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 bill was last introduced in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session, which ended in September 2013.

Sponsor

Christian Paradis  Conservative

Status

In committee (House), as of June 12, 2013
(This bill did not become law.)

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.

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.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Votes

June 12, 2013 Passed That, in relation to Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and that, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

April 30th, 2013 / 11:10 a.m.
See context

Derek Nighbor Senior Vice-President, Public and Regulatory Affairs, Food & Consumer Products of Canada

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, my name is Derek Nighbor. I'm a senior vice-president with Food and Consumer Products of Canada. I welcome the opportunity to be here today.

We are the largest national industry association representing Canada's leading food, beverage, and consumer products companies, which manufacture or distribute the household products that sustain Canadians and enhance their quality of life. We represent roughly 75% to 80% of what you would see in your local grocery store as products on the shelves.

From an employment perspective, our industry provides high-paying jobs to approximately 300,000 Canadians in both rural and urban areas in every region of Canada. We are in fact now the top employer in manufacturing in Canada, with a great potential to be even bigger and better.

Today l'II provide an overview of our industry's priorities, followed by a few key challenges and suggestions and maybe some ideas for future committee discussion on how the federal government can help our sector grow in Canada.

Here is a quick industry overview.

Our industry is proud that Canadians enjoy some of the safest food and beverage products in the world. I think this is something we often take for granted, given our large land mass and the high level of safety that we have at top of mind in our industry. We work closely with government to maintain Canada's global reputation as having a world-leading food safety system. This is great for export potential, and product safety is and will remain the number one priority for our member companies. We support a predictable and transparent regulatory system that is based on sound science. We believe this is absolutely essential for consumers to have confidence in the products they buy and for our businesses to successfully operate and grow.

I want to talk about consumer education, because Canadians are increasingly interested in learning more about the food and beverages they are consuming and want to take greater control over their health through their diet and the products they choose. To help consumers make informed product choices, FCPC and our member companies have made great strides in promoting nutritional literacy among Canadians. Since 2005, for example, we've provided the government-regulated nutrition facts table on processed product packages. Just last year, we worked very closely with Health Canada to implement revamped allergen labelling on our packages. Our industry did not look for exemptions on allergen regs. We did the right thing and supported those who could have severe allergic reactions from foods or beverages that they consume.

Another thing we're very proud of is that in order to help consumers better understand the nutrition facts table, we partnered with Health Canada and a number of retailers across the country to launch a collaborative campaign called the Nutrition Facts Education Campaign. The purpose of that campaign was to help Canadians better use and understand the nutrition facts table, especially the per cent daily value portion of that table.

We had 34 companies and Health Canada, with a number of retailers promoting in-store. The table helps give Canadians the tools to make informed food choices for themselves and their families. Early results from that campaign, which is three years in now, have been quite positive, showing that 52% of Canadians who have seen the campaign and the campaign logo say that it has changed the way they shop for groceries.

On product choice I want to talk about the options in the grocery store and the innovation happening in industry. We have made great strides in developing new, innovative products in response to consumer demand—foods with lower sodium and lower fat levels, with trans-fats eliminated, and vitamins and minerals added. As Canadian consumers increasingly search for a wide variety of nutritional choices, it's important that we meet their expectations and help them manage their health through diet. A recent FCPC survey of our member companies showed that 92% have responded to changing consumer needs by launching new, innovative products or making reformulation changes to existing products. If we think of the grocery store today compared with that of ten years ago, we can see the real difference that is happening in our communities.

I'm going to move to plant operations briefly to talk about water conservation. This is another area in which our beverage members have done a lot of work, making a lot of investments in the plant to reuse water, to reduce water usage, and overall to be more environmentally responsible. Another survey we did with our member companies showed that more than 90% of our member companies have made water reduction a priority in the production process, and half have identified industry initiatives to reduce consumption within their office or plant operations. Juxtaposed against international benchmarks, we're seeing that Canadian companies may in fact be pulling ahead of their global peers in this space.

That's the good stuff. I want to talk a little bit about some of the challenges we're facing.

Regulatory barriers continue to be a challenge, although I'll acknowledge a lot of the work that Health Canada has done to make some improvements on product approvals. Once again, when we're talking about product approvals, safety is paramount. We're not looking for fast-tracking of approvals. We're looking for thoughtful, efficient approvals, often turning to other jurisdictions that may have approved these products for the sharing of leading science.

