Mike Lake

[Combating Counterfeit Products Act, January 31st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member referred to the work of the industry committee. Of course, members from all parties on that committee work very well together. Actually, it is one of the better committees I have had the chance to be on in my time. As we go through the committee process, the questions that are asked to get information from the witnesses lead us, as a government, sometimes to look at some of the things in the legislation, and important changes are made. That is an important part of the process.

In relation to his question, I do not agree with the assertion he made about the numbers. Second, any piece of legislation like this is made in close consultation with the experts. Of course, the experts at CBSA are consulted on a piece of legislation like this.

The bill would give new tools to the officers to do their job and to attack an important problem, something they recognize as an important challenge. We have done that with this piece of legislation. It will be up to the experts, the CBSA, to determine how best to use this new tool we have given them to do the important job they do to protect Canadians.

As we look at the budget that is coming up, for example, I hope that the hon. member will support the government's efforts to be one of the only countries in the developed world to have a balanced budget by 2015. Having that budget balanced by 2015 will enable us to continue to support the important work of both the CBSA and all the other excellent public servants who work so hard for this country.

[Combating Counterfeit Products Act, January 31st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today to speak to Bill C-8, the combating counterfeit products act. I am happy to say that the bill passed through the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology with all-party support. The committee heard many witnesses and introduced a number of amendments that improve this important piece of legislation.

However, before I speak to the particulars of Bill C-8, allow me to remind the House of the important measures that our government has already taken and will continue to take to support Canadian consumers. In the recent Speech from the Throne, the government committed to taking strong action to protect consumers and families that is aimed at lowering prices, enhancing access and choice, and ensuring fair treatment.

The modernization of our intellectual property laws has also brought real benefits to consumers. Last year, Canada's long-standing copyright laws were updated and brought into the 21st century through the Copyright Modernization Act. The amended copyright act allows for legitimate and commonplace actions by Canadian consumers to be protected under copyright law. Canadians no longer have to be concerned about the legalities of time shifting television programs on their personal video recorders, transferring music from their CD collection to their MP3 player, or remixing music or videos for non-commercial purposes and sharing it on social media. By enacting the Copyright Modernization Act, the government listened to the concerns of Canadian consumers and provided them with legitimate protection for their actions. Canada now has a modern copyright regime that will play a critical role in protecting and creating jobs in Canada's digital economy.

It is the resolve of our government to continue to bring forward legislation that empowers Canadian consumers and instills confidence in the marketplace.

It is in this spirit that I will speak to Bill C-8, which addresses the real need for protection against allowing counterfeit goods to enter Canada. By reducing the trade in counterfeit goods, the bill would help protect our economy, support innovation, and benefit both businesses and consumers. For years, Canadian stakeholders in the business community have been seeking improvements to our intellectual property laws in order to better tackle the problem of counterfeiting and piracy. They have told us repeatedly that Canadian brands and works are being copied and taken advantage of, causing hardship not only to legitimate businesses but also to Canadian consumers.

Let me reiterate: counterfeit trademark goods are not only harmful to the economy, but they are often made without regard to Canadian health and safety standards which could harm consumers and their families. How so? Consumers could inadvertently buy counterfeit products that look like the real thing but could cause significant harm. For example, witness testimony at the industry committee mentioned several dangerous products. The CSA group talked about counterfeit circuit breakers found in a hospital in Quebec that were supplying power to life support equipment. Committee members were shown a video of a counterfeit circuit actually exploding under conditions that simulated normal electrical use. The International Trademark Association mentioned counterfeit food, medicines, and automotive parts. Canada Goose explained that the stuffing in counterfeit versions of their jackets are, at best, of very low quality, and at worst, not sanitary.

It is easy to see how these types of goods could present serious health and safety issues for anyone who would encounter them. Canadians who spend their hard-earned dollars to buy what they believe are high-quality products backed by a brand name are furious when they learn that they have been deceived.

Bill C-8 is our government's response to this problem. It amends the Trade-marks Act and the Copyright Act to provide new tools for rights holders, border officers, and law enforcement to better fight this issue. Most importantly, it puts in place strong measures to protect Canadian consumers and their families from the threat of counterfeiting.

