Bill C-56 (Historical)

Combating Counterfeit Products Act

An Act to amend the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act to add new civil and criminal remedies and new border measures in both Acts, in order to strengthen the enforcement of copyright and trade-mark rights and to curtail commercial activity involving infringing copies and counterfeit trade-marked goods. More specifically, the enactment
(a) creates new civil causes of action with respect to activities that sustain commercial activity in infringing copies and counterfeit trade-marked goods;
(b) creates new criminal offences for trade-mark counterfeiting that are analogous to existing offences in the Copyright Act;
(c) creates new criminal offences prohibiting the possession or export of infringing copies or counterfeit trade-marked goods, packaging or labels;
(d) enacts new border enforcement measures enabling customs officers to detain goods that they suspect infringe copyright or trade-mark rights and allowing them to share information relating to the detained goods with rights owners who have filed a request for assistance, in order to give the rights owners a reasonable opportunity to pursue a remedy in court;
(e) exempts the importation and exportation of copies and goods by an individual for their personal use from the application of the border measures; and
(f) adds the offences set out in the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act to the list of offences set out in the Criminal Code for the investigation of which police may seek judicial authorization to use a wiretap.
The enactment also amends the Trade-marks Act to, among other things, expand the scope of what can be registered as a trade-mark, allow the Registrar of Trade-marks to correct errors that appear in the trade-mark register, and streamline and modernize the trade-mark application and opposition process.

Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who does an excellent job as our science and technology critic. He raised a very important point about good intentions. Having good intentions is commendable.

However, we have questions about how the bill will be enforced. My colleague raised the point that contraband cigarettes are no longer a local issue, but that they have become national and international issues. How can we successfully tackle contraband?

I want to point out that it will be the same thing with Bill C-56, which deals with counterfeit goods, if we do not come up with measures to back up our plans.

Bill S-16--Time Allocation Motion

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank everyone for their impassioned speeches today. I have a couple of questions for the minister. This is where we come up with new, unforeseen circumstances and situations when we are ramming through all these bills.

This bill seeks to tackle contraband tobacco and also to stop contraband coming across the border. Yesterday, through time allocation, we rammed through Bill C-56 that would actually add ex officio powers to CBSA officers to stop counterfeit and trademark-infringed goods from coming across the border.

We have multiple bills going through at the same time that would add more responsibilities and put more strain on our border officers. At the same time, the government last year brought in over $143 million in cuts to CBSA. CBSA's own numbers say that it is going to lose 550 full-time staff between now and 2015.

I would like to ask the minister how he squares that circle. We are thrusting all these responsibilities upon CBSA while, at the same time, cutting its budgets. How is the CBSA supposed to continue to do the job of keeping Canadians safe?

[Alan Latourelle]

Thank you. It will be faster.

Clause 8 amends the federal accord act to restrict the number of current activities the board can authorize on Sable Island to four categories: access to existing wellheads on Sable Island for the purpose of safety and environmental protection; low-impact petroleum activities, including seismic, geological, and geophysical programs on the surface of Sable Island; emergency evacuation capacity for offshore workers; and maintenance of emergency facilities on Sable Island in case the island needs to be used to provide safe harbour to offshore workers in times of emergency.

Mr. Chair, a review of the debate in the House made clear that the key concern is focused on the ability of the Offshore Petroleum Board to authorize low-impact seismic activity. Allow me to offer several comments on this issue.

First, the Offshore Petroleum Board currently has the authority to authorize seismic activity on Sable Island. The purpose of Bill S-15 is to limit the board's current authority to consideration of low-impact seismic.

Second, as the board has indicated to Parks Canada in discussions, if a company wanted to collect new data from Sable Island, the board would ask the company to justify why the current seismic information is not sufficient and to demonstrate that such data could not be gathered beyond the national park reserve. If not, then the board would want assurances from the company that other less intrusive techniques could not be used to augment the existing seismic information. If the only remaining option required a seismic program placing equipment on Sable Island, an environmental assessment would be conducted by the Offshore Petroleum Board. Such an assessment would have to meet the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act's standard of determining the likelihood of an activity that causes significant adverse environmental effects. Given that clause 7 of Bill S-15 requires that the board seek the advice and recommendation of Parks Canada on such a proposed authorization, Parks Canada would have an opportunity to influence the nature of any proposed seismic program.

As members heard during the House debate, the last time a seismic program was undertaken on Sable Island was in 1999. A code of practice formed part of Mobil's environmental assessment and protection plan and was the principal instrument in guiding mitigation measures related to the seismic program. Negotiated by Zoe Lucas, an expert on Sable Island, the code compelled the company to make a number of changes to the nature and timing of its seismic program, a program, it was concluded, that did not have an impact on Sable Island. A similar code of practice would be required should any future seismic program be recommended.

I realize the central concern is that Bill S-15 does not define “low impact”, but, Mr. Chair, any amendments to Bill S-15 with respect to the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act would require the Province of Nova Scotia to agree with these amendments and then go through the process of also amending their legislation.

For that reason, Parks Canada and the board have discussed alternative means to address concerns over defining low-impact seismic activity. Both the board and Parks Canada are committed to: 1) developing together a draft definition or protocol to address the concerns raised regarding low-impact seismic activity; 2) undertaking consultation with the province, industry, stakeholders, and the public on its proposed definition; and 3) identifying an appropriate mechanism under the accord act, be it regulation, directive, guidance, memorandum of understanding, or some other appropriate mechanism to give effect to the final product.

We would certainly welcome any ideas the committee has to assist us.

I want to confirm that, in my view, we are not undermining the integrity of our national parks system. To reiterate, we are not amending the Canada National Parks Act to permit low-impact seismic activity in national parks. We are amending the accord to restrict it to low-impact on Sable Island, and in negotiating new national parks, I can assure this committee that we are not entertaining a similar agreement.

Finally, as I noted earlier, we are also amending the Canada Shipping Act, as Sable Island is currently administered under the act by the Canadian Coast Guard. Bill S-15 will repeal all sections that pertain to Sable Island. Once it becomes law, then the administration of Sable Island will be transferred from the coast guard to Parks Canada.

In concluding my remarks on the first part of the bill, allow me to paraphrase our minister in summarizing the gains that Bill S-15 represents for Sable Island.

First, we are protecting Sable Island under the National Parks Act, the strongest federal conservation legislation, as Canada's 43rd national park.

We are putting in place, for the first time, a legislative ban on exploratory and extractive drilling for petroleum resources from the surface of Sable Island.

We are creating a legislative buffer around the national park reserve that prohibits drilling from its boundary out to one nautical mile.

We are legally limiting the number of current petroleum-related activities that can be permitted on Sable Island and directing that if seismic is permitted it be low-impact.

We are putting in place a legislative requirement for the Offshore Petroleum Board to consult Parks Canada should it want to issue a permit for activity on Sable Island.

We are protecting the asserted aboriginal rights and title by the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia by designating it a national park reserve.

Finally, we will provide opportunities for Canadians to experience Sable Island, either on site or by various other means.

Let me now address part 2 of Bill S-15, which deals with amendments to section 4 and schedules 4 and 5 of the Canada National Parks Act.

Clause 13 of the bill amends section 4 of the Canada National Parks Act to address concerns of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations regarding that section. The bill makes two amendments of a technical nature to section 4. It fixes the discrepancy between the English and French versions and adds a new subsection 4(1.1) to clarify the authority of the Minister of the Environment to use sections 23 or 24 of the Parks Canada Agency Act to set fees in national parks. The wording of this clause in the bill was improved through an amendment made by the Senate to avoid any misinterpretation of the intent of the proposed changes.

I would like to assure the members of this committee that the wording of subsection 4(1) of the act is not affected by these amendments. The wording of this subsection, which is known as the national parks dedication clause, continues to remain virtually unchanged for over eight decades. This clause provides that:

National parks are dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment and that they are to be maintained and used so as to leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.

Clause 14 of the bill makes minor amendments to the description of the commercial zones for the community of Field, British Columbia, located within Yoho National Park of Canada. These minor zoning modifications are not controversial, they have community support, and they are well within the legislated commercial growth limit for Field. The changes will help support services, such as a gas station, required by park visitors and the town's businesses and residents.

Finally, section 15 of the bill amends the leasehold boundary set out in schedule 5 of the act for Marmot Basin Ski Area. This ski area is located within Jasper National Park of Canada.

Questions were raised during second reading of this bill regarding the type of analysis carried out for this proposal, as well as regarding the opportunities for public involvement. I wish to reassure the members of this committee that Parks Canada has in place a comprehensive and tightly controlled policy framework for the management of ski hill operations in national parks. This framework respects the Parks Canada mandate of maintaining or restoring ecological integrity while fostering a sense of connection through memorable visitor experiences and opportunities to learn about our natural and cultural heritage. It also provides ski area operators with greater certainty and predictability for business planning.

There are three main aspects to the Parks Canada policy framework for management of ski area operations in national parks. The first element of this framework is the Parks Canada Ski Area Management Guidelines, revised in 2006, which provide general direction to maintain ecological integrity and economically viable ski area operations within national parks. The second element comprises site-specific guidelines to control development and use at each ski area by setting out the scope, nature and location of potential development that may be considered for the ski area, and under what conditions.

