Evidence of meeting #3 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cusma.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Lawrence Herman  Counsel, Herman and Associates, As an Individual
Matthew Poirier  Director of Policy, Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters
David Cassidy  President, Unifor Local 444
Jonathon Azzopardi  Director, International Affairs, Laval Tool & Mold Ltd., and past Chairman, Canadian Association of Mold Makers
Roger Boivin  President, Groupe Performance Stratégique
Scott D. Smith  Manager, Honey Bee Manufacturing Ltd.
Mark Nantais  President, Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association
Jennifer Mitchell  President, Red Brick Songs, Casablanca Media Publishing
Casey Chisick  Legal Counsel, CMRRA-SODRAC Inc. (CSI)
Steve Verheul  Chief Negotiator and Assistant Deputy Minister, Trade Policy and Negotiations, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Nolan Wiebe  Senior Trade Policy Officer, Information Technologies, Global Affairs Canada
Robert Brookfield  Director General, Trade Law (Deputy Legal Adviser), Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Aaron Fowler  Chief Agriculture Negotiator and Director General, Trade Agreements and Negotiations, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Loris Mirella  Director, Intellectual Property Trade Policy, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Luc Boivin  Owner, Fromagerie Boivin
Bruno Letendre  Chair, Les Producteurs de lait du Québec
Michael Geist  Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
François Dumontier  Director, Communications, Public Affairs and Trade Union Life, Les Producteurs de lait du Québec

10:50 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Sherry Romanado

Our next round of questions goes to Mr. Erskine-Smith.

10:50 a.m.

Liberal

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON

Thanks very much.

We have Professor Geist in the next panel, and because much of the work that we're doing at this committee focuses on copyright extension, I wanted to quote Mr. Geist, who said, “The additional 20 years of protection beyond the international standard found in the Berne Convention will be costly for Canadians with little discernible benefit.”

I'm curious. Why are we committed to extending the copyright term for 20 years? Is this something that we put on the table, or something that we accepted because of the totality of the agreement?

10:50 a.m.

Loris Mirella Director, Intellectual Property Trade Policy, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development

Good morning.

That's the outcome of the negotiations. It's part of the negotiations of the whole agreement.

10:50 a.m.

Liberal

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON

That's fair. I take that to mean that's not something we put on the table, but something we accepted because broadly or overall, the agreement is in our benefit. While this provision may not well be, it's still worth it.

I have a very specific question and it's just because a previous witness pointed this out. In BillC-4, to amend proposed subsection 6.2(2) of the Copyright Act, there's a reference to 50 years, which is inconsistent with the other dates that I see throughout C-4. I'm curious. Is that reference to 50 years supposed to be 70 years, or is it to be 50 years?

10:50 a.m.

Director, Intellectual Property Trade Policy, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development

Loris Mirella

Sorry, could you repeat that clause you referred to?

10:50 a.m.

Liberal

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON

Proposed subsection 6.2(2), “Identity of author commonly known”, includes a reference to the remainder of the calendar year in which that author dies and a period of 50 years following the end of that calendar year.

One of the witnesses suggested that that should be 70 years. We're tasked with putting forward recommendations. I know we're pretty limited in what we can do, but that struck me as a little bit inconsistent with the rest of the document.

10:50 a.m.

Director, Intellectual Property Trade Policy, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development

Loris Mirella

As far as I know, that relates to anonymous and pseudonymous authors. We're trying to make it so it's 70 years.

10:50 a.m.

Liberal

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON

Yes, but in Bill C-4 we've got 50 years cited in proposed subsection 6.2(2).

You don't need to answer now. Some clarity on that would be useful.

With respect to the Criminal Code provision, I'm just curious why this provision in the Criminal Code is necessary. What does it cover that wasn't there previously?

10:50 a.m.

Director General, Trade Law (Deputy Legal Adviser), Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development

Robert Brookfield

Presently the Canadian law does not criminalize theft of trade secrets. It's done by common law or by provinces.

10:50 a.m.

Liberal

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON

I wasn't meaning the theft of trade secrets. The new provision is in relation to “removes or alters any rights management information”. I'm just curious about why that is necessary in the Criminal Code versus where we already see it elsewhere in the law.

10:50 a.m.

Director, Intellectual Property Trade Policy, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development

Loris Mirella

The treaty requires that we have criminal provisions for rights management information, and then it's up to you—

10:50 a.m.

Liberal

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON

Fair enough.

10:50 a.m.

Director, Intellectual Property Trade Policy, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development

Loris Mirella

—the government, to decide where best to situate how to meet that obligation.

10:50 a.m.

Liberal

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON

I understand.

Turning to chapter 19, Ms. Rempel Garner has canvassed data localization concerns, although I note that we can restrict cross-border data flows if it's in the public interest to do so. We may not have data localization rules per se, but we can have some sort of adequacy standard in the same way that the EU does.

I want to turn to the safe harbour provisions, though. In the last parliament, we looked at the liability potentially attaching to the Facebooks and the Googles of the world going forward, and not only as creators. The agreement says, “except to the extent the supplier or user has, in whole or in part, created, or developed the information.”

So we know Facebook and Google don't create or develop this information. They are hosts, but they use their algorithm to encourage the dissemination of that content, and I'm curious to what extent the safe harbour rules in 19.17 would restrict our ability to make these companies liable for increasing the visibility and views of content through their algorithms.

