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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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 Trade

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Minister 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.

[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 Act

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Minister 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)