In the case of Marmot Basin, the Marmot Basin Ski Area Site Guidelines for Development and Use were approved by Parks Canada in 2008. They included a comprehensive public participation program and completion of a Strategic Environmental Assessment. These site guidelines outline what development and use may be considered in the future, and establish growth limits, ecological management parameters and approaches to ski area operation.

The third element of the policy framework is a requirement for ski areas to develop long range plans and carry out detailed impact analysis for project proposals that the ski area wishes to advance in a five to fifteen-year time frame.

Marmot Basin is well advanced in the process of preparing its long-range plan, and in fact, its website gives a notice of intent to start public consultations on its long-range plan this fall. Marmot Basin's long-rang plan submissions will be accompanied by a detailed environmental impact analysis consistent with requirements for federal lands under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act of 2013. The purpose, nature, scope, and public participation elements of the process will be similar to previous project assessments conducted by Parks Canada.

The operator of Marmot Basin Ski Area wishes to improve the ski experience at Marmot Basin in order to maintain a competitive position with other new and expanded ski operations in the region. The operator has proposed to remove 118 hectares from its current leasehold in exchange for a smaller parcel of land contiguous to another part of the ski area. The proposed amendment to schedule 5 of the act is a major reduction of the leasehold boundary and a substantial environmental gain for Jasper National Park.

The 118 hectares to be removed from the leasehold is an important habitat for woodland caribou, which is listed under the Species at Risk Act. The area also contains natural mineral licks that attract mountain goats, and it is habitat for other species such as grizzly bear, wolverine and lynx. In fact, in a separate regulatory process, the area will be added to an existing declared wilderness area and will have a greater degree of protection than is currently the case. Uses will be carefully managed to protect the wilderness character of the area. In exchange, Marmot Basin would be granted access to a smaller 60 hectare parcel of less ecologically sensitive land for future development for skiing.

Any proposed development of the exchanged land remains subject to decision-making by Parks Canada under the detailed and public long-range planning process and environmental impact analysis that are part of the system of safeguards that Parks Canada has put in place.

Mr. Chair, the land to be exchanged was carefully selected to avoid caribou habitat and other important wildlife habitat including potential grizzly bear denning sites — none of which have been identified in the area. Before any development would be authorized, further environmental evaluation of the area will be conducted in the context of the long-range planning process that Marmot Basin has announced recently.

I would like to point out that this type of proposed land exchange is permitted under Parks Canada's policy regime for ski area management.

The 2006 guidelines specifically allow for the potential to make the modifications proposed where there is a substantial environmental gain.

This applies in situations where there is a leasehold reduction or reconfiguration that results in better protection of sensitive areas and exchange for development of less sensitive areas. This is exactly the situation we are dealing with for the Marmot Ski Basin area proposals. Consultations on these proposed changes where held during the preparation of the guidelines.

This bill brings lasting benefits to the people of Canada. It establishes Canada's 43rd national park by protecting a unique and storied island off the shore of Nova Scotia. It enables changes to enhance the economic viability of the community of Field and of the Marmot Basin.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Combating Counterfeit Products Act

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can barely contain my emotions as I rise in the House because I know that the entire nation is hanging on my every word as I weigh in on this important debate.

I would like to begin by quoting a 13th century French poet named Rutebeuf. Some 700 years ago, Rutebeuf wrote:

What has become of the friends
Whom I held so dear
And loved so much

One could paraphrase his words today:

What has become of the principles
That I praised so highly
And boasted of so much

I am, of course, talking about the Conservative Party and the bitter disappointment it has inspired among its supporters.

For years, while it was in opposition, this government said that it would clean up Ottawa, bring change and act according to the following principles: integrity, transparency, freedom of expression and enabling parliamentarians to do their work.

What has happened since the beginning of the Conservatives' majority mandate? Parliamentarians are being prevented from talking, debating issues and making suggestions. The government is imposing time allocation. It is forcing committees to work behind closed doors. It is doing exactly the opposite of what it promised Canadians.

It is good that we are debating Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, the Combating Counterfeit Products Act today. What we are seeing is counterfeit debates. Democratic freedom is being undermined and parliamentarians are being prevented from doing their work.

With this bill, that makes 47 gag orders. Forty-seven motions to limit members' speaking time on government bills. This evening, the leader of the Government in the House of Commons came to announce another gag order. A 48th gag order is coming.

I think that the Conservatives are aiming for 50 before the session ends. They must want to end on a round number or something like that. It must be as simple as that.

However, these are the same Conservatives who would tear their hair out and shout whenever the Liberals dared impose time allocation after weeks of debate. Once in power, these same Conservatives today put their principles behind them and can impose time allocation after an hour or two of debate by saying that it is a matter of urgency and that the bill absolutely must be passed because it is of vital importance.

In the meantime, they tell reporters that the NDP should give consent to adjourn Parliament and go home. It is one or the other: they cannot have their cake and eat it too. They cannot say that a bill urgently needs to be passed and then complain that the NDP is keeping them in Parliament and forcing them to work and answer their questions.

Let me come back to the bill. I come from a family that is well-rooted in the cultural community. My father is a writer and my brother is a musician, so copyright is very important to me. I know that this bill is about more than just copyright as it relates to artists, but it can have consequences for that.

It is important because copyright and intellectual property are related. These are fundamental to respecting creators and people who develop products, whether we are talking about cultural products, merchandise or high-technology products. This evening we talked about pharmaceutical companies and many other things.

This debate is important to the NDP. We believe that this bill is headed in the right direction. However, members will understand that I will probably raise a concern in a few minutes. The Conservatives often do not walk the talk, as people used to say when I was young. However, this bill does have good intentions.

We have to recognize the importance of innovation in economic development and the fact that the creators of these innovations are entitled to the resulting profits. We must not allow third parties to copy what they have developed, built or imagined and abscond with the fruits of their labour.

That is outright theft of the revenues generated after a product, good, idea or concept is created and developed. It is rather difficult to know what happens surreptitiously, under the table. There are estimates but, in this case, we only have the value of seizures of counterfeit goods by the RCMP. It says that seizures increased from $7.6 million in 2005 to $38 million in 2012. That is significant.

As my colleague pointed out earlier, it is probably just the tip of the iceberg. That is just what was seized. There must be a lot of counterfeit goods in the world.

I think that if we have an opportunity to travel around the world, we will see all these young people in tourist areas who sell brand name watches that are fakes. This is just one of many examples of what we can see when we travel around the world.

In 2009, the OECD estimated that the international trade in counterfeit and pirated goods could be valued at up to $250 billion. I think it is worth studying this issue and doing what is necessary to solve the problem.

Bill C-56 is a step in the right direction but the official opposition would be much happier if we had the resources to serve our ambitions. We are not just talking about the loss of money but a risk to Canadians and Quebeckers. We learned from the testimony of several witnesses that counterfeit goods often pose a risk to the health and safety of consumers.

We heard this evening about counterfeit electrical components that can be dangerous and can cause short-circuits, as well as about poor quality counterfeit winter jackets or vests with unsanitary stuffing that do not do the job. Counterfeiting is of even greater concern to us when it has an impact on the health and safety of our constituents.

However, I must admit that I am sad and disappointed. This bill is so important for Canadian companies and consumers that we would like the Conservative government to allocate the resources needed to enforce it. For the time being, we still do not know where the funding for the enforcement regime set out in Bill C-56 will come from. That is not just a minor detail.

This bill imposes significant new duties on Canada Border Services Agency officers at a time when budgets are being cut. That is where the Conservatives' true colours shine through because we know full well that they are imposing an additional burden, additional standards and additional rules on the CBSA. They are proposing measures and then turning around and cutting $143 million from the CBSA'S budget. The Conservatives are giving the CBSA more work to do and telling them that the work needs to be done, but then they are not giving them the resources they need to do that work.

According to the Canada Border Services Agency's report on plans and priorities, 549 full-time jobs will be cut by 2015. Of course, some of those jobs will be border officer positions. The CBSA will therefore have fewer financial resources, more work to do and fewer employees to do it.

What we heard the immigration minister say this evening was wonderful. Every time we try to show the practical implications of the Conservative government's blind cuts to public services, the Conservatives tell us that our figures are inaccurate and that they are going to give us the facts.

What is funny is that last year they announced $4 billion in cuts to services for Canadians. They said they would cut the cost of bureaucracy, red tape and photocopies, but that this would not affect services for Canadians. They said they would cut 19,600 positions, but that this would not make a difference or have any impact.

In its report on plans and priorities, the Canada Border Services Agency itself says that 549 jobs are going to disappear, yet the Conservatives say no, that is not true. That happens every time we provide an example. According to the Minister of Immigration, the real numbers show that the budget is going to increase by 27%. He needs to talk to the President of the Treasury Board.

When the President of the Treasury Board announced his budget reduction plan, he said that there would be cuts of 5% to 10% across the board, that no one would escape. However, every time we mention job cuts and the impact on services, the government says that it is not a question of cuts, that there will actually be an increase in funding. There will be more border services officers and the budget will increase.

If every budget cut has turned into an increase, I want to talk to the Minister of Finance. How will he get rid of the deficit in time for the next election in 2015?

The government cannot talk out of both sides of its mouth. It cannot say that it will increase resources for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, for example, and then put it on the chopping block, as it has done with every other government agency and department.