Allow me to explain how the bill would provide for a stronger border regime, new civil causes of action, and new criminal offences. First, the bill gives copyright and trademark owners additional tools to protect their intellectual property rights at the border. Importantly, Bill C-8 provides border agents with the authority to temporarily detain suspected shipments and the ability to verify their suspicion with rights holders. Under the new system, rights holders would be able to file a request for assistance with the Canada Border Services Agency, asking for border officers' help in detaining suspected counterfeit or pirated goods. Allowing trademark and copyright owners to exercise their rights at the border means fewer shipments of counterfeit and pirated goods into the Canadian market, to the benefit of businesses, consumers, and their families.

Second, with regard to civil infringements, Bill C-8 adds a series of activities to the existing civil causes of action in the Trade-marks Act. Currently, trademark owners can only pursue a civil action against a counterfeiter when a good is being sold.

Bill C-8 fills important gaps by making it a civil infringement to manufacture, possess, import, export, or attempt to export counterfeit goods for commercial purposes. By targeting activities that occur earlier in the supply chain, the bill helps rights holders keep counterfeit goods out of the Canadian market and out of the hands of unsuspecting Canadian consumers.

Not only does this bill add new civil causes for activities prior to sale, it also targets the practice of shipping labels separately from goods in order to avoid detection. Bill C-8 adds specific provisions against manufacturing, possessing, importing, exporting, and attempting to export labels or packaging that are destined to be associated with counterfeit goods. This measure protects consumers from counterfeiters who may apply counterfeit labels to goods here in Canada in an attempt to avoid getting caught.

To summarize the civil measures, Bill C-8 equips rights holders with improved tools to assert their trademark and copyright in a civil context.

In recognition of the fact that counterfeiting is an unlawful act, the bill adds new offences to the Trade-marks Act for selling, manufacturing, causing to be manufactured, possessing, importing, exporting, or attempting to export counterfeit goods on a commercial scale. The new criminal offences also cover services, labelling, and packaging. This is important because law enforcement knows that criminal groups are involved in the production and distribution of counterfeit goods. These groups forego safety regulations, certifications, and quality controls in order to maximize profits. They simply do not care about the health and safety of consumers. For these groups, counterfeiting is just another profitable line of business. The new criminal offences will give law enforcement agencies additional important tools to fight against serious and organized crime. They will help us keep those goods off the market and help protect Canadian families.

All of the measures I have just outlined pertain to sale for commercial purposes. That is the focus of Bill C-8 and of law enforcement authorities. In this way, Bill C-8 will protect consumers and their families from the threat of counterfeit goods by reducing the presence of these goods in the Canadian market.

In addition, Bill C-8 provides a specific exception at the border for individuals importing or exporting counterfeit or pirated goods intended for personal use when these goods are in their possession or personal luggage. Simply put, Canadians may cross the border with counterfeit goods or pirated copies for personal use. However, let me be clear. Every person who supports counterfeiting at any level hurts the Canadian economy and risks his or her health and safety.

As I mentioned earlier, there is also a possibility that counterfeit goods and pirated copies are connected with organized crime, which often profits from the sale of counterfeit goods.

The measures in this bill are designed to help federal agencies and rights holders target their efforts to confronting criminals who gain commercially from the sale of these goods. This is the balance that the government has achieved with this bill. If we want to target those who profit from counterfeiting and piracy, we have to put our efforts into stopping commercial activities relating to counterfeiting and piracy, not in stopping individual Canadians who may inadvertently carry a counterfeit good in their luggage.

Another area where this bill achieves the right balance is with regard to the respective roles of the state and rights holders in the fight against counterfeiting and piracy. Trademarks and copyrights are private rights. We believe that the trademark and copyright owners have an important role to play in defending these private rights. That said, the government also plays a key role in keeping unsafe products out of the Canadian market and in stopping serious and organized crime.

With Bill C-8, the government puts in place a framework that allows trademark and copyright owners to protect their rights more efficiently at the border and within the country. For example, rights holders will have the ability to file a request for assistance with the Canada Border Services Agency. This will allow rights holders to receive information from border officers about shipments suspected of containing counterfeit or pirated goods, allowing them to pursue remedies under the Trade-marks Act or the Copyright Act.

Rights holders who choose to file a request for assistance will be asked to assume the costs of storage and destruction of counterfeit and pirated goods. For its part, the government will continue to play a leading role in stopping goods that present health and safety issues or that are linked to criminal activities. Border officers will continue to refer these goods to the RCMP and Health Canada as appropriate.