As I said, our members develop the innovative products that consumers demand for the Canadian market, but it's with getting approvals in a timely manner that we're seeing some challenges. Registering a product or getting a product approved by Health Canada can take on average five years longer than it does in the United States. I say this not in advocating for a U.S. model, for there are many issues with the U.S. model, but we are definitely seeing significant delays in Canada that don't need to be that way.

As I said, though, in the past several months we have seen some changes via Bill C-38. There's been some modernization and simplification of Health Canada's regulations without putting consumers at risk. For example, I believe the Canadian Beverage Association, when they were here, talked about the approval of the sweetener, stevia, which provides a greater choice for consumers interested in carbohydrate-reduced diets. That was a very big approval, and one that we were waiting for a long time.

We support the current efforts. Of course, we'd like to see things move more quickly and would support any efforts this committee can make to continue looking for more efficient, thoughtful ways to make the regulatory environment more responsive to the needs of consumers and to business.

Packaging stewardship and recycling—those of us from Ontario know the blue box very well—is an area of greater and increased cost, but a responsibility that industry takes very seriously, in terms of reducing waste. Provincial governments are responsible for these programs, but we're dealing with the provincial governments on the patchworks of regulations that govern them from province to province. There is a lot of administrative cost in complying with province by province waste diversion rules and regulations. I think it's of interest to this committee, although you don't have direct responsibility, to understand that this is a growing cost factor affecting all folks along the food and beverage value chain.

I want to talk about counterfeit goods very quickly and also about what we call diverted product. That could be a juice that might have been destined for the U.S. market but that, through a broker or a retailer of some kind, somehow came into the Canadian market, maybe without French labelling, maybe with an American nutrition facts table, or maybe directly from Asia with no English labelling at all.

Our concern here, on the food side of things, is the issue of safety and also fairness in the marketplace. If you think of the robust allergen regulations we have in Canada, as some of those products make it onto the shelves in some of our stores there could be some real risk. I want to table this as an issue for this committee to consider working on with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, to give it greater attention. The agency has done some work, but we continue to see a lot of diverted product that is meant for another market being sold in Canadian stores.

I want to credit the government for work done on Bill C-56, the combatting counterfeit products act. I know that MP Erin O'Toole, in his previous life as a legal counsel, worked a lot on the issue. We were really happy to see this bill. You might think about exploding batteries or razor blades and a whole host of fast-moving consumable products that are counterfeit. It's really important that border services and others in law enforcement be aware of this risk and that we work with members on the supply chain to deal with those issues.

Just quickly, as a last point before summary, let me speak about the skilled labour shortage.

Our industry requires a high level of scientific and technological expertise to develop products and to operate facilities across the country. We're increasingly facing shortages in this area and are concerned that they are only going to get worse. We're really lacking in educational training programs that focus on the scientific and technical expertise required to meet skilled labour demands for our industry, and we encourage measures to help meet this demand, including government partnerships with universities and colleges.

In summary, I want to restate our commitment to increasing nutritional literacy and consumer choice for Canadians and to reducing our environmental footprint. To help our industry grow, we need modern regulations to address this patchwork of recycling program issues, the growing presence of counterfeit and non-compliant products, and the issue of skilled labour.

I look forward to working closely with the government and parties on both sides of the aisle on these issues to help our industry innovate and grow in Canada.

Thank you.

April 16th, 2013 / 9:25 a.m.
See context

NDP

Jonathan Genest-Jourdain NDP Manicouagan, QC

Mr. Calla, you also said it was mandatory for by-laws to be published in a medium other than just written newspapers. It is important to take advantage of the Internet and Web sites and other methods to let people know that consultations are being held.

To your knowledge, does this private member's bill, Bill C-428, specifically provide for such measures to ensure optimal participation by communities?

March 21st, 2013 / 9:05 a.m.
See context

NDP

Sadia Groguhé NDP Saint-Lambert, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you for joining us today. Your being here is clearly important because the visit of the member for Calgary Northeast has left us with far more questions than answers with regard to Bill C-425.

Certain notions are still fairly ambiguous, as is the application of the whole bill, especially when it comes to the risk of individuals becoming stateless. In addition, the number of people who will be affected by the bill is very small. The Canadian Forces' representatives who testified told us that the legislation would affect about a dozen individuals annually.

Minister, I would also like to ask you about the amendments you mentioned you would like to propose. When will you introduce a concrete amendment proposal, so that the committee can examine it as quickly as possible?