Last year, I found the first few pages of the budget to be fascinating. They contained an additional $51 million allocation to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. In subsequent pages, where the bad news is usually found, the government's three-year budget reduction plan reduced the agency's budget by $56 million. I went to see a finance department official to ask whether the $51-million allocation or the $56-million reduction was right. He told me that both were right and that they would result in an overall reduction of $5 million.

The Conservatives obviously do not like to adjust the good news figures they want us to believe to reflect the reality of the cuts being made. We are seeing that, in several departments and in organizations such as Service Canada and other agencies, the Conservatives' budget cuts hurt.

This bill has good intentions, but in practical terms, on the ground, it will reduce services for Canadians. As the Conservative member who spoke before me said, if the government does not give teeth and real resources to this bill, border officers will have to be bold and do the work that the government does not dare do, without the resources that the government does not dare give them. This will be an additional burden on border officers.

That is a concern of ours. Once Bill C-56 is passed, customs officers would be asked to make highly complicated assessments on whether goods entering or exiting the country infringe on any copyright or trademark rights. Such an assessment for pirated copies would include, for example, consideration of whether any of the exceptions under the Copyright Act would apply to a product such as the CD or DVD that the officer is looking at. That is something with which the courts often struggle. We would be asking border officers to do sensitive, detailed work without providing them with enough employees, training or resources to do the job. That is worrisome.

Would traffic at our border crossings into the United States be slowed down? Would that mean that people will have to wait even longer because the border officer has to check the contents of a truck filled with boxes and ensure that those are not contraband or counterfeit goods? In addition, although there used to be two of them to do the job, now there is just one officer. That will increase the burden on border officers, make their task harder and increase their workload, and that is what concerns us.

I would like to talk about the lack of respect the Conservative government has for border officers. The Canada Border Services Agency is in the process of negotiations, and yet, for the first time in the history of Canada's public services, the Conservative government will try to impose a collective agreement based on recommendations published by the public interest commission on June 5.

Once again, the government is not showing respect for free collective bargaining. It wants to increase their workload. It is not even honouring their ability to freely negotiate their contract and collective agreement. Furthermore, the government wants to impose a new contract that would contain salary increases that are lower than what other public servants have obtained or are obtaining.

I want to put this in perspective, because it is absolutely one of the consequences of the Conservatives' attitude towards workers. I wanted to take this opportunity to talk about the government's lack of respect for the border officers in how it is handling the renewal of their collective agreement.

I also want to remind members of the Conservatives' attitude towards intellectual property. Earlier this evening, my colleague from Timmins—James Bay said that the assistant to the minister who is now the President of the Treasury Board went to Ottawa to ask that Canada be put on the 301 watch list because of its poor record on protecting intellectual property laws. This list includes countries that are as effective as Yemen and North Korea at protecting intellectual property.

By the Conservatives' twisted logic, being on the black list, being one of the bad guys, being among the world's worst offenders when it comes to protecting intellectual property rights, would actually give us an incentive to enact appropriate legislation. As if we need the whole world to see us as incompetent, unable to protect our own creations, our own inventions, our own innovations. As if we need to be compared to Yemen or North Korea before we can take action.

The funny thing is that, after the President of the Treasury Board's top official intervened, it worked. A few weeks later, Canada was on the list. Everyone here should be ashamed of the fact that our country is on the same list as countries that care so little about such critically important issues as copyright and protecting intellectual property.

I know it is late, but I would like to thank all of my colleagues for their speeches this evening. They were all excellent, and so were the questions. I would also like to thank all of the people who work behind the scenes, people who work for the caucus and the leader's office and who are here to support us and help us do our work even if that means working until 1 a.m.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Yes, I might want to go to the industry committee now.

However, it is really an interesting bill. Before I get into some of the details of the bill, when I was in my consulting realm, I always talked about the change imperative for companies and the reasons for bills and why they were so important.

We have had a bit of discussion about counterfeit products and foods. We have discussed a number of things in the House tonight. We have talked about the level of problems with counterfeit worldwide. Some have estimated it at $250 billion and some at $400 billion to $600 billion. A significant percentage, or at least a good percentage of that, is tied to organized crime, which has to be a concern to the House as well as to the citizens of Canada.

I represent one of the largest potato-growing areas in Canada, with two large McCain french fry plants. There is a significant amount of intellectual property that goes into the development of new potato breeds and those types of things. As well, there is a lot of research into foods. McCain Foods does a tremendous amount on its french fries worldwide. All of this is very important intellectual property for these industries.

Innovation is alive and well in many of our industries. Many of those who represent forestry and agricultural ridings know it is the same for them as well.

The proposed combating counterfeit products act is the latest in our government's ongoing efforts to strengthen and modernize Canada's intellectual property laws. It will help confront the realities and challenges presented by large-scale commercial shipments of counterfeit goods. It will also respond to concerns raised by Canadian consumers and job-creating innovators and will provide a made-in-Canada approach to fighting counterfeiting that is compatible with the approaches of our allies.

Counterfeit goods are more pervasive now than ever before. Seizures of counterfeit goods by the RCMP increased fivefold between 2005 and 2012. Not only is counterfeiting increasingly pervasive, it is increasingly dangerous to Canadian consumers and costly to our economy.

Anything can be the target of counterfeiters, from everyday consumer goods to car parts. We have heard about brake parts and hockey jerseys. Earlier today we heard about Canada Goose, face wash, shampoo, batteries for cars, golf clubs and even wine.

This disturbing trend affecting Canadians' health and safety needs to be addressed right away. Over 30% of counterfeiting now involves harmful products, compared to 11% in 2005. Without these robust measures, these products will make their way into our homes and our children's playgrounds.

As was said earlier tonight, a lot of these products are getting harder and harder to identify. Being an avid golfer, I can speak to the fact that somewhere in the area of two million counterfeit golf clubs enter the market every year, as well as wine. It gets harder and harder to pursue these types of things because it is hard to tell the difference between what is counterfeit and what is real.

The government takes counterfeiting very seriously, and this bill would give Canadian rights holders and law enforcement the tools they need to combat this growing problem that exists at the border and domestically and to target those who profit from the commercial trade of counterfeit goods.

Specifically, the bill would give the authority to the border services officers to detain suspected shipments. Border services officers would have the authority to detain suspected counterfeit goods that were imported into Canada or that were exported from Canada on their own initiative.

When I was talking before about some of the golf clubs and wine and how hard it was to even trace some of these things, I looked at the website of a company that now provided the scanning tools to try to identify some of these types of things. It is interesting that it was talking about the wine industry and how it was taking counterfeit product and putting it into original-type bottles to be sold. There were 17,000 bottles which were deemed to be counterfeit. It was estimated that it would take 7,000 hours and $1 million for this to all be assessed.

I know there are many people in the House of Commons who would love to be in on that project and on the committee responsible for assessing these 17,000 bottles of wine. I can think of all kinds of things at midnight that would be interesting to see.

When we talk about the golf club industry, counterfeiting is so pervasive that the industry is actually investing to help the border services officers in the U.S. get the training to identify counterfeit golf clubs. This is because they have a different regime from the one we have in terms of responsibility.

Once the suspected goods are detained, border services officers will have the authority to communicate with the copyright owner or the registered trademark owner to inform them that a suspected shipment has been encountered. This bill would also allow for the creation of a new process, called the “request for assistance”. It would allow the rights holders to seek assistance from border services officers by supplying information about their copyright and registered trademarks. The request for assistance would also facilitate communications between border services officers and rights holders.

The bill would provide rights holders with new tools to protect against counterfeiting and to take civil action against infringers. The new civil causes of action would target manufacturing, distribution and possession with the intent to sell counterfeit goods. Currently, counterfeit goods must be sold or offered for sale before a rights holder can initiate a civil action. With the combatting counterfeit products act, rights holders would be able to initiate a civil trial earlier in the supply chain, before these goods reached the market where they could deceive and harm Canadians' and steal Canadians jobs.

The bill would add new criminal offences to help combat counterfeiting for the purposes of trade. These target the sale of counterfeit goods, as well as manufacturing, importing, exporting and processing counterfeit goods, if they are intended to be sold or distributed on a commercial scale. The bill would also add new offences for exporting and possessing pirated copyright goods. These offences are meant to complement the existing criminal offences in the Copyright Act, such as the sale, rental and importation for sale or rental of copyright-infringing copies.

I really appreciated the comment that was made by my colleague from Durham with respect to his background and experience in this field. He gave us some real context for the House on this debate tonight.

The bill would recognize newer practices, such as applying counterfeit labels just before sale. Sophisticated counterfeiters want to ship goods separately from labels so as to avoid being caught. To deal with this, new offences would target the sale of counterfeit labels or the manufacture, importation, exportation or possession of counterfeit labels for the purposes of trade.

In addition, the bill would introduce minor amendments to the Trade-marks Act, which has not been modified since the 1950s. For example, the bill would remove unnecessary paperwork requirements for businesses during the trademark application process, would modernize the language found in the act and explicitly would allow the registration of non-traditional trademarks, including sounds, scents and holograms. Overall, the bill would improve the Trade-marks Act by aligning the legislation with modern business practices.