In my introduction I mentioned the work of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, as we reviewed Bill C-8 for several weeks. In particular, I would like to highlight a number of substantive amendments that were adopted by the committee that will clarify and improve the application of Bill C-8, while keeping with the balance I alluded to earlier to help better achieve outcomes for Canadians.

First, the bill was amended to clarify that rights holders can use information obtained from border officers about suspected shipments to seek out-of-court settlements. Such settlements are part of the process of pursuing remedies under the act. They would enable rights holders to assert their rights in a cost-effective manner.

Second, the knowledge requirements of the new criminal offences introduced in the Trade-marks Act were found to be unnecessarily high, which in turn meant a low probability of successful prosecution.

If we want the bill to provide an effective deterrent for counterfeiters, we have to make sure that criminal offences can be prosecuted. The amendments introduced at the committee achieve this goal by requiring the crown to prove that the accused knew that he was copying a trademark and that he did not have the consent of the trademark owner to do so. The criminal offences will continue to apply only to activities on a commercial scale and only to registered trademarks.

The third amendment introduced at the committee stage concerns the definition of “distinctive” in the Trade-marks Act. Some witnesses expressed concerns about changes in the wording of the definition. These changes were meant only to modernize the language, and there was no intention of changing the meaning of “distinctive”.

The committee moved to replace the expression “inherently capable of distinguishing” with the expression “adapted so to distinguish”, which is currently found in the Trade-marks Act. This amendment alleviates the concerns of stakeholders and removes any risk of costly and unnecessary litigation associated with the reinterpretation of the new definition.

The final amendment I would like to mention concerns the new civil causes of action in the Trade-marks Act. Originally, the bill's new civil causes of action for manufacturing, possessing, importing, exporting, and attempting to export only applied to the goods and services for which the trademark was registered. In contrast, the existing causes of action for selling or distributing apply to all goods and services that could be confused with a registered trademark, whether or not the goods and services are on the trademark register. The committee's amendment ensures that both the existing and the new civil causes of action have the same scope of application.

Bill C-8, as amended by the industry committee, is further proof that our government is focused on protecting consumers and their families. By keeping unsafe products out of the hands of unsuspecting consumers, it would enhance consumer confidence in the marketplace and would help legitimate businesses in the fight against counterfeiting and piracy.

I would urge all members of the House to support the bill and refer it to the Senate as soon as possible to ensure that Canadian rights holders, customs officers, and law enforcement have the tools they need to fight counterfeiting and piracy domestically and at our borders.

[Telecommunications, December 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is the responsibility of the government to communicate on important programs and services available to Canadians.

Advertising is a key way for the government to inform Canadians about such important issues as time-limited stimulus measures, tax credits, public health issues, the importance of competition and fair pricing in the wireless sector, and what the government is doing to make that happen for Canadians.

For important context, advertising expenses for 2011 were almost 30% below the last full year under the former Liberal government.

[Science and Technology, October 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the question, I wonder if the NDP will begin to embrace the science around the safety of pipelines instead of travelling around the world lobbying against Canada's interests when it relates to pipelines.

The government understands the importance of open and transparent communication and federally funded science. We are extremely proud of the work that our scientists and researchers do.

I am not sure if the member heard it the first time or the second time I said it, but like all public servants, Canada's federal scientists are guided by the Government of Canada's communications policy.

Canada's federal researchers share their work very broadly through a variety of means. They produce thousands of publications each year. Their findings are presented at conferences at home and abroad and they share their work directly with Canadians through interviews with the media.

As a government, we understand that the communication of science is extremely important. Beyond supporting the dissemination of research findings through the media and scholarly channels, the government has launched initiatives to make federally funded scientific research and data more widely available to Canadians.

[Science and Technology, October 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond to comments made earlier by the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles regarding the freedom of speech for federal scientists.

The government is extremely proud of the world class work that our scientists and researchers do. They help us achieve and improve quality of life for Canadians through improvements to public health, ensuring safety of foods and products, building strong and vibrant economies all across the nation and ensuring a clean and healthy environment for future generations. The government recognizes its obligation to inform the public of their activities, and that is why the government is committed to ensuring that federally funded scientific research is shared widely with Canadians.

