on the notice-and-notice issue.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON
I'm not going to have time for more.
I think I'll turn it back to you, Chair.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
Thank you very much.
We're going to move to Mr. Albas.
You have seven minutes.
4:10 p.m.
Dan Albas Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses today.
I'm just going to move a motion, so we can have a conversation on a very important subject. The motion reads:
That the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), undertake a study of no less than 4 meetings to investigate the impacts of the announced closure of the General Motors plant in Oshawa, and its impacts on the wider economy and province of Ontario.
I believe I can make that motion, Mr. Chair. Hopefully, you'll find it in order.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
Your motion is in order, and you are able to move it.
You have finished, so Mr. Carrie will have the floor.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
First of all, I want to thank my colleague and everyone around the table for the last week since we had this news in Oshawa about the General Motors plant. I sincerely want to thank everyone for their comments and for reaching out to me in order to help.
I want to apologize to the witnesses. I know this is a disruption, but this is a huge issue in my community.
I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister make a commitment that he does want to develop a plan. I know this committee. I've been in this committee in the past. It's one of the least partisan committees. I think that if there's something we could do, it behooves us to do it.
I think we heard about the 2,800 job losses in Oshawa, but when you take into account the spin-offs of these jobs—anywhere from seven to nine other jobs for each—it's somewhere around 20,000 total job losses in our community. To put that in perspective, it was announced that 3,600 jobs will be lost in the U.S., but the American economy is about 10 times bigger than ours, so it would be an equivalent of something along the lines of 200,000 jobs in the U.S. Then we heard that Mexico loses basically zero jobs.
I was very pleased to let the committee know that we were able to get down there with our leader Andrew Scheer within the first 24 hours. We met with the mayors and municipal leaders. We met with the leadership at GM and with business communities, and the most important thing we were able to do was get down to the gates.
The mayor, through me, mentions to my Liberal colleagues that if they could get the message to the Prime Minister, he really would welcome a phone call to determine the effects of this closure on our community, the impacts. That's what this study is all about.
The most important thing, as I said, is that we were actually at the gates. It was one of the hardest things to see workers who found out this news on a Sunday evening when they were eating dinner, that they wouldn't have a job in the future. They were going back into the plant for the first time, and one of the comments really stuck to me. It was from a worker; I'll call her C. She was a very young lady, 30 years old. She mentioned to me that she had been working there for six years and that it was a great job, a job that allowed her to put a roof over her head, feed her kids and have a future. This was something that was going to be taken away from her. When I found out that this was happening, I asked her what message I could bring back. She said, “Please fight for our jobs and do what you can.”
So when I found out about this motion towards committee here, studying the impacts.... I think it's fairly obvious to people around the table here that the impacts are not just workers like C., but the feeder plants. I was at one this weekend in Brockville, where I could just see the United States across the way. They're constantly getting attempts to poach them over there...jobs in the community, the restaurants, the retail outlets. There are also impacts with regard to R and D, the billions of dollars that the auto industry spends at our universities and colleges. It's our educational system, future knowledge. If we lose these industries, that knowledge goes away, as well as the jobs of the future.
I think everybody would agree that the impacts are huge. This plant was an award-winning, number one GM plant. If GM can't build a new vehicle or make the case for that in Canada, we have a problem. Having this study go forward, I think, would be helping the Prime Minister. When these companies make these investments, they are once-in-a-generation investments. This is not something that they do for three or four years, or even 10 years. This is decades of investment. I think that if we can really put a highlight on this now [Technical difficulty—Editor].
I think it was Donald Trump trying to interrupt the committee to get his word in here.
We've been listening to businesses talk about different policies that maybe we could look at, whether it's energy cost, steel and aluminum tariffs, regulatory changes, carbon taxes, things along these lines. However, one of the things we know is that Ray Tanguay was appointed the “auto czar”, and he came up with a plan. I think this is something we could take a look at in this study.
All Oshawa workers want is the opportunity to be able to bid on a new investment—a product, a job. In the past, whenever we've had this opportunity, we've been very resilient. We've been very innovative. We've actually won it when we've had the chance to compete. The hope here is that General Motors didn't say they were going to bulldoze the plant; they said there's no product allocation after 2019.
