Debates of May 30th, 2013

Safer Witnesses Act

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me. I may be the last to speak about this bill tonight.

I listened attentively to the previous speaker, the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca, and I thought the beginning of his discourse was quite interesting. The last part of it I think it may have been the late hour and he may have forgot that the bill we were debating was Bill C-51, an act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act, not the bill that supports bus industries in the country. I am not exactly sure where he was going. Be that as it may, it is quite important that members try to avoid being dragged under the bus, so let us try to focus on the bill at hand.

The bill has a number of elements that are quite appropriate. There are three key issues.

We expand eligibility criteria for informants and witnesses, an absolutely critical element. We found in the past that there were a number of people who wished to have admission to this program and were simply refused access. We heard over the course of the debate on the bill that we currently had over 800 people who were under the witness protection program, but this year only 30 were accepted. That is out of a total of 108 who made an application.

The proposed bill will increase access to the witness protection program, and that is an important step, 30 is simply unacceptable. We need to go further. We have to continue to expand this program. The bill will go a long way to doing that, but the problem is the bill will also increase costs. I know the members from the government side seem to think that this is not an important issue, but I guarantee the municipalities and provinces are getting very tired of having to fund the mandates that are being passed, in record speed, in the House of Commons. We are not having proper time to debate these issues. I would like to remind the House that time allocation was forced on this bill after only two speakers at second reading. That has to be a record.

We need time to look at the costs that these programs will bring forward and we need to talk to the provinces and the municipalities on how we can partner with them to pay for those costs.

I want to raise a couple of quotes that were mentioned today.

First, I want to start with the minister, who made it very clear that he did not seem to care much about costs. According to the minister:

It is important to note that it is not anticipated that there would be any need for additional funding to accommodate this change. The program is currently funded by the RCMP from existing operational resources, and that will remain the same under Bill C-51.

That is wonderful, except the problem with that is we know a lot of the costs are downloaded onto the municipalities and the provinces. Micki Ruth, from the Canadian Association of Police Boards, talked about how when it had a difficulty and it had to search the services of the RCMP, the costs of this program were downloaded. As Micki Ruth indicated at the committee level, currently when a municipality did make use of a provincial witness protection program and the crime was federal in nature or involves drugs, then the RCMP would take over and would charge the local police services the full cost, which is an expense that many services cannot afford.

Even the RCMP has acknowledged that increased costs of this nature can impede an investigation. This is a serious problem. We are bringing forward changes which are going to increase costs to those who can least afford it. The government has to think about the repercussions of its actions, and it so heck-bent on bringing changes forward in record time that we are not having the proper debate on how we are going to deal with the costs that are downloaded.

Nevertheless, we do have a lot of important issues that are going to be addressed in the bill. Again, the expanded criteria eligibility is very important. Co-operation with the provinces in designating legislation, which is going to be reflected in federal legislation, is very important, as are the funding criteria and all of these things we need to be move forward with. The bill could do with a little improvement, but it is a good step in the right direction.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I desperately would have liked to have risen when the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca was speaking just to provide one quick correction about the oil sands. Actually, it is at 43 years, not at 44. Suncor celebrated its 40th anniversary in 2010, and we are only at 2013.

In response to the hon. member's comment about our fighting against Canadian jobs, that is actually what this government has been doing in advocating for Keystone. We are flushing 40,000 Canadian jobs into the U.S. market instead of having them here.

I will go back to the bill. As we have mentioned before, the resources are lacking for municipal and provincial police forces to ensure that they are able to provide adequate witness protection.

This is particularly relevant in areas like Scarborough Southwest, where often crimes are happening in neighbourhoods where the witnesses themselves live. Perhaps the member could comment on the difficulty of actually getting people to come forward when their neighbours might be the ones committing the crimes. That is why they might need additional resources to get into the witness protection program and move out of those areas. Those might not be borne by the federal government.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very important point. The bill actually addresses this issue in significant ways. It is very important, if we are to address the issue of gangs, gang warfare and terrorist organizations, to know that these people are under a lot of pressure not to come forward and testify. They are under a lot of pressure not to come to the police to assist and become informants, essentially.

We also have the problem of informants, working in very difficult circumstances, who need all the support we can possibly afford them. It is very important that the bill addresses those issues, and I think the bill is actually taking steps in the right direction.

I would like to underline especially the fact that the emergency protection criteria in the bill have been extended. That is an important step as well. We have gone from a 90-day period for people to consider whether they are prepared to enter witness protection to now, in emergency situations, having 180 days, which is a significant improvement to the bill.