Each year, government departments provide thousands of interviews to the media. Similarly, federal scientists publish thousands of peer-reviewed articles, research reports and data sets. Their findings are shared at scientific conferences, at home and abroad, and made widely available to other scientists, to Canadians and to scientific communities around the world.

Last year, for example, Environment Canada participated in more than 1,300 media interviews, and its scientists published more than 700 scientific articles. The same year, researchers at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada produced more than 1,100 peer-reviewed scientific publications and more than 700 non-peer-reviewed articles. Information is being shared. The numbers speak for themselves.

All federal public servants follow the same processes established under the Government of Canada communications policy, to cultivate proactive relations with the media and to promptly address their inquiries.

Beyond supporting the dissemination of research findings through the media and scholarly channels, the government has launched initiatives to make federally funded scientific research and data more widely available to Canadians.

That is why, through our action plan on open government, we have committed to engage Canadians through open information, open data and open dialogue.

In March 2011, the government launched the open data portal, which can be found at www.data.gc.ca, a one-stop shop for federal government data that is easily accessible to citizens, researchers, voluntary organizations and private sector businesses. Federal scientific knowledge is also shared with the public through portals such as the science.gc.ca website.

In October of this year, our federal granting councils began public consultations on a new open access policy. This work is exploring ways to make federally funded research more widely available to the public and to scientific communities.

Canada has an enviable reputation for its scientific and technological contributions and a recent history of very strong investments to foster research and development. We are ranked number one among G7 countries for higher education expenditures on research and development as a percentage of GDP, and recent reports show that Canadian S and T is healthy, growing and recognized around the world for its excellence.

Science, technology and innovation comprise the foundation of Canada's high standard of living, and create jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. Federal scientists and researchers contribute to these endeavours every day, and our government is committed to communicating the results of their ingenuity, dedication and hard work to Canadians.

The government is committed to build on these successes and to further strengthen Canadian science in an open and transparent manner.

As mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, the government will continue making targeted investments in science and innovation in order to position Canada as a leader in the knowledge economy.

[Regional Development, October 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, FedNor will continue to focus on community economic development, business growth, competitiveness, and innovation that creates jobs and long-term prosperity across northern Ontario.

We will continue to ensure that communities and businesses in northern Ontario have the tools they need to have a strong, diversified economy.

Our government is working with all levels of government, with first nations, and with stakeholders to ensure that we maximum the economic opportunities and long-term sustainability of northern Ontario.

[Regional Development, October 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to highlight the commitment and efforts by our government to assist in northwestern Ontario's long-term prosperity and economic success, and in particular, how the fine work done by FedNor continues to play an integral role supporting organizations all over northern Ontario in this regard.

Our government has demonstrated its commitment to northern Ontario's economic development from the outset. Since April 2006, our government, through FedNor, has invested more than $360 million toward more than 1,600 projects in the region. These initiatives are squarely focused upon community economic development, business growth, competitiveness, and innovation that creates jobs and that ensures sustainable growth in our communities and long-term prosperity right across northern Ontario.

Evidence that our investments are delivering for northwestern Ontario residents can be seen, felt, and heard throughout the region. The member for Thunder Bay—Superior North needs to look no further than his own riding and the beautiful city of Thunder Bay to see for himself our government's commitment to bettering the quality of life of Canadians in northern Ontario.

Since 2006, our investments in the city have totalled more than $55 million in support of over 170 projects.

One of the many sectors that have benefited from our investments is the growing health sciences and biotechnology cluster, with the Thunder Bay Regional Research Institute at its core. This includes FedNor's $4 million investment toward Thunder Bay's cyclotron, a key element of our government's commitment to science, innovation, and job creation in the region. This significant investment complements earlier contributions to this initiative and will help the Thunder Bay Regional Research Institute continue its important research and commercialization work.

Another great example that speaks to the health and vitality of Thunder Bay's economy is the waterfront development at Prince Arthur's Landing, which has been a catalyst for economic development in the region. The waterfront's new infrastructure helped attract more than 170,000 people to various events and activities last year, as well as private-sector investment. This development created jobs in the community, contributing to the growth and long-term prosperity of the region and improving the quality of life of everyone in the municipality and in the surrounding area.

Furthermore, as this development continues, we expect to see more clustering activity at the waterfront in the downtown core, which would result in additional business development and job creation.

FedNor was also instrumental in helping to deliver two significant national stimulus initiatives of benefit to northwestern Ontario through Canada's economic action plan.