The problem of counterfeiting is not just a Canadian problem. It is a global problem in which Canada is one destination among the many for counterfeit goods. As I indicated earlier, there are estimates that the counterfeit market could be $250 billion, but that does not count some of the DVDs and similar items that are pirated as well. That could take it to well over $500 billion.

This bill would provide a domestic response to a global problem. It is a made-in-Canada solution that would ensure our intellectual property enforcement regime would be compatible with global standards. It is a domestic approach that draws on the best practices of peer countries.

Let us take a moment to look at border regimes in some of the other countries, because that is important.

In the EU model, customs authorities have ex officio authority to temporarily detain suspected infringing goods. They cannot take ownership and seize or destroy the goods.

In the EU, rights holders may apply to customs authorities for enforcement of their IP rights at the border. In these cases, it is the rights holders who assume all the costs of the border enforcement process, possible ensuing civil action and the storage and disposal of suspected IPR infringing goods. In return, they will be informed of any resulting border detention.

However, in the EU, when the action of IP rights infringement results in the violation of public laws—for example, criminal fraud or a threat to public safety—the state can also commence criminal investigations and prosecutions, the cost of which is assumed by the government.

In the U.S. model, it is the federal government that is primarily responsible for enforcing IP rights at the border. In particular, the U.S. customs and border protection is responsible for detecting, seizing and disposing of counterfeit and pirated goods found at the U.S. border. If an importer takes issue with the seizure, it is customs and border protection and not the courts that decide the issue, making administrative determinations on the existence and validity of IP rights. Customs and border protection has the authority to impose administrative fines for violations. It also absorbs all the costs of the IP rights enforcement process, ensuing litigation, storage and disposal of goods.

In terms of the overall approach to IPR enforcement, Bill C-56 proposes a made-in-Canada approach, an approach that is appropriate and well-suited to Canada's needs. The bill reflects the fact that the enforcement of intellectual property rights is primary the rights holders responsibility, while acknowledging some role for federal agencies.

For example, to temporarily detain suspected counterfeit goods and inform rights holders and in the area of criminal enforcement, which will be worked out between them and the RCMP, the determination of whether goods are counterfeit is ultimately left to the courts.

The new request for assistance process will allow border services officers to use information provided by rights holders in their request for assistance document in order to determine whether there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the shipments contain counterfeit goods. If there is a suspicion, the border service officer can detain the shipment and notify the rights holder of a suspected shipment. The rights holder is then given a period of time to decide whether he or she will pursue the matter in civil court.

The RCMP and Health Canada will be given the chance to decide whether the shipment at issue may be a criminal or a health and safety matter respectively.

The detention of suspected goods allows the RCMP or Health Canada to pursue the matter criminally and the rights holder to pursue the matter civilly.

The border services officer does not make a final determination on whether the detained goods are counterfeit. Only a judge in a court has the power to do that. That is a departure from some of the questions that have been asked tonight, because that is the court process. I know I will get some questions on this with respect to the financial aspect of CBSA. That is important for us to know.

Since the tabling of the bill in March, many stakeholders have been in support of the bill. These include the Canadian Intellectual Property Council, the Canadian Anti-Counterfeiting Network, Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, Electro-Federation Canada, the Entertainment Software Association of Canada and Food & Consumer Products of Canada.

While the bill is supported by a majority of stakeholders, some misconceptions have been heard. I will take the opportunity to address these concerns.

Some have suggested that the bill grants border services officers more power without judicial oversight, in a sense expecting these officers to be copyright and trademark experts. This is simply not true. As I mentioned before, they would have the authority to detain goods based on a reasonable suspicion that the goods were counterfeit. The ultimate authority to determine whether goods are counterfeit can only come from a judge in a court.

Some members may have heard the misconception that the bill was the result of international pressures to change our laws. In fact, the bill was developed in response to repeated calls by Canadian stakeholders, including innovative businesses, which we have talked about tonight, that employ Canadians.

As early as 2006, the Canadian Anti-Counterfeiting Network released a position paper on the need for legal reform in Canada to address intellectual property crime. In 2007, it released another report on counterfeiting and piracy in Canada. It was also in 2007 that two parliamentary committees, the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology and the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, both heard several stakeholders on this issue.

Since 2009, the Canadian Intellectual Property Council has also released reports asking for legislative changes in the area. More recently, in 2012, the standing committee that this will be referred to also heard from many witnesses about the issue of counterfeiting. Many others have met with or written to government officials with their concerns. Canadian stakeholders have been clear about the economic and health and safety issues associated with counterfeiting. This bill shows that we have listened.

There should be no concerns that Canadians will have luggage and their personal music devices searched for counterfeit goods and pirated copies. I am glad we have consensus on that. With everybody who spoke to that, it is very clear in the bill that this is not an attack on individuals personally for bringing things across the border.

Personal baggage will not be searched for counterfeit or pirated goods upon entering Canada, nor will personal music devices be searched. In fact, Bill C-56 clearly identifies such goods for personal use to be outside the scope of the legislation. The bill would provide the tools to pursue those who aim to profit from commercial counterfeiting activities: those who manufacture, possess, import, export or attempt to export for the purpose of sale and distribution, as well as those who sell or distribute counterfeit on a commercial scale. We are going after the core of the problem, the criminals, often highly organized and sophisticated, who prey upon unsuspecting Canadian customers.

Intellectual property legislation is always about creating a balance between owners and users. Bill C-56 provides a carefully balanced approach to protecting Canadians against the effects of counterfeiters. A strong intellectual property rights regime is central for any knowledge-based economy such as Canada's in order to foster an environment that promotes innovation, attracts new investment and stimulates economic growth.

As the committee moves forward with the bill, our government remains committed to working with Canadian rights holders as well as our international partners in fighting against counterfeiting. The bill will send a clear message to those who aim to profit from counterfeit goods that what they are doing is against Canadian law.

In conclusion, counterfeiting hurts jobs, threatens growth, and it exposes Canadians to health and safety risks. With this bill, our government continues to stand up for the economy, the rights holders and for all Canadian consumers. I thank all my colleagues in the House and all my colleagues from the opposition parties for their willingness to support this at second reading to send it to committee.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-56. I want to thank my colleagues from Durham, Vancouver South, York Centre, Kitchener—Waterloo and Don Valley West who also commented on the bill.

I will agree with my colleagues from the NDP that this has been a very good debate tonight. It is an interesting debate on an interesting bill. Even though I do not serve on the industry committee, it has been—

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the enthusiasm is overwhelming. I am moved. Especially considering that we are coming to the midnight hour, the enthusiasm New Democrats have for the House of Commons, for democracy and even for debate is stirring and important, because there has been a certain lack of enthusiasm for debate coming from the Conservatives.

The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons will know the actual number. I think we are at 47 or so time allocation motions. On all of these bills, and this is one of those bills, we seek to find some comfort for the Conservatives, who are often looking for comfort, particularly when there is a lot of turmoil in their lives, much of it self-inflicted. They want these kinds of things to move at an orderly pace. We offer them an orderly calendar. A certain number of New Democrats will speak and allow the bill to go ahead, and they still shut down debate, even under those circumstances. One wonders what the motivation is sometimes. I think we are up to 47. Again, if the government House leader rises tonight, he will be able to remind us.

This bill is an important one. The Conservatives say that it is critically important. How critical it is in their minds begs the question, simply because it was first introduced on March 1 of this year, seven or eight years into their mandate and 27 years after the last time the bill was reviewed. My friend from the Conservatives earlier talked with some great expertise about the importance of this thing. If it were important, one would think it would be a priority, and if it were a priority, one would not think that the 11th hour of this particular sitting and session of the House of Commons would be the time they would move the bill. If this were devastating to the Canadian economy, to the intellectual property rights regime in Canada, our ability to trade with other nations and all of these things that have been talked about, it would be a priority, but it is not a priority. It is a panic. When things are panicked, mistakes are made.

It is important for my friends to realize that they cannot quite have it both ways. If they say that this is urgent and desperate and we need to move it through rapidly, then one says that there has been a majority government for two years. Other bills have been moved, some of certainly less consequence or even quality, some would argue. I am thinking of a few bills, such as Bill C-30. My friends will remember Bill C-30, the Internet snooping bill, which the Minister of Public Safety so eloquently justified by saying to the opposition and to all Canadians that one was either with the Conservatives or was with the child pornographers. Do members remember that classic? That was a good one. They got rid of that bill. It was a bigger priority than this piece of legislation.

However, let us talk about the bill, because it is important. We will take a look at Bill C-56 and see what it actually would do.

New Democrats have been aware of the importance of protecting intellectual property rights in Canada. It is important both for our own industry and our ability to innovate and design leading-edge technology, as Canada has so often done in the past, particularly when we used to have things like industrial development strategies, but not so much with these guys. We had export policies that said that adding value to our resources in Canada was a priority for the federal and provincial governments, but not so much with that side.

We agree with the merits of this bill and agree with sending it to committee. We believe that we need to hear from the experts. We have one or two experts in the House of Commons who maybe spent a previous life looking at the intellectual property regime in Canada and around the world. I do not claim that expertise, and I think most members of Parliament would not either. We need to rely on the experts, and not just the industry experts, and this is important for us as New Democrats. While those voices are critical to the design and implementation of legislation, we need to hear from the border guards, who are the folks who are going to be potentially seizing some of these products. We will have a very challenging time distinguishing between the bootlegged products people have talked about and other products that would offer serious harm or threats to Canadians' safety and health.