March 19th, 2013 / 10:25 a.m.
See context

Liberal

Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Pecknold, as I said to Mr. Dandurand earlier, we are talking about a very delicate situation here. We have to deal with witnesses, to confront organized crime and street gangs and so on. I represent a constituency that has street gangs, and I can tell you that the situation is not as you see it on TV or in the movies.

In your view, can the fact that Bill C-51 provides for an extension to municipal and provincial levels present a danger to some extent? The more information is being circulated, the greater the risk of leaks. There are moles everywhere, even inside departments and police forces.

How can we protect the information in order to make sure that witnesses are truly protected?

Could you give a practical answer to that question?

March 19th, 2013 / 9:40 a.m.
See context

Chartered Accountant, Tax Expert, Tax Policy Specialist, Author, As an Individual

Brigitte Alepin

When I read Bill C-48 as it relates to all the measures the Canadian government is putting forward to address the taxation of Canadian multinationals, one thing is clear. On the one hand, the government really seems to want to end a form of tax fraud involving tax havens. It is targeting taxpayers, ordinary citizens who are not respecting the tax system by putting their money in tax havens. My sense is that the Canadian government wants to crack down on that practice.

On the other hand, however, when it comes to tremendous corporate and personal wealth, the government seems to want to create a legal way to exempt the super wealthy from paying taxes. There seems to be a two-tiered system to deal with the whole matter of tax havens, international transactions and so forth. If you're not a multinational or you aren't super wealthy, the government is watching you, given that a multitude of rules can be applied to stop your aggressive tax planning tactics. But if you're in the opposite position, the government seems to want to make it easier for you not to pay taxes. The upstream loan rules set out in Bill C-48 are an example of the government contradicting itself.

March 19th, 2013 / 9:35 a.m.
See context

NDP

Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

When I listen to my colleague Brian speak, it reminds me of when I was on the Standing Committee on International Trade. We would object to free trade agreements because they contained measures we did not agree with, not because we were opposed to free trade.

Coming back to you, Ms. Alepin, I found your presentation very enlightening. I was especially interested in what you said about the blatant contradiction as regards the provisions that will come into effect under Bill C-48 . They make a lot of sense, as you pointed out at the beginning of your presentation, but they conflict with the double taxation avoidance agreements between two countries. All of that is very interesting.

Right now, we are studying tax havens. At the end of the day, however, the real problem probably isn't the fact that people are trying to evade taxes but, rather, that the state is giving them the mechanisms to do so, or taking contradictory approaches.

Under this study, we have examined the issue of transfer prices because that is another serious problem. As you told my colleague Ms. Nash, the real problem, when all is said and done, is that the government is working against itself by signing these non-taxation agreements.

March 7th, 2013 / 11:05 a.m.
See context

Conservative

John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC

Merci, monsieur le président, and thank you to our guests for joining us this morning.

I'm especially pleased to have a chance to ask questions because in the province I come from and the riding I represent a high degree of importance is placed on fisheries and the environment. We have a group of community-minded volunteers in my riding who call themselves the Sea to Sky Fisheries Roundtable, who are very well acquainted with fisheries issues. There are about a dozen people, including former fisheries minister John Fraser, as well as Dave Brown, and John Barker who heads up the West Vancouver Streamkeeper Society.

They have participated with me in various fisheries-related things in the four years since I was first elected, among other things, calling for some sort of inquiry into the missing sockeye salmon, encouraging our committee to investigate aquaculture issues, and working with officials in the department to build a wonderful salmon spawning viewing platform in the Squamish area. They are very engaged. They have raised the following three issues. I'm going to ask three questions and hope you have time to deal with them.

First, they have supported measures to increase the portion of salmon stamp revenues that are sold on tidal fishing licences, so those revenues come back into the Pacific region and go toward funding salmon initiatives. It would be good to hear the department's response to that.

Second, changes to Bill C-38 and the effects on fish habitat were raised previously. We've heard there is an active consultation process. This was asked by the parliamentary secretary in the previous meeting. I would like to hear how meetings like the ones our round table had are being incorporated into the process of defining those regulations. How is this process working? How can people track how their participation makes a difference?

Third, the consolidation of DFO offices is being depicted as something that will enhance effectiveness, but there are concerns that it really results in a loss of DFO officers, including in the riding I represent.

I'd love to hear your responses.