So there is hope, colleagues. Workers and community leaders in my community want to help the Prime Minister with his plan. He was in the House of Commons saying that he's working on it, but we need to start immediately. I don't know if I can tell you how urgent it is. We have to discover the impacts and develop a plan, because the clock is ticking.
With that, Mr. Chair, I want to thank you, and I want to thank our witnesses today for letting me speak up for my community at this very difficult time.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My heart goes out to the families and the workers of Oshawa. General Motors closed in my community after a hundred years of operations, to the exact year. Since 2002, I've been advocating in the House of Commons for a Canadian national auto policy, similar to the calls of the CAW, as well as other economists who have called for this.
Other nation states actually have a specific auto policy. In fact, a number of those states have now usurped Canada's position as the number two auto manufacturer and assembler to move us now to 10th in that model. We've shed tens of thousands of jobs in that tenure. In fact, we have slid so significantly that it has even affected our North American supply chain. That has been unfortunate, because one auto job equates to seven other jobs in the economy. This is the pain and suffering the member for Oshawa sees. My heart goes out to him and his community, because it's not just those who go to the plant every single day.
It's important to note that in a national auto strategy that we laid out with the late Jack Layton back in 2003—even David Suzuki was part of it—in terms of a green auto strategy, specific elements were taken from many other jurisdictions because of the transition. You have workers in Oshawa and other places who have quite literally been the best. They've been the best, as shown through the powertrain awards they've received for their work, and it hasn't been enough. That's one of the problems we're faced with in this industry.
The motion we have in front of us is reasonable in four meetings. In fact, if it could be more comprehensive, that's certainly something I would support. But it's important to note, Mr. Chair, that other countries, again, are still going forward with their policies.
Germany has a policy. South Korea has a policy. The United States has a series of trade barriers, and the most recent USMCA has a series of barriers related to investment. They actually cap our investment and they also create new taxes, which are part of the forthcoming agreement. That would be appropriate, because we are competing. I will note, as the member has noted, that the Ray Tanguay report was tabled in 2017—this is the auto czar. Unfortunately, we haven't seen action on that particular file yet. It's almost a year in the making. It will be a year in the making a month from now.
Time is of the essence. I can remember this debate going back as far as when I found the Liberal auto policy in a washroom here in the House of Commons. It's a true story. This is well articulated in the chamber. We called for one. We almost got one at one point. At that time, Minister Cannon for Paul Martin was ready to table a policy, but when he switched and crossed over to the Conservatives, he never followed through on that.
We still need to have some resolution to having an overall plan. This is the first step to having it. We have heard from the Prime Minister that there would be some interest in doing so. I would encourage us to do the four meetings that are necessary. I would also be prepared to meet additionally to that. I don't think this has to interrupt any of our committee business whatsoever. I would hope that the movers of the motion would accept that.
I'll conclude, so that we can get to our guests, but I think it's important to note that we have an opportunity to do this. We have the time available in our schedule if necessary. I would encourage all members to do so.
Thank you for your time.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
December 3rd, 2018 / 4:20 p.m.
Celina Caesar-Chavannes Whitby, Lib.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I do appreciate the opportunity to speak to this. Our hearts certainly go out to the people of Oshawa. I know that in Whitby there are many organizations that contribute to the ecosystem that is a part of the GM ecosystem much more broadly.
Mr. Chair, as the member for Oshawa has said, the news is hopeful; there has been no allocation of new product, but that can still change. The other alternative is that, if it actually does close down.... The member for Oshawa talked about developing a plan and having these four meetings to investigate the impacts be part of what is necessary to develop a plan.
I really believe that the educational institutions, business leaders, municipal governments, the workers, and people who are involved in the ecosystem should be able to lead the charge in coming up with this plan. They are closest to the source. They are closest to what the impact is going to be, so they really need to be a part of what that plan starts to look like and how it does take shape.
I know there are talks with the Prime Minister, as you noted, to make those phone calls. Again, a made-in-Ottawa solution for what is happening in Oshawa is not reasonable. It will require a long-term strategy to be able to ensure that we have the jobs of today and tomorrow. Those who are closest to the situation can come up with the best plan and the best assessment of what is happening in Oshawa and the surrounding area, the Durham region.