My friend talked about toothbrushes and toothpaste that caused people harm, but it gets even more serious than that. There is medical equipment that is improperly made. It is counterfeit, and Canadians are exposed to this, because they trust the label on the brand. It is not about buying a sweater for a child and hoping that it is the actual brand. Some of these things are quite important. When buying brake pads for one's car, one wants to ensure that they are actually brake pads that will stop the car.

The problem with counterfeit is that it can so often appear as something that is solid and consistent and legitimate. The reason it is so effective is that it looks good.

We have been having a bit of a debate. I do not want to say that it has been a nerd fight, but we have been arguing about the numbers. The numbers do not really help out the government's case in terms of providing help for the border officials who are meant to guard our borders, not just from counterfeit products, which is important, but even more important, from illegal contraband and weapons. They come into this country, some would argue, through our ports, where 2% to 3% of all containers are inspected. That is not a lot, and with those types of odds, some smugglers will just take the chance of getting caught, because the ability to make money is so great.

We have heard from the CBSA itself in this year's report. This is not a report produced by the official opposition. This report is produced by the border agency. We have heard that the government has cut $145 million from the border agency this year. Excuse me, I want to get the number right. It is $143 million. I exaggerated. It is not $145 million but $143 million. I want to make sure the number is right. I do not want to upset anyone on the other side.

The CBSA's report on plans and priorities indicates a loss, not a gain of 1,000 and a loss. It indicates a net loss of 549 full-time-equivalent positions. If the CBSA is not telling the truth or has its numbers wrong, I would encourage those on the government side to help it out a little. The Conservatives are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts. The facts of the matter are that there are 549 fewer full-time-equivalent positions. If we are going to ask them to do more with fewer staff, is the law worth the paper it is written on?

We need two things, of course. We need the tools. This is an update of the legislation, and New Democrats support the updated legislation. Things have changed since the last time we looked at these intellectual property regimes that are so important for businesses that are looking to innovate and trade. If we do not look at legislation often, we want to get it right. To the Conservatives who say that one hour of debate is good enough, that we can zip it through committee and get it back out the door and then wait 30 years to correct the errors we make, I say that it is not right.

Nearly 100% of the amendments the opposition moved were based on testimony from experts, from border officials, from those in industry and those who deal with intellectual property. We hope that there is some sort of new openness, because the Conservatives have rejected virtually everything we have offered before, because they can, not because they have any counter-argument.

I have been at the committee hearings where we quote witnesses everybody agreed with when they testified. We move the change the witness suggested. There is no debate or counter-argument from the Conservatives. There is a vote, they kill it and they move on. We just do it over and over again.

A number of pieces of legislation have moved through the House completely unamended. Some of these bills are hundreds of pages in length. They are technical bills amending other acts. Sometimes as many as 60 other acts of Parliament are amended by one bill. The government does not change anything based on the testimony it hears. The testimony we hear, in very specific and technical ways, offers another viewpoint.

It raises the question of what is going on. Why would a government claim to have a keen interest in helping manufacturers and innovators in this country protect their intellectual property and a keen interest in helping consumers, yet not allow border officials to have the tools and services they need?

If we hear from border officials that we should change something in the legislation and New Democrats happen to be the party offering the amendment to the bill, for goodness sake, I hope the Conservatives change some of their patterns and hubris and say that it does not matter which political party moves it. What matters is whether it is a good amendment and whether it is a good improvement. Going through hundreds of pages of laws without any changes smacks of a certain unfortunate level of arrogance.

On this legislation, let us make sure that the tools we are offering our border officials also match up with the planning priorities—not the stated planning priorities of the government, not the stated spending priorities, but the real priorities, with real money and training.

We have talked about giving border security officers new powers to play a discerning and defining role in investigating the products to make sure that they are contraband, or not. That requires new training. We all admit it, but we do not see in any spending priorities from the government actual resources for training. CBSA has to take it from something else.

To the government, to all members of the House, let us do what the House of Commons is built to do: study legislation, look at it, take our time and get it right. If we are only going to do this once every generation, and if it is so important for our industry, then let us make sure we get it right.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before beginning my speech, I would like to mention that I will be sharing my time with the House Leader of the Official Opposition, who is also the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. He is one of the members who works the hardest in the House of Commons. What is more, he is the most ardent defender of the rights of Canadians. The NDP is really proud of its parliamentary leader.

I would also like to mention the great work that my wonderful colleague from LaSalle—Émard has done. She gave an excellent speech. She has a good grasp of the dynamics of the situation. I listened very carefully to her speech, which was very enlightening. I am also very pleased to mention my colleague from Sherbrooke's excellent work. He talked about the importance of border protection. Over the past few months, there have been major scandals in the ridings of Sherbrooke and Compton—Stanstead. Incidents have shown that our border is indeed porous. Unfortunately, the Conservative government did not do its job and did not make sure that our border is secure.

Bill C-56, the Combating Counterfeit Products Act, amends the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act. It seeks to strengthen the enforcement of copyright and trade-mark rights and to curtail commercial activity involving infringing copies and counterfeit trade-marked goods.

This bill creates two new criminal offences under the Copyright Act. They deal with the possession and export of infringing copies. The bill also creates offences related to the sale or offering for sale of counterfeit goods on a commercial scale. It creates a prohibition against importing or exporting infringing copies and counterfeit goods. Finally, it grants border officials new ex officio powers to detain infringing copies and counterfeit goods.

These are important changes, since up until now, border officials required copyright holders to first get a court order before they would seize infringing copies or counterfeit goods. These are the main changes proposed in this bill.

However, it is important to understand that this bill assigns new tasks to border authorities, to the border officers. As I have already said, as my colleague from Sherbrooke said so well earlier, and as my colleague from Compton—Stanstead often says during question period, there are already problems at the border. Ensuring safety at the border to allow the border authorities to do their job properly is problematic. The reason is quite simple: $143 million was cut from the Canada Border Services Agency. There were already problems, but instead of strengthening the border, the government made more cuts to the Canada Border Services Agency, which is irresponsible. This will have a direct impact on jobs. It will affect officers who work to protect our borders. Five hundred and forty-nine jobs will be cut, which means 549 fewer people to do the work at the borders across Canada, including in the Sherbrooke area and at the Compton—Stanstead border.

This is not going to improve the situation, despite the fact that this bill makes some corrections, as a number of members have mentioned. I am not one to make partisan speeches. I will even mention the hon. member for Durham, who made a very important speech and talked about a number of things, including the fact that this bill needs to be improved in committee. I think it is a shame that we have to hear such things.

It is 11:35 p.m. and I am a bit tired, so that explains why I sometimes lose my train of thought. I think it is important to the democratic process for us to be here, even at 11:35 p.m., to make speeches, debate bills, propose amendments and provide explanations about the validity of these bills. We will support this bill at second reading so that it can go to committee. That is very important.

This is directed mainly at the Conservatives, because I know that NDP members do an excellent job in committee. I do not know how many times I have made speeches in the House about the excellent job NDP members are doing in committee. They listen carefully to the recommendations made by experts and then bring them forward in the form of amendments.

We will support this bill. As a number of members have mentioned today, we have been waiting for this bill for a long time. We must strengthen the fight against counterfeiting to ensure respect for the efforts of Canadian businesses and the goods they produce and to protect the health and safety of all Canadians.

Several of my colleagues have given good examples of car parts and other items we use every day that could put our health and safety at risk. That is why this kind of bill is so important. It will essentially guarantee that the products Canadians use are safe.

However, the Conservatives, who are currently in power, have to provide the necessary financial and human resources to implement this bill. We will support it and study it in committee.

I must appeal to the Conservatives once again, because unfortunately, as we have seen many times in the past, they have not been listening. I hope they will listen closely to all of the experts who testify before the committee, and I urge them to take the experts' recommendations into account along with amendments that the NDP and others will make based on the experts' recommendations. I hope they will improve this bill. That would be a first step to show that they are acting in good faith.

They could also show they are acting in good faith by investing the necessary money and human resources to ensure all Canadians benefit from a bill that meets their expectations.

The government has been aware of this problem for a long time. Difficulty measuring the scale of counterfeiting and pirated goods in Canada has been a challenge from the start. The OECD's 1998 report entitled “The Economic Impact of Counterfeiting and Piracy” was a first look at the scale of the problem.

I am running out of time, so I will wrap up my remarks. This bill must meet the needs of Canadian consumers and protect health and safety. The Conservatives must reverse their decision to cut the CBSA's budget by $143 million, a decision that will result in the loss of 549 jobs. Otherwise, this bill will not really benefit Canadians.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly Bill C-56 is a better bill than previous bills we have seen the Conservatives table. Since the bill basically creates new and significant ex officio powers for border officials, can the member tell me how much money is being invested in the training of these officials? It is obvious that these are specialized areas, so if he could answer that I would appreciate it.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, despite the gag order imposed on us, I am very pleased with our discussion because it gives us the opportunity to gain a better understanding of the implications of Bill C-56.