March 5th, 2013 / 10:35 a.m.
See context

NDP

Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, we have heard from the government that it would like Bill C-48 to be passed as quickly as possible. This is an approximately 1,000-page long document. Liberals, Conservatives and ourselves all agree that this is not a particularly controversial bill in terms of its content and technical aspects.

However, two things should be kept in mind. First, the content is made up of the recommendations from the Canada Revenue Agency and the Department of Finance, comfort letters and tribunal rulings. In other words, this is an update of provisions that have generally or often already been applied. It is a confirmation of those provisions. This is legislation that brings it all together.

The second point that we are currently discussing is the issue of process. For ten years there were no legislative updates. We feel that this highlights a very specific and serious problem with the way in which technical bills such as this bill dealing with tax amendments are brought forward and tabled.

From our perspective, we could be accused of not properly playing our role as an opposition if we didn't raise this specific issue of how legislative measures are tabled; we must ensure that this is done efficiently for the sake of taxpayers, accountants, and tax practitioners, but also for the sake of parliamentary process.

I think that we should specifically consider process and how these measures are tabled. That is why I feel that it is very unfair and probably inefficient on the part of the government to ask us to hurry up. In the end, we will not have the opportunity to discuss process if we don't do it now. Once the bill is passed, there will not be unlimited opportunities to come back to the issue.

Furthermore, a little earlier the Minister of State told us that the recommendations that had been tabled by various chartered accountants' organizations and by the Canadian Tax Foundation were definitely interesting and he understood them, but they wouldn't necessarily be implemented.

I would like Mr. Chapman and Mr. Hayos to tell us how long this debate has been going on. Did it happen during previous parliaments? Is this more or less the same debate that you have already heard? If so, based on your experience, can you tell us why we are in this situation in 2013, in Parliament, in terms of process and in terms of amendments still being chosen for consideration in a very random way?

March 4th, 2013 / 5:10 p.m.
See context

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Bezan

That one is out of order.

We're going to continue on after clause 117 which is the Criminal Code.

We have clauses 118 all the way through to 135. I'm hoping we can group these together because these are all consequential amendments to conform Bill C-15 and the National Defence Act with all these other acts. Can we do that right up to 135? Then we'll come back to the stood clauses.

We'll let Mr. Harris quickly go through. They're all consequential amendments. They're all about conformity of Bill C-15, the National Defence Act, and all associated acts.

(Clauses 118 to 135 inclusive agreed to)

International TradeOral Questions

March 4th, 2013 / 2:50 p.m.
See context

Mégantic—L'Érable Québec

Conservative

Christian Paradis ConservativeMinister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture)

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear: Bill C-56 is a way to support and protect Canadian families.

Counterfeiting is a growing problem that must be stopped. Counterfeiting deceives Canadians and poses risks to the safety of Canadians. We must ensure that the legislation is updated and appropriate in order to equip the authorities with effective tools to fight counterfeiting, which is exactly what was introduced on Friday. If the NDP is responsible, I hope they will support us.

International TradeOral Questions

March 4th, 2013 / 2:50 p.m.
See context

NDP

Charmaine Borg NDP Terrebonne—Blainville, QC

Mr. Speaker, a number of countries have rejected this unacceptable agreement. The anti-counterfeiting trade agreement—ACTA—was drafted behind closed doors and would incriminate the daily users of cultural content. This agreement will turn our border officers into instant copyright experts, without the adequate legal support.

Canada must seriously study the problem of counterfeiting. However, the failure of Bill C-30 means that Canadians do not have faith in this Conservative government.

Is Bill C-56 not simply a way to support ACTA through the back door?

Combating Counterfeit Products ActRoutine Proceedings

March 1st, 2013 / 12:05 p.m.
See context

Mégantic—L'Érable Québec

Conservative

Christian Paradis ConservativeMinister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture)

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

February 27th, 2013 / 3:30 p.m.
See context

Peter Jon Mitchell Senior Researcher, Institute of Marriage and Family Canada

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and committee members, for the opportunity to appear before you today in regard to Bill C-273 on behalf of the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada, a social policy think tank that conducts and compiles research on issues pertaining to the Canadian family.

Just last week another study was published in a peer-reviewed journal that linked the damage done by bullying during childhood to the increased risk of mental health related issues in young adulthood. The consequences of unaddressed bullying are severe.