That is what the Liberal Party brought forward so many years ago that needed a lot of--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech. I would like to hear what he thinks about the comments made by Commissioner Micki Ruth, who testified in committee on March 7, 2013. She is a member of the Policing and Justice Committee of the Canadian Association of Police Boards. She said:

Therefore we urge you to appreciate our position that unless the issue of adequate funding is addressed, the legislation will not produce the result that is intended.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I think that we need to seriously consider Micki Ruth's comments. In committee we repeatedly heard that a lot of witnesses were very worried because the bill did not do enough.

I want to get back to the issue of funding. The bill does not provide for the funding that will be needed if the House decides to pass it.

I also want to point out that Micki Ruth, from the Canadian Association of Police Boards, was not the only one who expressed this point of view. Alok Mukherjee had this to say about Toronto:

Our conclusion has been that there needs to be more funding available than currently is the case. Without the availability of sufficient funding, our ability to take advantage of the program will be limited.

We have to ask ourselves: if we pass a bill and the people who are supposed to benefit from it cannot because there are not enough resources, then does the bill truly respond to a need? The bill ought to be improved, but at least it is a step in the right direction.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It being 12:22 a.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to an order made on Wednesday May 22, 2013, the division stands deferred until Monday, June 3, 2013, at the expiry of time provided for oral questions.

Combating Counterfeit Products Act

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Minister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture)]

moved that Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say at this hour I am usually here on my own, just with you, so I am delighted to have so many guests. I am honoured today to rise and introduce C-56, the combating counterfeit products act, at second reading.

Last year our government welcomed the final passage and coming into force of the Copyright Modernization Act, which gave new rights and new tools for copyright owners and users, giving them the certainty and tools they need to fully engage in the online world. As part of the overall balance of the bill, the copyright modernization act introduced specific provisions to deal with the issue of online piracy.

With the combating counterfeit products act, we would be taking the next step in putting in place the legislative changes that are needed to deal with counterfeiting and piracy in the physical marketplace and at our borders. This bill would protect Canadians from harmful counterfeit products. It would help our creative businesses and workers, and law enforcement and border officers confront the increasing threat of trademark counterfeiting and copyright piracy. It would also bring Canada's laws in line with international standards.

Before describing the various features of this bill, please allow me to clarify what counterfeiting and piracy mean in the context of the--

Mr. Speaker, my apologies. When I speak of counterfeit trademark goods, I am referring to knock-off goods--

My apologies. I am referring to knock-off goods that are distributed on a commercial scale and that closely resemble the legitimate goods, but that bear an unauthorized trademark--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is easy to get a little caught up at this hour. I know that when even the whip is laughing at my comments, I have a definitely reached a new low in the House of Commons.

I am glad that you are staying straight-faced, Mr. Speaker. I will stay concentrating on you.

It is easy to associate counterfeit goods with designer clothes, watches and so on, similar to what was being spoken about in the lobby by the member for Mississauga South earlier this evening. The reality is that counterfeit goods extend well beyond luxury goods. They are found in nearly all types of commercial and industrial products, from shampoo to smart phones, from industrial ball bearings to brake pads--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. If the parliamentary secretary is unable to proceed, would she prefer to cede the floor to another member?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will proceed.

Today they are more pervasive and more difficult to detect and, in this sense, much more problematic. Consumers may even unwittingly purchase a good that they assume to be legitimate, but which contains counterfeit components. We owe it hard-working Canadian families to prevent exposure to such products.

Copyright piracy is the making of illegal copies without consent of copyright holders and their subsequent commercial distribution. We know from our stakeholders, that copyright piracy is increasingly moving online.

The issue of copyright piracy in the physical marketplace is far from resolved, when we think of CDs, DVDs or software being offered for sale in stores and in other markets.

Commercial counterfeiting and piracy are growing issues in Canada and around the world. As with illicit activities, the scope of counterfeiting and piracy is difficult to track and measure.

However, this is what we do know. The RCMP investigated over 4,500 cases of IP crimes in Canada between 2005 and 2012. In 2005, the RCMP seized over $7 million worth of counterfeit and pirated goods. In 2012, this number had grown to $38 million, a fivefold increase.

Canada is not alone. Other developed countries are signalling a rise in the prevalence of counterfeit and pirated goods in the marketplace.

This increase in the value of seizures in Canada is also consistent with what we have heard from Canadian businesses. They have been telling us for years now that counterfeiting and piracy have an impact on innovation and economic growth across the country.

Over the last six years, organizations such as the Canadian Intellectual Property Council and the Canadian Anti-Counterfeiting Network have issued reports calling for legislative changes to deal with counterfeiting and piracy. Most recently, we heard the same calls from several witnesses at a study before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

The measures proposed in the bill are crucial if we are to keep creating high-tech jobs in the future.