As a result of the community adjustment fund, or the community infrastructure improvement fund, many municipalities across the northwest were able to upgrade existing public infrastructure or to undertake creative and constructive projects, leading to economic development, diversification, job creation, and improved access for users.

Our government is also committed to ensuring that Canada's vast mineral wealth is developed responsibly. Northern Ontario's Ring of Fire is a regional example of this commitment to responsible resource development.

The Ring of Fire could create over 5,000 direct and indirect jobs in northern Ontario alone, plus significant spinoff benefits throughout the province and elsewhere in Canada.

Through FedNor, our government remains committed to ensuring that businesses receive the practical tools they need, that resource development is done in a responsible manner, and that communities will continue to thrive in northern Ontario.

[Science and Technology, October 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, of course this government understands the importance of open and transparent communication of federally funded science. We are extremely proud of the work our scientists and researchers do. The number of interviews they conduct every year, the number of conferences they attend, and the extensive body of work they publish is a testament to this work.

Canada's federal researchers share their work broadly with the media and the public through a variety of means. Like other public servants, Canada's federal scientists are guided by the Government of Canada's communications policy. This policy directs federal institutions to cultivate proactive relations with the media to ensure that Canadians are well informed about the government's work and policies.

As a government, we understand that the communication of science is extremely important. That is why our government has introduced several new initiatives to open Canada's federally funded research to Canadians and the broader scientific community. We will continue to invest in these areas to ensure that the benefits of our federal research are fully realized by all Canadians.

[Science and Technology, October 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond to comments made earlier by my colleague from across the aisle regarding the communication of research and findings of scientists employed by the government.

Our government is committed to science, technology, and innovation, as was clearly stated in the Speech from the Throne just two weeks ago. We know and understand that research and innovation drive job creation, economic growth, long-term prosperity, and an improved quality of life for all Canadians. That is why, since 2006, we have made significant investments in science. In fact, Canadian science and technology is healthy, growing, and recognized around the world for its excellence, attracting world-renowned researchers to Canada and keeping the talent we train right here.

Our government is extremely proud of the world-class work that our scientists and researchers do. They help us achieve key social goals, such as improving public health, ensuring the safety of foods and products, building strong and vibrant economies across the nation, and ensuring a clean and healthy environment for future generations in order to improve the quality of life for all Canadians and for people around the world.

Our government is committed to ensuring that federally funded scientific research is shared widely with Canadians, and the numbers speak for themselves.

Each year, government departments conduct thousands of interviews. Similarly, federal scientists publish thousands of peer-reviewed articles, research reports, and data sets. Their findings are shared at scientific conferences at home and abroad and are made widely available to other scientists, to Canadians, and to scientific communities around the world.

However, we also recognize that there are different types of information, and there will be times when sharing information is not in the public interest. Examples include issues related to national security or when the disclosure of information creates privacy or legal considerations.

In these cases, departments and agencies must carefully balance the issues to ensure that the best interests of Canadians are being served. To support departments and agencies in fulfilling this function, the government provides guidance through its official communications policy. This policy directs departments and agencies to cultivate proactive relations with the media and to promptly address their inquiries.

We recognize the importance of sharing scientific research and innovative advancements. Effectively communicating these findings is crucial. That is why through our action plan on open government, we have committed to engage Canadians through open information, open data, and open dialogue.

We have launched the Government of Canada's open data portal. It provides a one-stop shop for federal government data, making thousands of federal data sets freely available to the public. We will continue to act in these areas to ensure that the benefits of federally performed science are fully realized for Canadians.

Our government has also made substantial investments to strengthen Canada's research advantages, and we will continue to do so. These investments have helped to attract and retain talent, support excellence in science, bring discoveries and innovation to the marketplace, and build science and technology infrastructure. Our government is committed to building on these successes and to further strengthening Canadian science in an open and transparent manner.

[Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, October 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to private member's Bill C-475 as presented by my hon. colleague from across the aisle.

Bill C-475 proposes to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act known as PIPEDA, a law that has been in place for over a decade. PIPEDA has proven its value and retained its relevance in the face of unprecedented technological change.

At its core, PIPEDA gives individuals control over whether and how their personal information can be collected, used or disclosed during commercial activity. This protection fosters trust and confidence in the online marketplace, an important part of the Canadian economy that is growing by leaps and bounds.