As I continue to review research and engage with parents, I encounter a high level of anxiety and a sense of helplessness among parents of bullied children. Many of our attempts to stay ahead of the cyberbullying issue are akin to refereeing a soccer game from outside the stadium. As parents and caring adults, we prepare our children, acknowledging that once they enter the online world they're on their own. It is as if we are left peering at the field of play through a gap in the fence. Caring adults are largely absent in the online world of children and teens. Bullies know it, and they thrive where adults are absent.

Conceptually, enforcing the full weight of the Criminal Code on bullies appeals to the popular sense of justice, but this simplifies what is often a complex issue where many bullies are also victims. Functionally, the criminal law occupies the far end of the continuum in a series of bullying interventions among children and youth, the demographic that I want to speak to today.

The Criminal Code can protect victims and the community from escalating harm, but it is a very particular tool within limited circumstances. Before speaking to the specific merits and concerns that I have with Bill C-273, I want to acknowledge two limits to the function of the Criminal Code that should ground our expectations on what it can accomplish.

Use of the Criminal Code will not eradicate bullying.

First, applying the criminal law does not address the nature of bullying. At its core, bullying is a relational issue that requires relational intervention. Canadian clinical and developmental psychologist Gordon Neufeld understands bullying to be an instinctual, social, and emotional issue. Children, like adults, instinctually connect and attach to others, forming caregiving and care-receiving relationships. This is easily observed when watching children play. Neufeld argues that these naturally forming hierarchies facilitate the drive to care for others, but where instinct should draw upon empathy, the bully, often impaired by his or her own emotional trauma, is compelled to expose and exploit perceived weaknesses. Unmaking a bully takes time and requires relational capital.

Second, the Criminal Code is limited in the ability to prevent and deter young cyberbullies. As Wayne MacKay, who chaired the Nova Scotia Task Force on Bullying and Cyberbullying, noted in his report, “...the criminal law, while necessary and useful in certain serious cases, is a limited and often ineffective tool against the social problem of bullying.”

Professor MacKay notes that criminal law has limited impact on prevention and deterrence for young people. In fact, until very recently, the Youth Criminal Justice Act omitted the principle of deterrence during sentencing, in part because of this assumption that youth are less likely to be deterred by criminal sanctions.

American criminologist Thomas Holt summed it up well when he argued, “It's very hard to say that any 14-year-old with a cell phone who can text is going to think about a cyberbullying law when they're communicating with their peers.”

The best response to bullying is a community-level approach that brings together parents, caring adults such as educators, and children and youth. Research demonstrates that home and school environments are key to preventing the escalating nature of bullying.

Authentic relationships between youth and adults are critical to shielding victims and unmaking bullies. Justin Patchin, a criminologist at the U.S.-based Cyberbullying Research Center, who testified before the Canadian Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, said elsewhere, “The vast majority of cyberbullying incidents can and should be handled informally: with parents, schools, and others working together to address the problem before it rises to the level of a violation of the criminal law.” But of course there are situations where the Criminal Code is necessary to protect victims and the community from escalating harm.

What are the merits of Bill C-273?

First, the bill brings the stated sections of the Criminal Code into the 21st century by addressing common tools of communication. Some have argued that the Criminal Code is already sufficiently broad to encompass electronic bullying behaviours, particularly section 264. The amendment to section 264 may be unnecessary.

Second, the modifications are modest and clarify existing sections of the Criminal Code rather than proposing new sections of untested criminal legislation.

Finally, there are some serious concerns around the implementation of Bill C-273.

First, we can expect that clarifying the Criminal Code in this manner will lead to an increase in its use. Increased use of these provisions may draw more youth into the criminal justice system, many of whom would fare best if dealt with outside the justice system.

Second, the committee should consider how the increased use of the Criminal Code will impact school-based responses to bullying. Could the adversarial nature of the criminal justice process inhibit community-based responses to bullying?

Finally, it remains unclear whether legislation reduces bullying. In the United States between 2000 and 2010, over 125 pieces of legislation were passed mostly at the state level yet the problem seems to remain as persistent as ever in the U.S.

To conclude, bullying among children and youth requires a community-level approach. On some occasions cyberbullying may escalate to a point where the Criminal Code is necessary to protect victims and the community. Bill C-273 appears to be a modest modernization of existing Criminal Code provisions, but at what cost?

Consideration should be given to the possibility that the increased use of the Criminal Code will create a chill on the community-level approach, particularly by drawing more youth into the criminal justice system.

Refereeing cyberspace is a difficult task. Our best approach is to empower parents, educators, and children and teens themselves to work together.

Thank you.