Evidence of meeting #75 for International Trade in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was nafta.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Thank you for that clarification.
We're going to move over to the NDP now.
Ms. Ramsey, you have the floor for five minutes. Go ahead.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
This is tough. There are certainly good questions for all of you. I'll go to the dairy farmers first.
We hear you clearly that you must be kept out of NAFTA. I can assure you that from the NDP side of the House, we'll be defending that and your interests going forward.
We also see what just happened in CETA, wherein there was compensation promised. After one week, that is completely closed to farmers, so any opportunity they would have had for those funds to offset CETA is gone. I do not want to see the same thing happen in NAFTA, that we give up a portion, promise something, and then are unable to follow through and farmers again are hurt.
I represent a rural riding, so I have a passion. I have dairy farmers in my riding and I've heard clearly from them how concerned they are about NAFTA. I want to ask you to share with us what you expect in this next round, which is starting on Saturday here in Canada.
5:15 p.m.
President, Dairy Farmers of Canada
The position is always the same. The government wants to see no impact on the Dairy Farmers of Canada. That is what we expect. Of course, there is a lot of pressure from the Americans. President Trump says all sorts of things, but nothing that the Americans really want from the Canadian markets has been put on the table yet. Canada's position, which is defensive, is not to provide access to the markets. Although some states want to access the Canadian markets, most of them feel positive about the trade.
Ms. Bouchard, would you like to comment?
5:20 p.m.
Director, Communications and Government Relations, Dairy Farmers of Canada
Yes, I would.
When CETA was announced, if you remember, the government at the time said to prove to them that we are losing something and they might consider compensation.
During the TPP negotiation it became clear to the Canadian government that dairy farmers were actually having negative impacts from trade deals, so when the compensation package for TPP was announced, there was a portion for CETA. We were very pleased by that recognition.
Then the compensation for CETA was announced and now it is being put in place, I may say. The first phase actually took place and closed very fast, because obviously the farmers are very interested, but that was the first phase. There will be other opportunities, because the $250 million has been divided. There will thus be other opportunities.
The government acknowledged that the first phase was not a real success, so we're working with them right now—with Agriculture Canada and Mr. MacAulay's office—to correct the imperfections for the second phase so that farmers don't go through the same thing.
We think now that the Canadian government realizes that whenever they give access, there are impacts upon the farmers. For Dairy Farmers of Canada, the important thing for government is to ensure that there be no negative impact upon dairy farmers.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
Thank you.
Mr. Geist, there are so many things I could go through. I wonder whether you can touch on “notice and notice” versus “notice and take down” and their impact. There was a reference to this in the 18-page document that we saw from the U.S. about their priorities, but it wasn't mentioned from the Canadian government among our priorities.
Can you talk about that and about how exactly we can protect our digital copyright regulations?
5:20 p.m.
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Sure. What you're referring to is the system that was established in 2012, which actually had been in place in Canada for quite a number of years on an informal basis, that when there is an allegation of infringement, rights holders have the ability to send a notification to an Internet provider, who is then obligated to forward that notification to their subscriber. They don't disclose their personal information, so their privacy is protected.
At least in concept it was seen as an excellent way both to educate the public on copyright and when infringements take place and to preserve their privacy, as well as to encourage new business models to emerge.
The U.S. has adopted a different approach known as “notice and take down”. The problem with it is that it creates a system whereby millions of pieces of works may be taken down with no judicial oversight whatsoever. It's sometimes described as a “shoot first and aim later” approach whereby there are many allegations of infringement, content comes down, and nobody does any sort of oversight at all. The incentive is simply to remove it without any of that oversight.
The U.S. has pressured us in the past to adopt this. As part of the TPP, the Canadian government was anxious to ensure that notice and notice was preserved. We haven't seen the government make the same point of emphasis yet, although we're hopeful that they will continue with the notice and notice approach.
I should note, however, that notice and notice itself has been subject to some real problems, as it has been subject to widespread abuse. You may have heard from some of your own constituents who received these notifications, because rights holders have been using them to send along demands to settle. That was never envisioned as part of the system.
In fact, I did a piece just last week that noted that Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Navdeep Bains was notified in a memo as much as a year ago that this was not the intent and that this widespread abuse is taking place.
There is an easy fix for it. I would argue that the sooner we can get this fixed in Canada through regulations so that there is not that kind of misuse, the sooner we're in a position not only to preserve a good system but to make the case to the United States that, if anything, they ought to think about adopting notice and notice as a more effective and balanced approach to dealing with allegations of infringement.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
I have had constituents caught in that fraud and paid money to bodies that were demanding it from them. They couldn't legally force them to pay it, but people get that notice. They get afraid. A lot of the time it's seniors, and maybe their kids or grandkids have been on their laptop or on their iPad. All of a sudden they're being sent this, so they just go and pay it. It is a real concern for people who are having fraud committed on them.
5:25 p.m.
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
That is precisely what happens, and it's a bit difficult to understand, given that we've had this in place for two years and it can be easily remedied through regulation, why nothing has happened to date.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
Thank you, sir.
