Public Safety Committee on March 29th, 2007

[Brian Isaac]

Yes. In fact, that was one of the examples I was going to give, but I ran out of time. I'm always too long.

This is the case where a pharmacist was selling what turned out to be counterfeit blood pressure medication that has been linked by a coroner.... I don't think he could prove beyond a reasonable doubt, but he couldn't discount that it actually caused four deaths. There were eleven suspicious deaths that were involved in that scenario.

The matter went to trial, and the decision came down last month, and in fact the pharmacist was acquitted. The judge found that the prosecutor had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt the requisite mens rea. The bottom line of what the judge said was, “You didn't prove that he knew that it was counterfeit.” These were charges brought under the trademark provisions of the Criminal Code, which have almost a double onus on trying to prove the mens rea, making it such that you have to prove fraud.

That's an example, I think, of a bad decision, because the evidence put forward established that the story, on which the judge found there was a reasonable doubt, was in essence that the pharmacist had bought the products out the back of a white van from a guy who had identified himself as a distributor. Not only that, but the customers of the pharmacist had come back and said, “These don't look like our regular pills. Is there a problem?” He had assured them there wasn't.

The guy is free right now.

[Graham Henderson]

I might add that the chief coroner for Ontario made a number of formal recommendations following that case, one of which was that the current resources allocated to the elimination of counterfeit medication should be reviewed, and number two, that existing statutes and regulations regarding counterfeit medications should be reviewed, taking into account “emerging trends in criminal methodology” and “enforcement strategies that have proven effective in other jurisdictions”. This is getting people's attention.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Great. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. Isaac, could we get a copy of that decision—the coroner's report and the other?

[Brian Isaac]

Yes, I'll try to get it--of the coroner's report, are you saying, or of the court decision?

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

There was a court case you're referring to. Can we get a copy of that?

[Brian Isaac]

Yes, we will get you a copy. I'm not sure whether it's available right now. It sometimes takes some time for transcription, but we will get it, and as soon as we do, we will forward it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

It'll take us a little time to prepare a report anyway.

Is there anyone else?

I personally feel that I am undereducated. I don't know that I would recognize counterfeit goods. At the last meeting, I talked about the contact glue I bought, and it was as good as cornstarch. I don't know how you would recognize this before making the purchase and going home. That, to me, is a challenge.

[Graham Henderson]

[Inaudible--Editor]...it's probably too good a bargain. That's one way.

[Doug Geralde]

Yes, that's what we tell consumers. Canadians want to do what's right; we know that, and we know how highly motivated they are. Everybody's looking for a bargain, but we're telling them that if the price is too low—and we know fair market value—chances are there has to be something shortchanged in it, so the counterfeit is there.

There are techniques that we teach, as we let the information go out. There are spelling mistakes. There are things we're teaching the media about what consumers should look at.

I think the first area is building your awareness, just the process we're going through here, and then we start to give you tips. And we're trying to get everybody—the retailers, everybody—involved in educating and being aware of it. That will help.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Okay. Thank you very much.

I guess we're going to wrap up.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Can I just make...? One thing is, MPs of all parties have tools of communication with their constituents. We can put little things—tips about counterfeit goods—in our householders. Please try to get something to us. I certainly would consider it, and I think my colleagues around this table would. It's a safety issue, and that, as far as I'm concerned, doesn't have a party label on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Right.

I want to really thank you. We have some other business that we have to get to now, but I want to thank you all very much. I just hope those who receive our report will realize the urgency and seriousness of the counterfeiting problem in Canada.

Your information has been invaluable. Thank you very much.

We are going to suspend for a few moments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Let's reconvene here.

We're now going into planning of future business.

Somebody was supposed to tell Mr. Comartin to come.

[A voice]

He was here a minute ago.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

I received his motion first. It's the same motion as yours, but as a courtesy, he had it in first, so--

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

We were going to do it jointly. What happened is there is no technical way to do it jointly, so we just duplicated it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

All right. Mr. Comartin, we were just about to deal with the motion you have put before the committee. Are you prepared at this point to put it forward and make comments?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Yes, I am.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

We are not in camera, to answer your question, Ms. Barnes.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I just want to be very clear that I got mine in first, but Ms. Barnes has a similar one. We have been discussing this. Our procedure doesn't allow us to do a joint motion, but that was certainly our intent. We both feel strongly that this is a joint effort, and one that we should be pursuing.

Mr. Chair, perhaps for those who have not noticed what has gone on in the last few days, the Globe and Mail, in a series of articles, has raised a case in British Columbia affecting the witness protection program, the act, and the conduct really of the RCMP with regard to this specific case, which, in addition to the notoriety, can arguably be said to have put into question the manner in which the witness protection program has been used. The article basically set out a case of an individual who had manipulated the RCMP into believing that he in fact was an informant. They moved him up from an informant to a paid agent, and then they put him into the witness protection program, in spite of the fact that at the time he went into the witness protection program, or shortly thereafter, it became obvious that he had grossly misled the RCMP.

That alone would have given us a great deal of concern. What subsequently happened is this individual, while in the witness protection program, committed at least one murder and perhaps more. That part of it is not clear at this point. It really does call into question how the program is being used.

There was a second case a year or two ago, or maybe longer, in the province of Quebec. This involved an informant in the biker wars that went on there. It was a similar situation, where the individual, after being placed in the witness protection program, again under a shadow, I'll say, committed some violent crimes.

The motion basically is that as a committee we need to take a look at this, with regard to whether the act is being abused, but also--perhaps in terms of our role, more importantly--whether there are amendments that are required to the act in order to allow for its use more properly than what these two cases would seem to indicate.

I am moving the motion that we conduct a review of the act and the role of the RCMP.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Thank you.

With unanimous consent, you can jointly move this motion.

Do you have any additional comments, Ms. Barnes?

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Quite frankly, I know time is precious here. I have talked to Mr. MacKenzie, as the parliamentary secretary, and he has advised me that he's on side, and also Mr. Ménard.

There is a legitimate use for and need for a witness protection program, but it is incumbent upon this committee to take a look at it, get some briefings, get some information. I don't think we can leave this without some sort of investigation by this particular body at this point in time.

I will jointly move the motion, if that's okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Garry Breitkreuz]

Mr. MacKenzie, do you have a comment?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Ms. Barnes is absolutely right. We have no objection to this. But what we have to understand is we're going to look at the big, global picture of the witness protection program and not the particular incident. I think there is an ongoing investigation particularly with the one that was reported in the press. These issues do go back a few years, but if I have understood this correctly, we really do want to look at where we're going forward. So it is to look at the global picture of the witness protection program, and if there is need for changes, it's up to us to make those recommendations.

With that understanding, we have no issue.