Businesses have been overwhelmingly vocal in their support of the bill. For example, Mr. Kevin Spreekmeester, vice-president of global marketing at Canada Goose Inc. and co-chair of the Canadian Intellectual Property Council, said, on March 1:

Canadians have long been victims to the illicit counterfeit trade and the new measures announced today should be welcome news for consumers, businesses and retailers alike.

Mr. Jayson Myers, president and CEO of the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, explained that counterfeiting:

—has been a longstanding priority issue for manufacturers...[they] punish legitimate businesses. They are a drain on our economy and on jobs – and they put the health, safety and environment of every Canadian at risk...

Counterfeiting and piracy hurt our economy. However, beyond their economic impact, there are serious criminality and health and safety issues that we simply cannot overlook.

The commercial production and distribution of counterfeit and pirated goods has been associated with organized crime. This is just another line of business for them and it may help them fund other types of activities, such as drug smuggling and illegal firearm sales.

As for health and safety, there are numerous examples of counterfeit goods that could expose Canadians to danger. Think of the counterfeit batteries or car parts, medicines or baby food.

In 2005, 11% of counterfeiting and piracy cases examined by the RCMP involved harmful products. In 2012, this number grew to 30%.

I would also like to take a moment to speak about one of the particular issues that illustrates the growing threat posed by these goods.

In July 2012, Canada Border Services Agency officers referred a shipment to the RCMP for investigation. This shipment contained 476 counterfeit wheel bearings, with a commercial value of $45,000, which were to be used by the Canadian mining industry.

What this illustrates is the fact that these goods have not been subjected to Canadian safety standards and may cause harm as a result. Who knows whether these pieces of equipment would have actually functioned to the standard of levels that we expect in Canadian equipment.

With the new provisions in this bill, we will start to get a fuller picture of the threat that commercial counterfeiting and piracy pose to the Canadian economy and to address it within Canada and at its borders.

Now that I have described the scope of this issue and the very tangible consequences of counterfeiting and piracy for businesses, consumers and the economy, let me turn to a description of the key elements of Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act, and of how this bill would help in the fight against commercial counterfeiting and piracy.

To confront this, we must give new authorities to border officers to enable them to act when they encounter commercial counterfeit or pirated goods at the border. We must also give rights holders the tools they need to stop counterfeiting and piracy before these illegal goods can enter the Canadian market and undermine their brand and their work. Third, we must give law enforcement the tools it needs to pursue those who gain commercially from this illegal activity.

With respect to the bill itself, let me expand. First, the bill would strengthen Canada's intellectual property rights enforcement regime at the border. Currently, border officers are not allowed to search for and detain counterfeit and pirated goods without a court order obtained by the trademark or copyright owner, which has proven to be onerous for businesses overall.

Bill C-56 introduces a process that would allow rights holders to submit to the CBSA a request for assistance, which would enable border officers to share information with rights holders regarding suspect commercial shipments.

The request for assistance would allow rights holders to record details about their trademark or copyright at the border, and to provide contact information. It would also contain practical information about how to identify legitimate versus counterfeit or pirated goods. The request for assistance would be an effective tool to enable rights holders to defend their private rights in civil court.

Let me be clear. Bill C-56 would not allow border officers to seize goods for copyright or trademark infringement. It would provide the authority for border officers to temporarily detain goods suspected of being counterfeit or pirated, and then provide limited information to rights holders regarding those detained goods.

This information could only be used to determined if the goods were counterfeit or pirated, or to assist the rights holders in pursuing remedies in the courts. The courts would remain the only competent authority to determine whether goods detained at the border infringed intellectual property rights and to apply appropriate remedies.

The bill would also amend the Trade-marks Act and the Copyright Act to allow border officers to temporarily detain shipments suspected of containing commercial counterfeit and pirated goods. Border officers would be able to act either following a request for assistance or on their own initiative.

With these new measures at the border, we would only target commercial counterfeiting and piracy. There would be a personal use exemption, which means we would not be searching individual travellers possessing personal use quantities.

The bill would provide a specific exception at the border for individual consumers importing goods intended for personal use, as part of their personal baggage.

Goods that were made legitimately in the country where they were produced would be excluded from the new border measures.

With this bill, we would send a clear message. We understand the threats that counterfeiting and piracy represent for our businesses, for the economy and for the health and safety of Canadians, and we are acting accordingly.