The government is committed to updating PIPEDA. In fact, the Minister of Industry met with the Privacy Commissioner only yesterday. However, any changes that are proposed should have been discussed thoroughly with business, consumer advocates and academics or fall within the framework of the existing legislation, as is the case with the former Bill C-12. The proposed new measures put forward in Bill C-475 were not. The proposed amendments in Bill C-475 give the Privacy Commissioner new powers and present a major change to PIPEDA and the role of the commissioner. The impact of such a change on all stakeholders has not been considered.

The Privacy Commissioner's role as defined in PIPEDA is to serve as an ombudsman, a role she has performed impressively to the great benefit of Canadians. Indeed, the commissioner has been internationally recognized and applauded for her success. It was in recognition of this that her term was extended to three years in 2010.

As the commissioner's term enters its final months, the government is pleased to have this opportunity to express its gratitude for the commissioner's dedication to the protection of the privacy of Canadians.

Let us begin by highlighting some of the successes so far. PIPEDA's ombudsman model has proven very successful in setting a high standard for the protection of personal information in Canada. PIPEDA allows for mediated solutions to privacy conflicts that can give both individuals and companies a clear understanding of their rights and responsibilities. A less formal dispute-resolution mechanism is far less intimidating for individuals and easier for them to navigate.

PIPEDA's current oversight and redress regime reflects a deliberate decision by Parliament to adopt a mechanism that avoids litigation when resolving privacy disputes. PIPEDA also provides the Privacy Commissioner with a range of powers to address privacy issues. She can investigate, enter premises and compel evidence, mediate a settlement, make recommendations, publish the names of those who contravene PIPEDA and take matters to the Federal Court.

Bill C-475 would give the Privacy Commissioner new, quasi-judicial enforcement powers. Unfortunately, the enforcement regime proposed by the private member's bill is fraught with procedural failings. As my colleagues will note, the bill contains a list of consequences for non-compliance. This includes a monetary penalty of up to $500,000, a very significant amount.

However, should penalties imposed on small firms be as large as those for multinationals? Unfortunately, the bill completely overlooks this matter. The size of the firm or its ability to bear the burden of monetary penalty is apparently not a factor to be considered.

Given the potential severity of the monetary penalty, it is also puzzling to observe that this particular remedy only applies to failure to comply with orders. Indeed, organizations that have been found to wilfully violate the privacy of individuals, including those that have profited significantly from the violation, are not subject to this penalty. They are only penalized if they have failed to change their ways after having been caught. There are many outstanding issues and questions with respect to the enforcement measures that are being proposed in Bill C-475.

PIPEDA already provides the Federal Court with the ability to provide any remedy it deems appropriate, including orders to correct practices, award damages, or order offending parties to publish a notice of corrective action. Clearly, PIPEDA establishes a comprehensive process for taking action against privacy violations. Businesses, both large and small, together with individuals, have found much success in the resolution of their disputes.

We must ask, then, how the proposed enforcement measures are going to affect the level of co-operation that exists between organizations subject to PIPEDA and the Privacy Commissioner. Would the enforcement regime of Bill C-475 change the current dynamic between organizations subject to PIPEDA and the commissioner, making the parties more adversarial and the process counterproductive? These are questions that cannot be taken lightly.

Finally, the implications of these new powers on the structure and resources of the Privacy Commissioner's office do not seem to have been considered during the drafting of Bill C-475. The new powers would place an undue burden on personnel within the Privacy Commissioner's office. One cannot simply add new enforcement powers to a law without thorough study and consideration of the impact on its existing oversight regime or on its regulator.

We cannot support Bill C-475. There are too many omissions and fundamental questions left unanswered in this bill.

In spite of the difficulties with this private member's bill, though, the issue of compliance with PIPEDA certainly warrants further exploration. The government will continue to send a strong message about the importance of complying with PIPEDA, given its critical role in building trust and confidence in the online marketplace. Furthermore, there must be an opportunity for all Canadians with an interest in privacy issues to be comprehensively canvassed and thoroughly heard.

To conclude, the government does not support private member's Bill C-475. Instead, the government remains committed to updating PIPEDA in a more considered and comprehensive manner. Our government will have a balanced approach, one that takes seriously the protection of private information while establishing a regulatory framework that is workable for businesses.