I thank my colleague, who serves on the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, as I do. I would like him to tell us again how important it is that the committee conduct a thorough study, since this is the committee that the bill will be referred to. Accordingly, as one of his colleagues indicated, the report must include certain specific issues that were raised during the consultations I held with a number of industry stakeholders.

I would like him to talk about the significant role the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology has to play in the review of this bill. As he mentioned, this bill is important for intellectual property, for the protection of intellectual property rights and for several industries, including those in his riding and in the riding of LaSalle—Émard.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Kitchener—Waterloo and as a member of the industry, science and technology committee, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise this evening to speak to Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act, at second reading.

The flow of counterfeit and pirated goods crossing our border is of mounting concern. Knock-off goods undermine the integrity of legitimate Canadian businesses and raise their costs. They deceive consumers and often put their health at risk. They siphon off tax revenue and fuel the growth of organized crime. For all of these reasons, I support Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act, which is one more step in our government's march toward a modern and strong intellectual property regime.

For my part today, I would like to look at how the proposed act would promote public safety by fighting serious and organized crime.

First, however, let me reflect on the nature of counterfeit and pirated products, why they are so hard to detect and why they have become such a pressing issue.

Modern counterfeiters operate in more subtle ways than they did in the past. They often remain out of sight, and their clandestine goods reach our borders unannounced and too often undetected. What is worse, their wares often make it all too easily onto the open market to be sold to often unsuspecting customers and consumers.

Counterfeit goods can take the form of consumer products such as clothes, appliances and toiletries—household items that we need to be safe—and even health products like medications that Canadians rely on for their families. Frankly, they can be anything that can be produced and distributed for profit.

Modern-day counterfeiters have an utter contempt for copyright and trademark laws, for the health and safety risks posed by unsafe or inferior products, for the lost tax revenue for our infrastructure and essential services, for the lost profits for intellectual property owners and for lost consumer confidence in the marketplace.

It is disturbing to note this criminal activity is also becoming more common. Between 2005 and 2012, the RCMP estimates that it investigated more than 4,500 cases of intellectual property crime in Canada. During that same period, the value of counterfeit products seized by the RCMP skyrocketed from $7.6 million to $38 million.

As high as these numbers are, they are only a drop in the ocean. Remember that $38 million represents the value of the seized products. How many other products manage to cross the border? How many more millions of dollars were lost? How many more consumers were put at risk?

One fact is clear: counterfeiting is on the rise not just in Canada, but around the world.

At least two House of Commons committees have published detailed reports confirming the growing threat posed by these goods, not only to the Canadian economy but also to health and to safety.

Many of our trading partners have already taken steps to strengthen their intellectual property enforcement regimes. We cannot afford for Canada to be at a disadvantage compared to our peers. We need a made-in-Canada solution that takes account of the key international developments in the fight against commercial counterfeiting.

For several years industry associations have been pushing for changes to Canada's intellectual property legislation. I am proud to say that Bill C-56 responds to demands for a modern approach to combat counterfeiting and piracy.

Once passed, the bill will help reduce the availability of counterfeit and pirated goods in Canada. In so doing, it would protect the integrity of our economy, support Canadian growth and jobs, and help protect Canadians from the health and safety risks posed by harmful counterfeit goods.

From a public safety perspective, a successful attack on counterfeit goods also means taking a lucrative source of revenue away from serious and organized crime. To that end, the bill would introduce new enforcement tools to strengthen Canada's existing intellectual property regime, both within Canada and at our borders. It would also bolster existing protections against commercial counterfeiting activities.

In this way we would be better equipped to prevent large shipments of counterfeit goods from entering Canada. By disrupting the distribution of illegitimate goods, we would make it more difficult for organized crime to make a profit.

Let us make no mistake: the collection and distribution of significant quantities of counterfeit products is not the random work of a few isolated individuals. The scope of the problem and the profit involved would suggest that organized crime is involved.

What is the attraction? Organized crime can take the profits from counterfeit goods to support any number of nefarious activities, from trafficking drugs to smuggling firearms. In other words, the profits from all these fake products are buying real drugs and real guns and threatening the safety of our streets and communities.

Our government stands firm in the fight against organized crime. The bill would give the RCMP new tools to combat the threat posed by counterfeit and pirated goods when serious and organized crime is believed to be involved.

At the same time, it would not be used at the border to search individual travellers who happen to possess counterfeit or pirated goods for their personal use. I will have more to say about the role of consumers in a few minutes, but first let me provide a more detailed overview of the proposed legislation.

It often takes years of hard work and significant investment to develop intellectual property, not to mention the huge effort to turn that property into a brand that consumers identify and trust. Counterfeit goods, then, do not simply result in lost sales for trademark and copyright owners: they also undermine hard-earned reputations and can put the very existence of businesses at risk.

The proposed legislation would help Canadian businesses protect their brands and works. Currently, if counterfeit trademark or copyright goods are sold in the marketplace, for example, the rightful owners could take legal action through civil courts. Specifically, they could ask for civil remedies for the manufacture, distribution and possession with intent to sell counterfeit goods, but how do the rightful owners stop these goods from entering the market in the first place?

Under current legislation, rights holders must first get a court order to have authorities detain suspicious goods at the border. The amount of specific information needed to obtain a court order can lead to delays that work to the advantage of criminals.

Bill C-56 would streamline this system, allowing trademark and copyright owners to submit a so-called request for assistance to the CBSA and provide information to help identify suspicious goods, thus assisting rights holders to seek civil remedies.

These officers in turn would share information about the detained goods with rights holders. Armed with this evidence, rights holders could then pursue the matter in the courts, as I mentioned a few minutes ago. This collaborative approach would help take the wind out of the sails of organized crime.

Of course, the bill supports the Canadian judiciary system for determining who has copyright and trademark rights, thereby protecting against abuse or misuse of these new border measures.

Rights holders would pay the costs associated with the detention of goods, and the proposed legislation would also contain safeguards for information sharing. Importers would also be notified if their shipments were detained and would have the right to inspect them.

Finally, if the system was being abused, the Canada Border Services Agency could remove a rights holder from that request for assistance process, so there are safeguards.

While the new act would introduce civil remedies, it would also strengthen our criminal law.

Currently the Criminal Code has limited offences relating to trademark fraud. The laws primarily target conduct related to forgery of a trademark; possessing instruments for forging a trademark; defacing, concealing or removing a trademark; and passing off wares or services as genuine, with intent to deceive.

These offences, however, do not go far enough. That is why the bill would make it an offence to sell, distribute, possess, import and export counterfeit goods for the purpose of trade. Offenders would be subject to fines and face possible jail time.

In addition, new criminal offences for possessing and exporting pirated goods for the purposes of trade would be added to the Copyright Act. That would allow the RCMP to seize counterfeit and pirated goods. These provisions were not proposed lightly, but considering that profits from such goods can end up in the hands of organized crime, we need to pursue and prosecute offenders more diligently. That is why the proposed legislation would provide new powers to investigate commercial counterfeiting.

Mr. Speaker, you will note now that I said “commercial counterfeiting”. The proposed legislation will not result in searches of travellers at the border who may possess counterfeit and pirated goods for their personal use—we know that consumers do not always know the origin of a product they acquire in good faith for personal use—nor will the government be pounding on the door of law-abiding citizens who may own knock-off DVDs.

The proposed new authorities to seize goods and prosecute are intended to be used against those who knowingly bring in counterfeit goods with the intent to sell, rent or distribute them in the marketplace. That said, I believe consumers play a role in the fight against counterfeit goods. Canadians are increasingly aware that commercial counterfeiting is not a victimless crime and that knock-off goods do hurt. They hurt intellectual property owners who lose hard-earned income. They hurt law-abiding Canadian taxpayers, as commercial counterfeiters do not pay their share. They hurt the entrepreneurial drive that stimulates innovation and fosters new economic growth. Most insidiously, they hurt innocent people through defective products that maim, injure and sometimes even kill.

In the end, Canadians pay a truly high price for the fake products commercial counterfeiters sell. By being smart consumers, all Canadians can help us combat the scourge of counterfeiting and piracy. In so doing, we can all do our part in the fight against serious and organized crime.

I would like to close by putting Bill C-56 into a larger legislative and policy context. This new act is part of this government's ongoing commitment, a commitment I have been very proud to be involved in, to strengthen protection for intellectual property and to ensure our communities are safe.

The bill would complement the Copyright Modernization Act that recently came into force. Together these two pieces of legislation would create a comprehensive approach to the protection of intellectual property rights. I want to reassure the House that Canada is committed to the efficient flow of legitimate goods across our border. We will work with all of our trading partners to ensure that our actions to enforce intellectual property rights do not themselves become barriers to legitimate trade. Our country so depends on the flow of trade.

Canada has always been a trading nation, and no more so than now, but for all the benefits brought by the global economy, there are associated risks. Faced with an escalating threat of counterfeit and pirated goods and in response to the calls for action from industry, the government has tabled this bill before the House. I believe Bill C-56 is fair and balanced legislation that helps us tackle the scourge of counterfeit and pirated products while protecting the rights and the interests of individual consumers, travellers and legitimate business.

By passing this bill, we not only protect industry, consumers and government revenue, but we can also make progress against serious and organized crime. For all these reasons, I urge all members of the House to join me in swift passage of the bill.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise and thank the member for Durham for his very informative and interesting speech. Speeches like his make me sad that the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons imposed time allocation on this very interesting debate.