10:50 a.m.

Senior Trade Policy Officer, Information Technologies, Global Affairs Canada

Nolan Wiebe

This particular article would not affect the ability of Canada to address those types of situations where, as you mentioned, through those companies' use of algorithms, they may in fact have a process in creating the content.

10:55 a.m.

Liberal

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON

Not creating the content, though, but promoting the content. Those are two very different things.

10:55 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Sherry Romanado

I'm sorry, Mr. Erskine-Smith, that's your time.

Our next round of questions goes to Ms. Jaczek.

February 24th, 2020 / 10:55 a.m.

Liberal

Helena Jaczek Liberal Markham—Stouffville, ON

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the team, and I would even say congratulations. Prior to my election, I was watching and observing this, and I'm really pleased that we're at this place now that we're looking at Bill C-4.

I've been listening intently this morning and even during question period.

One of the areas of concern that Monsieur Lemire has been probing extensively is the whole area of the aluminum industry in Quebec. We heard this morning that there are really severe concern about the competitiveness of that industry going forward. SMEs are concerned, so I would just like to hear a little bit more about the engagement that occurred with the players and stakeholders in that industry. I know you were able to achieve perhaps more than what was there before, but could you reassure us a little bit more as to how you see this going forward?

10:55 a.m.

Chief Negotiator and Assistant Deputy Minister, Trade Policy and Negotiations, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development

Steve Verheul

Certainly, and I think the aluminum issue is one that has become a bit distorted in some of the discussion.

As I mentioned before, we did issue a new requirement that doesn't exist now, that 70% of purchases by manufacturers of aluminum be of North American origin. On top of that, we have much more North American content required according to the rules of origin for autos, so there's much less room to use foreign inputs than there has been in the past, which is also going to create significantly more of an incentive to purchase aluminum from North American sources.

With respect to the difference between steel and aluminum, after seven years steel will be treated somewhat differently because of its melted-and-poured requirement. That requirement will not apply to aluminum. There's a 10-year review of aluminum to see whether it requires a similar type of process. We have already had discussions with the U.S., and with Mexico, to talk about how, if there is a pattern of aluminum imports into North America from China or from other countries undercutting the North American market, we will have the opportunity to revisit that issue and see whether aluminum does require the same treatment as steel.

There's no requirement for us to wait the 10 years to address that issue. We can address it as soon as we start to see a problem.

10:55 a.m.

Liberal

Helena Jaczek Liberal Markham—Stouffville, ON

This morning there was some question around RVC, regional value content. Could you just explain a little bit more how that is measured, and how we ensure the accuracy of that type of measurement?

10:55 a.m.

Chief Negotiator and Assistant Deputy Minister, Trade Policy and Negotiations, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development

Steve Verheul

Regional value content is the percentage of North American-sourced materials that have to go into a particular auto that's being manufactured. That applies to every part that's coming up that is part of the auto. Currently you have to meet a regional value content of 62.5%, which rises to 75% under the new agreement.

The new agreement also introduces a new element for core parts: engines, transmissions, axles, and those kinds of things. They also require 75%, which doesn't exist now. There's also of course the steel and aluminum requirement that we've discussed, and there's the labour value content, which we also discussed.

All of that feeds into the kind of content requirements that will be required for the manufacturer of autos, which include an overall emphasis on greater North American content.

10:55 a.m.

Liberal

Helena Jaczek Liberal Markham—Stouffville, ON

So, there will be an overall improvement.

If I have some time left, there's just one thing. As a physician, I'm always interested in the price of drugs for Canadians. Could you just explain a little bit more what occurred in the agreement relating to drug prices, patent protection, and so on?

10:55 a.m.

Director, Intellectual Property Trade Policy, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development

Loris Mirella

As you know, there was a negotiated outcome and then there was a change in some of those elements, including those related to biologic drugs. That obligation was removed from the agreement so Canada can continue to carry out its policy in that area.

There's nothing specifically related to cost as such, but if there's any provision that prevents the entry of generic versions of drugs, that would have a potential impact on drug costs in the future. With the removal of that provision, the only other change that needs to be made to Canada's regime is in respect of the patent term adjustment for delays in the processing of a patent application by a patent office.

11 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Sherry Romanado

Unfortunately, that is all the time we have for today.

I would like to thank everyone for coming. Thank you very much for your excellent testimony.

We will suspend so that we can prepare for the next panel.

Thank you.

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Sherry Romanado

I will call the meeting to order.

Welcome to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. Today, we are studying clauses 22 to 28 and 108 to 122 of Bill C-4.

Today we have with us Professor Michael Geist, Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law at the faculty of law at the University of Ottawa.

Joining us are Bruno Letendre, the chair of Les Producteurs de lait du Québec; François Dumontier, its director of communications, public affairs and trade union life; and Luc Boivin, the owner of Fromagerie Boivin.

Welcome to all of you.

We will start with presentations of 10 minutes by each group, followed by questions for each. We have three groups today instead of four at this panel, so we have a little more time for the witnesses.

If you see the yellow card, that means you have 30 seconds left.

We'll start with Luc Boivin, the owner of Fromagerie Boivin.

Welcome, Mr. Boivin.