With that, I would move that we call the vote.
4:20 p.m.
Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC
Mr. Chair, we've heard quite eloquently from the member for Oshawa about the need for us to be with the community and to show some leadership in recognizing the wider economic benefit of that industry, not just in Oshawa but in this province and this country.
I am disappointed to hear that members opposite don't believe that we can be leaders in helping to foment that reaction so that the community can benefit from ongoing economic development.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
I just have a quick note for my colleague from Whitby. Respectfully, we did get a chance to meet with our business leaders and the educational leaders. I just want people around the table, before they vote, to know that they actually are willing to work with us. They are willing to get on a plane. They are willing to come here to make sure that we get something moving as soon as possible, but they are looking for some leadership.
There was some hope when the Prime Minister said he was committed to a plan, and they are right on board because we know that when we work together, we can be very resilient. Oshawa's had these bad announcements before. We've always gotten through it.
What they've asked me to do is see what we can do here in Ottawa. They've actually asked for that. Before the vote, just so you know, they will be there to help us.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
Thank you for your intervention.
Mr. Albas, you still have about three minutes left.
4:25 p.m.
Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to start with Mr. Katz.
Mr. Katz, you've written that South Africa's fair use rights should be a model for the world. Could you explain what their framework is and why you think other countries should copy it?
4:25 p.m.
Associate Professor and Innovation Chair, Electronic Commerce, University of Toronto, As an Individual
South Africa basically has followed something that the United States and Israel have been doing for many years. I argue that it has also been the law in Canada for many years, even though we don't really know that this is the law. We don't have such magic words in the fair dealing provision.
The point is that they would be moving into adopting fair dealing as an open, flexible, and general exception that could apply potentially to any purpose, subject to a criterion of fairness, as opposed to a system where by default, unless Parliament had contemplated a particular use in advance, it is unlawful unless the copyright owner agreed to do that.
The problem with the model that relies on specific exceptions and a closed list of exceptions is that it requires Parliament to have the magic ability to foresee things that happen in the future. When we're talking about innovation, by definition the nature of innovation is that there are things we don't think of as existing today. If innovators, in order to do what they're doing, need to get permission or go to Parliament and get Parliament to enact a specific exception to do that, very few innovators would do so, because if you are a true innovator, the limited amount of time, money, and effort you have, you want to put into your innovation. You don't have the money to hire or entertain lobbyists.
A system that relies on closed exceptions necessarily reflects the interests of the status quo and does not allow breathing room for true innovators. However, an open and flexible system gives true innovators an ability to at least have their day in court. They could come and say that what they're doing is actually fair. They could show the benefits, show why the harms do not exist or are exaggerated and why the benefits outweigh the harm.
They can do that. If they have a good case, they will prevail. If they don't, they won't. However, at least they have the opportunity of doing that. If what they have to do is convince Parliament to allow them to do that, they won't do it.
4:25 p.m.
Partner with McCarthy Tétrault and Adjunct Professor, Intellectual Property Law, Osgoode Hall Law School, As an Individual
Mr. Albas, could I spend two minutes just to provide some additional insight on that?
4:25 p.m.
Partner with McCarthy Tétrault and Adjunct Professor, Intellectual Property Law, Osgoode Hall Law School, As an Individual
Okay.
A famous U.S. lawyer who was very familiar with fair use in the United States, Lawrence Lessig, said that fair use in the United States is just the right to hire a lawyer, because there's a tremendous amount of uncertainly. Nobody knows until it's over how it's going to work. It creates a great amount of uncertainty and litigation.
We have experience with fair dealing in Canada, with lots of cases, and it is not working in Canada.
The other thing we need to really understand is that if we open up the purposes, the existing framework we have for assessing what's fair would apply, and our framework is far different from what's in the United States or elsewhere. In fact, it's probably way broader than in the United States. Thus, if we do that, we have to recognize that it will be the courts that will be making policy for Parliament, and lots of individuals will not be able to enforce their rights. There will be fights between large platforms with lots of money perpetuating the current imbalance that exists in Canada today between the small artist-creator and the big platform.
It would be a huge setback for creators in Canada should we adopt that.