In his remarks on this bill, he mentioned that it is very important, and I agree with him on that. He also described the work he used to do. I would like to know how Procter & Gamble, the company he used to work for, estimated that it has lost $1 billion because of counterfeiting. How was that figure calculated? Is that the figure for Procter & Gamble internationally or just in Canada? That is a pretty significant detail.

He mentioned repeatedly that Bill C-56 is an “attempt” to solve this problem, as though there were some uncertainty. Does that mean there is room for improvement?

I would like him to comment further on that.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his very kind comments in welcoming me. While I physically sit on his side of the House, I am not from his side of the House, but I also appreciate my colleagues in all the seats in this place.

The root of the member's question highlights the reason there was such inaction by the previous Liberal government on these important issues and in trademarks specifically. The transition in some parts of the bill, including modernizing trademarks law and empowering intellectual property register at the border, will be substantial changes.

The hon. member is correct in that regard, but the challenge in modernizing does not excuse us from acting. The previous Liberal government spent 12 years, with Canada being named each year as a special trade country to watch, alongside other countries like China and Saudi Arabia, just because it was difficult.

Our government has looked at this seriously in the last few years, and Bill C-56 is an important step to update our laws.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise tonight to speak in support of Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act.

In fact, I am happy to advise this House that my remarks tonight mark a unique occasion when as a member of Parliament I can stand in this House and speak on a government bill on important public policy that I spent a considerable amount of time advocating for in life before politics. I spent several years of my professional life as a lawyer, combatting the rise of counterfeit goods and its impact upon public safety and our economy.

I am also extremely proud to now be part of a government moving to address the negative consequences of the scourge of counterfeit goods. I will use part of my time to talk about this experience. I think it is important for this House to hear real-world accounts from the private sector on why this legislation is needed.

I hope to show my colleagues that the inaction or delay suggested by my friends in the NDP is simply not acceptable. The member for Timmins—James Bay mentioned, several times, the challenges of litigation tonight in debate. That is something I will touch upon because I have led such litigation efforts in this area.

Counterfeit goods are putting public safety at risk. Counterfeit goods are impacting economic activity and revenues. Counterfeit goods can lead to job losses for Canadians. Counterfeit goods and the proliferation of trademark infringement, passing off, and piracy have also become some of the fastest-growing sources of revenue for organized crime.

For many years I was the in-house corporate lawyer for Procter & Gamble in Canada. Not only is P & G a respected global company with branded products that Canadians use in their homes every day, it is also the largest private sector employer in eastern Ontario. With manufacturing facilities in Belleville and Brockville, Ontario, and head office operations in Toronto, P & G employs thousands in Ontario and makes products that are shipped across North America and around the world. It might surprise this House to learn that every Swiffer pad in the world was made in Brockville, Ontario, just an hour from here.

These are important manufacturing jobs in Ontario. They are also critically important to the global economy and trade. Jobs like these in Canada and around the world are put at risk with counterfeit goods.

It was estimated, at the time I worked there, that the scourge of counterfeit goods cost P & G close to $1 billion annually in lost revenue. In these challenging economic times, that is $1 billion that is not invested in innovation, investment, or job creation. This is just the impact on one employer, so we can multiply that literally by hundreds of companies and employers that sell or distribute branded products across Canada.

In 2006, I was confronted with the ugly face of counterfeit goods in my job. Everything I will talk about now highlights the excellent work that P & G and other companies in the industry did to raise these issues. I should also add that I am not violating any solicitor-client privilege; I am talking about publicly known information.

While the company had long worked with law enforcement to investigate counterfeit batteries and some isolated personal care products being counterfeited and sold in Canada, a public health advisory from Health Canada on counterfeit toothbrushes led me to devote considerable time and energy to this file. This advisory came about when a Canadian purchased a counterfeit toothbrush at a value vendor and choked on the bristles that became dislodged when they began brushing.

For such a seemingly innocuous product, there was a serious risk of health. Counterfeit goods contain unknown ingredients or materials. They are made improperly. They have no quality assurance. They are often manufactured in unhygienic surroundings. Only a few months earlier, counterfeit Colgate toothpaste, in the U.S., was found to contain antifreeze.

These events led me to create a brand protection team for Canada. I was fortunate to have Rick Kotwa, a 30-year OPP veteran and head of security for the country, to lead our investigative efforts. I was also lucky to have Jennifer Cazabon, an extremely sharp regulatory scientist, who helped keep public safety and regulatory issues at the forefront of what we developed as a brand protection program. The president of the company at the time, Tim Penner, saw how important this issue was for the company. He empowered our team to investigate and isolate counterfeit distributors across Canada.

Over the next few years we worked diligently on these issues, and we were truly astounded by the size of the counterfeiting problem in Canada and indeed throughout the world. With the backing of a terrific corporate leader like Tim Penner, P & G spent considerable resources pursuing investigation and litigation against distributors and retailers in Canada, despite the fact that we knew we would rarely be able to collect damages or our costs. The company took a leadership position, like many did, in this fight against counterfeit products.

What became clear to me very quickly was that the laws and regulatory structures in Canada needed to radically evolve to address this new and growing risk to public safety and the criminal activities related to it. I began to work directly with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Retail Council of Canada, the Food and Consumer Products Council, and the special purpose organization created for this very issue, the Canadian Anti-Counterfeiting Network.

I would like to thank these organizations, and their member companies, for championing these issues for many years. At these meetings, I got to know many of them, particularly Lorne Lipkus, someone who for more than a decade has been a lean, mean counterfeit-busting machine. He has raised public awareness on this issue more than anyone else in Canada. I thank these people. Our government is listening, with Bill C-56.

The Canadian Anti-Counterfeiting Network released its road map for change on counterfeiting and piracy in 2007. CACN, industry and employers across Canada have engaged with government in the years since 2007. There have been several years of careful consideration and consultation on these issues, at a variety of levels. Our government has listened, and Bill C-56 attempts to address the public safety risks and economic damage caused by counterfeiting. While the New Democrats continually rise tonight to say that more time is needed to explore or debate these issues, I say that the time to act is now.

Our government has been listening, particularly to Canadian employers and their industry groups, and documents like the road map. I want to highlight a few specific sections from the road map that are addressed by Bill C-56, and I would remind this House that it was released in 2007.

The combating counterfeit products act would provide better tools to investigate commercial counterfeiting and help to reduce trade in counterfeit goods by providing new enforcement tools to strengthen Canada's existing enforcement regime. These are specifically cited as recommendations 1.1 and 1.2 in the road map. The act would provide new criminal offences for the commercial possession, manufacture or trafficking of trademarked counterfeit goods, as per recommendation 1.4.

The act would create new offences for trademark counterfeiting, equipping law enforcement agencies and prosecutors with the tools they have been asking for to combat this problem. That is recommendation 4.1 from the road map.

Finally, the last item I will highlight is that this act would give border officers the authority to detain suspected shipments and contact the intellectual property rights holders. They would be able to do this because intellectual property rights holders would be able to file a request for assistance with Canada Border Services Agency. This in turn would enable border officers to share information with intellectual property rights holders regarding suspect shipments so they can be tracked. This addresses recommendations 6.2 and 6.4.

This bill is indeed the culmination of several years of consultations and direct advocacy from Canadian employers, and industry groups like the Canadian Anti-Counterfeiting Network and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, among others. I have highlighted specific portions of this proposed legislation that have come directly from these consultations.

Canadians must know that purchasing counterfeit goods is not a victimless crime. That purse and those watches fuel criminal activity. Counterfeit goods actually feed criminal networks around the world and are fast becoming the lifeblood for these organizations, which in turn bring tremendous harm and oppression to people in Canada and around the world.

In the last few years, Interpol has directly connected profits from counterfeit good sales to the funding of terrorism. In 2005, the RCMP declared organized crime to be the primary actor in the field of counterfeit goods sale and distribution in Canada.

In 2005, the U.S., Canada and Mexico, at the security and prosperity partnership meetings, addressed this issue as a major economic and public safety issue that fuelled organized crime across North America.

Finally, it is important to also note that in 2006, the U.S. trade representative placed Canada on the special 301 watch list for the 12th consecutive year. That is a trade watch list, because the intellectual property rights regime and regulatory structures in Canada were deemed inadequate. I might note that in 2006, that was the 12th year, almost perfectly coinciding with the previous Liberal government's time in office.

Our laws and regulations had not been addressed in a generation and criminal organizations were taking advantage of our weakness. Our trade partners were demanding that we get serious. Bill C-56 is part of our effort to get serious on combatting counterfeit goods.

Since our government came to office in 2006, we listened to employers, including the CACN and other groups, consulted through road map documents and various public groups and forums and what has been produced is Bill C-56. It is a balanced attempt to update our intellectual property rights regime in Canada.

Going back to what got me into this area, the Canadian who was fooled into buying the counterfeit brush. which steered my career down this path, was fooled because the criminals were literally stealing the good will associated with Procter & Gamble's toothbrush brand. The intellectual property behind the brand, from the trademarks to the industrial designs, were being used by criminal organizations to trick people into buying shoddy products that had not been manufactured in the way the brand would expect. These criminal groups could then funnel these profits into other criminal enterprises and even terrorist activities around the world.