We're going to go to the last slot. The last MP is Mr. Peterson. You have the floor for five minutes, go ahead.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Kyle Peterson Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, everyone, for being with us this afternoon on our first day back in this session. Just before I start, I want to welcome our new members across the table here and pay a quick tribute to Mr. Ritz, who not only left the committee but actually left the House. We wish him well in his future endeavours. He was always a vociferous advocate of the positions he held, but we appreciated his contribution to the committee. I speak for myself, and perhaps everyone on the committee, when I say that it was a pleasure to work with him for the almost two years that we worked with him. I expect from our three new members just the same vigour that Mr. Ritz provided.
Back to the substance at hand here, I want to follow up with Professor Geist on the notice period. I know there's a merit to both systems. Each country has its own interests that it wants to protect. In an ideal world, how would you see a system working that would protect these interests but also allow for some fair use without being subject to fraud, and actually be a viable system in place that would reach all of the goals that it ought to reach?
5:25 p.m.
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I've been banging the table to get someone to let me write the Copyright Act for a long time.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
5:25 p.m.
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Right, so thank you for that.
On the issue of enforcement—ensuring that rights holders have effective tools to ensure their rights are respected—I actually think the government in 2012 did a good job of that. We have, for example, an enabler provision that allows rights holders to go after sites that enable and foster infringement. It's not widely found elsewhere.
Frankly, notice that's implemented appropriately represents the best of breed. A number of other countries have taken a look at it. One place where we fall short is on the issue of fair use. If you take a look at a lot of the innovation you see taking place, many of those U.S.-based companies and many of the U.S. creators rely on fair use. In Canada, we have a fair dealing provision, which has admittedly been interpreted in a broad manner but is not as flexible as that fair use provision.
To the extent to which part of what we're trying to achieve in NAFTA is a level playing field, so that Canadian businesses and creators can innovate in the same fashion as their counterparts in the United States, ensuring that we have that fair use approach is clearly one way to try to do that. In fact, it's worth noting that some of the most innovative economies around the world—I'm thinking of countries like South Korea, Singapore, and Israel—have in recent years adopted fair use, precisely because they see those kinds of advantages. We run the risk of falling behind if we don't have it, and NAFTA is an ideal mechanism to try to ensure that it gets implemented.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Kyle Peterson Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Thank you for that elaboration.
I was going follow up on something else, as well. I think we talk about the phrase “legitimate interest of users” when we talk about that balance. How would we determine that legitimate interest? Ought that to be part of a trade deal? Are there other ways to do that? Is it through regulations? What do you think is the best approach to that?
5:25 p.m.
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
We often talk about user rights, which is, I think, the reference you're making, and the Supreme Court of Canada has often talked about creator rights on the one hand and user rights on the other. We've done a pretty good job through the courts and then through the legislation itself in terms of trying to articulate that kind of balance. You read about court cases that sometimes go in one direction and sometimes in another.
We have a sense of how you try to strike that balance a little through the courts. I'm not sure that's the sort of thing you'd want to see in NAFTA, except to the extent to which you want to make it clear that striking a balance is a core part of what it means to have an intellectual property chapter. It's why there was discussion of having that included within the trans-Pacific partnership. It's the sort of thing we need within NAFTA to ensure that all countries, including Mexico of course, recognize that part of creating a modern, flexible, innovative IP system is respecting both creator rights and user rights. In other words, it's trying to ensure there's an appropriate balance.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Kyle Peterson Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Thank you for that.
I want to focus on our food and beverage witness. I'm a fan of both food and beverage, so it's nice to have you here. Thank you for being with us.
I think it's fair to say that NAFTA, as it stands now, is probably serving the interests of your organization fairly well.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Kyle Peterson Liberal Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Are you striving for status quo and that would be great, or are there improvements you'd like to see? If so, what would they be?
5:30 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer, Food and Beverage Ontario
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, clearly, we would like to see a continued thinning of the border, co-operation streamlined, particularly on food safety regulatory measures, and things like that.
Right now food can be held up. As I mentioned, food is perishable, generally speaking. You can find some overzealous border agents slowing down that transfer of goods across the border to the point where food is spoiled.
There's really no need for that, and sometimes it's a direct reflection of trying to thicken the border for trade protectionism.
We see there's a real opportunity through the trade co-operation council and another body at a higher level that drills down into some of the food safety assessment mechanisms and things like that, where we can sit down with our U.S. counterparts and agree on all these top-line items, particularly on low-risk food safety issues where it's streamlined, and it's automatic. That would improve the transfer of goods on both sides of the border.
I think there's a really important opportunity in NAFTA to see that whole regulatory process streamlined.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Mark Eyking
That wraps up our afternoon. I thank the witnesses for coming.
This panel alone shows how diverse trade is and how it impacts every citizen in this country in various ways. We really appreciate your coming. We're going to be presenting our report before December so we'll give you a copy. Thank you very much again.
Before I adjourn the meeting, I have to remind all MPs that we have a very heavy workload on Wednesday. We're going for three hours, we have nine witnesses, and we're going to have future business, so be here on time. Let's get our sleeves rolled up and we can get it done.
That adjourns the meeting for today.