Our government has been clear. Our focus remains on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for Canadians. Counterfeiting and piracy directly threaten each of these. With the provisions in the combating counterfeit products act, our government would be taking action to curb the presence of these illegal goods in our country and at our borders.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The time for government orders has expired. When this matter returns before the House, the hon. parliamentary secretary will have seven minutes remaining.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Health

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House in the middle of the night to address a subject that is extremely important to the people of Limoilou. In fact, this Sunday, June 2, many concerned citizens will be taking part in a demonstration on the streets of Limoilou to show their concern about this problem and their desire to come up with a solution. I will be joining them.

Before going any further and asking the Minister of Transport my question, I want to provide some context. On March 7, 2012, in the House, the Minister of Transport and his Conservative colleagues voted against a motion calling on the federal government to actively support the Port of Québec so that it could go ahead with renovations and upgrades of obsolete equipment that was falling into disrepair.

Unfortunately, as I mentioned, the Minister of Transport and his colleagues voted against the motion, which echoed CEO Mario Girard's heartfelt appeal. It is rather ironic that in his last reply to the question that I asked him in the House, the Minister of Transport said, unfortunately for Mr. Girard, that he had absolute confidence in the CEO of the Port of Québec and also in the chair of the board of directors, Mr. Éric Dupont.

The Minister of Transport is all talk and has done nothing tangible to support the port authorities and help them face the challenges posed by the decrepit state of the Port of Québec and the renovations required.

There is a clear, logical progression between the motion I moved in the House nearly two years ago in support of the Port of Quebec and the problem that surfaced last fall regarding nickel dust contamination. The Minister of Transport, after mocking the elected representative of the people of Beauport—Limoilou, who brought proof of this highly unusual situation to the House of Commons, scoffed at this legitimate issue.

Since then, Quebec's minister for sustainable development, the environment and parks has clearly established that it was the Port of Quebec that caused the contamination, and the public health director clearly stated that it was a serious health issue that affected nearly 20% of the people in Limoilou.

How can the Minister of Transport show such disrespect for the people of Beauport—Limoilou and disregard their concerns?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, at the request of the member for Beauport—Limoilou, I am pleased to outline Transport Canada's efforts on the file related to the presence of dust in the Limoilou area.

First, I believe it is important to mention that we are working in close co-operation with the Quebec Port Authority, which is responsible for administering, managing and operating on a stand-alone basis the infrastructure under its responsibility. To date, Transport Canada has been pleased with the Quebec Port Authority's collaboration in the identification of the potential sources of dust emissions in the Limoilou area and in implementing measures for monitoring the types and quantities of air emissions associated with the port operations.

As part of the member for Beauport—Limoilou's area, the Quebec Ministry of Sustainable Development, Environment, Wildlife and Parks has determined, in a report published on April 15, the high source of concentration of nickel in the air is due to the transfer of mineral ore by Arrimage du St-Laurent, an affiliate of Arrimage du Québec. Following the tabling of the report, and to follow up on the notice of non-conformity sent by the MDDEFP, Arrimage du St-Laurent presented, during a press conference held on May 2, the corrective measures they will be putting in place to rectify the circumstance.

Besides a full review of its operations, the installation of sprinklers, the implementation of washing stations and the relocation of access routes, many other measures have also been planned by the company. The Quebec Port Authority will work in collaboration with all its lessees to limit the impact of the port activities on the community moving forward. It is co-operating in the implementation of measures put in place by Arrimage du St-Laurent.

In light of the recent developments, I am confident and satisfied with the efforts being made by the Quebec Port Authority to further the region's economic development while ensuring the quality of life of residents in the beautiful Quebec City area and the quality of the environment.

I will end by asking the member for Beauport—Limoilou to exercise caution in interpreting the data from the Direction régionale de santé publique. The member is aware that a multitude of factors must be considered when trying to determine the reasons for the health status differences between different areas within a specific region.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was almost prepared to cry victory when I got confirmation of what I have been saying for months and months, as I passed on what the public or some particularly health conscious individuals had observed.

Unfortunately, I did not learn anything new. The fact that the Port of Québec is the biggest nickel transshipment terminal in North America and one of the biggest in the world does not seem to have been taken into account. These are huge facilities.

I believe that the Port of Québec and Arrimage du St-Laurent are going to make an effort. In fact, I had the opportunity to speak with the CEO. Of course, I was told and reassured that measures had been put in place. However, does the government really believe that this problem is going to magically disappear without government assistance?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, Transport Canada is monitoring this file closely. Furthermore, I believe that the collaborative efforts of the different stakeholders demonstrate the importance accorded to identifying the potential source of nickel emissions. Once again, I invite the member for Beauport—Limoilou to exercise caution with respect to interpreting the data from the Direction régionale de santé publique.

In conclusion, it behooves me to underscore the important role the Canadian Port Authority is playing in Canada's economic development. By working with various partners, the port authorities are able to implement the necessary measures to promote their development while protecting the environment.