In the last few years when I became aware of this issue, a few areas scared me, literally, out of sleep. Many believe the dog food crisis years ago in Canada was fuelled by counterfeit ingredients from a Chinese producer.

Counterfeit electrical goods have been seized and found by the Canadian Standards Association, not just before being put in homes and hospitals, but after they have been installed, where counterfeiters have stolen the intellectual rights and trademarks that the CSA uses in its seal and that electricians across the country have learned to trust when they install things in people's homes. Electrical goods are counterfeited.

Aircraft and military parts in the U.S. have been found to be counterfeit, not only putting the lives of the operators, the men and women in uniform, at risk, but putting people in and around their use at risk as well.

This problem is vastly greater than a handbag or a watch. It is public safety, first and foremost, and it is combatting organized crime on a secondary level.

The proposed bill will give border officers additional tools to work with government partners—Health Canada and the RCMP—as well as intellectual property rights holders to better ensure that commercial shipments are free from harmful counterfeit goods or from counterfeit labels.

Shipments of any provenance that do not meet the standards or that affect intellectual property rights will be detained and investigated and will not be permitted to get out to the Canadian consumer.

We also need to protect intellectual property in Canada to allow our businesses to invest, innovate and create jobs. The last time the Trade-marks Act was substantially updated was in 1954. There is now a wide range of possibilities for businesses to differentiate themselves. This bill recognizes the new and innovative ways that businesses use intellectual property to distinguish their goods and services from those of competitors.

These rights holders are employers and employ thousands of Canadians across the country. Protecting their intellectual property rights protects jobs. Sounds, scents, holograms, position marks, colours, numerals, figurative elements, 3D shapes, textures and now even taste are commonplace in the world of intellectual property. This bill would specifically allow for the registration of these non-traditional trademarks, giving them the same level of protection as a traditional mark.

Finally, the bill would improve the reliability of information found in the trademark register. It would simplify the overall trademark registration process by streamlining some of the requirements and removing all impediments to the use of electronic documents. It is important for Canada to have a trademark register that is accurate and up to date. This bill would allow the Canadian Intellectual Property Office, or CIPO, to easily and quickly correct blatant and obvious errors after registration, instead of the intellectual property rights holder having to go through the time and expense of seeking an order from the Federal Court.

While the central focus of this bill is the criminal, civil and border enforcement measures, there must be a high level of legal certainty that a legitimate owner's registered trademark is valid in order to get the most out of that regime. By streamlining certain registration procedures, this bill would ensure a high level of effectiveness, efficiency and validity for Canadian trademark owners, while saving them time and money in the process.

For example, if a Canadian business owner wishes to register his or her trademark, which was previously registered in another country, he or she will no longer need to provide certified copies of the foreign registration as proof. This would save both time and money, as applicants would no longer have to contact the foreign intellectual property office and pay a fee to obtain a certified copy.

In opposition proceedings, an applicant must reply to a statement of opposition with a counter-statement that responds to each allegation. With this bill, the counter-statement would need only state that the applicant intended to respond to the opposition, thereby lessening the burden on applicants when the opposition would be first filed.

Rules on the registrability of a trademark would be made clear. A key element in trademark law is that a trademark must be distinctive. That is, it must be capable of distinguishing the goods and services of the business from those of other businesses. The bill would ensure that any trademark that would be registered would meet the distinctiveness requirement.

Currently an application for a certification mark, which guarantees that a good or service meets certain standards, must be based on actual use. The bill would allow applications for certification marks based on the proposed use, thereby harmonizing with the approach taken by other types of trademarks.

In 1954, the last time this act was touched, it was difficult to imagine that electronic communication and the dissemination of documents would be so prevalent, so the Trade-marks Act and its provisions were very much paper-based. The bill would remove paper requirements and would allow for the filing and handling of all documents electronically.

I cannot assure the House enough that Bill C-56 is not only critical to the public safety of Canadians. Whether they brush their teeth in the morning, feed their pets or turn on their lights, they need to know the marks and seals that they have come to trust are legitimate and that people abusing this trust will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

We must also recognize that by shutting this door to counterfeiters, we are also shutting the door to criminal organizations. They have quickly moved in and found the margins, and the ability to operate by stealing the intellectual property of Canadian employers allows them a means to fuel their criminal organizations and activities, including terrorism, which our government spends millions of dollars combatting.

This bill is a good attempt at getting our regime updated. We have listened to industry.

I would be pleased to answer questions or comments from my colleagues on this important legislation.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-56, on behalf of my riding of Sherbrooke.

I have a vested interest in this issue because the Sherbrooke area in the Eastern Townships is very close to the border. This is therefore very important to me and concerns me deeply. I am sure that my colleague from Compton—Stanstead, who is now listening and probably thinking along the same lines, shares my interest and concerns. Indeed, the Minister of Immigration recently visited Stanstead, as a result of reports of the porous border. This happened against a backdrop of recent revelations and surprises about illegal immigrants.

However, it is also true, with regard to counterfeit goods, that the easier it is for dishonest people or criminals to cross our borders, the more our country suffers.

As the member for Sherbrooke, I am understandably very interested in our borders, given their proximity. Indeed, my riding is less than 30 minutes away from the U.S.

By the way, I would like to thank the member for LaSalle—Émard, who has worked on this file and continues to do so every day. She is passionate about this issue and about her work. I am convinced she will represent our views when the time comes, when the bill is being studied in more detail in committee.

We hope that that will happen soon because the government is addressing this at the last minute, as was mentioned earlier. It seems to be at the bottom of their list of priorities at the tail end of this parliamentary session. It is hard to believe the government when it says that this is a priority. We have been waiting for this bill for a long time. It was introduced on March 1, 2013. Today, the government is saying that it is a priority, just as the session is coming to a close. So much for good intentions and good faith.

We will be supporting the bill at second reading. It is common knowledge that this bill has been anticipated and talked about for years now. I think the discussions go back to 2007. There have also been talks with the United States, which is an important player in the fight against counterfeit goods. The United States is essential to our country because it is our major trading partner.

It is important for Canadian businesses and consumers that we fight counterfeiting, particularly when counterfeit goods can put Canadians' health and safety at risk. It is a rather important point that I also mentioned earlier when I asked the member for Halifax West a question.

The member mentioned that auto parts could sometimes be counterfeit. That clearly endangers the lives of some Canadians who go to the local garage to have their car fixed. They might wind up with counterfeit parts that are not up to Canadian standards. The brakes or airbags might not be up to Canadian standards.

This is a very important issue in the sense that it could endanger the safety and lives of Canadians when they think they are using a product that complies with current standards. However, they might eventually realize they are using a counterfeit product, meaning that some malicious person tried to copy an existing product. Those are not necessarily the safest of products.

There is also the matter of resources. I talked about that this evening during this debate on Bill C-56. I also mentioned it in my questions to my colleagues. I talked about the lack of resources at the Canada Border Services Agency.

The minister and most of the members who have spoken try to play with the numbers and say that since 2005, the total budget has increased, that it will decrease relative to 2012, but that in fact, since 2005, it has increased. They are playing with the numbers. However, the truth is that less money will be available for the agency in 2013. That is a number that is easy to come up with.

The Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism keeps saying that the budget has increased relative to 2005, but the reality is that the agency will have less money than it did last year. That is a budget cut. There are no two ways about it.

The government often likes to compare its spending to that of the Liberal government in 2005. It says this is an increase. However, the increase in funding allocated to the departments in question is below the level of inflation since 2005. Any administrator knows that if costs increase and the budget does not keep pace with the increase in costs, then this can be considered a budget cut. It is a simple calculation that seems to escape the government when it talks about increases from the time the Liberals were in power to now.

That is another debate we could have in the wake of the Conservatives' budget cuts. This bill puts additional responsibilities on border services officers. They are being asked to take on more responsibility and be on the lookout for counterfeiting, but they are not being given the resources they need. That point has been raised by a number of people since Bill C-56 was introduced.

The bill creates two new criminal offences under the Copyright Act. These offences have to do with the possession or export of infringing copies. The bill also creates offences for selling or offering for sale any counterfeit goods on a commercial scale. The bill also prohibits the importation or exportation of infringing copies or counterfeit goods and balances out this ban with two exceptions.

These two exceptions are important. The first has to do with personal use, so copies that are in an individual's possession or baggage. The second has to do with copies that are in transit control. If I have the time, I will discuss the notion of transit control later on.

The bill is truly focused on fighting crime. It is often criminal groups that choose to use counterfeit goods in order to make money. Organized crime groups are often the ones that are trading in counterfeit goods. This bill will does not directly target average people who may inadvertently be in possession of or have purchased counterfeit goods.

The bill also gives border officials new powers that authorize them to detain infringing copies or counterfeit goods. That is an important policy change, since up until now, border officials required copyright holders to first get a court order before they would seize infringing copies or counterfeit goods. This request to grant these powers to officers has been discussed since 2007, I believe.

In conclusion, I want to say that it is unfortunate that this bill assigns new responsibilities but does not provide any resources to carry them out. We are asking the officers to do more with less. The NDP thinks that is unacceptable. If you ask someone to take on added responsibilities, you have to give them the resources to do so.