This bill was last introduced in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session, which ended in September 2013.
Christian Paradis Conservative
In committee (House), as of June 12, 2013
(This bill did not become law.)
This is from the published bill.
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.
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.
Combating Counterfeit Products ActGovernment Orders
Mégantic—L'Érable Québec
Conservative
Christian Paradis ConservativeMinister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture)
moved that Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Kellie Leitch ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour
Mr. Speaker, I have to say at this hour I am usually here on my own, just with you, so I am delighted to have so many guests. I am honoured today to rise and introduce C-56, the combating counterfeit products act, at second reading.
Last year our government welcomed the final passage and coming into force of the Copyright Modernization Act, which gave new rights and new tools for copyright owners and users, giving them the certainty and tools they need to fully engage in the online world. As part of the overall balance of the bill, the copyright modernization act introduced specific provisions to deal with the issue of online piracy.
With the combating counterfeit products act, we would be taking the next step in putting in place the legislative changes that are needed to deal with counterfeiting and piracy in the physical marketplace and at our borders. This bill would protect Canadians from harmful counterfeit products. It would help our creative businesses and workers, and law enforcement and border officers confront the increasing threat of trademark counterfeiting and copyright piracy. It would also bring Canada's laws in line with international standards.
Before describing the various features of this bill, please allow me to clarify what counterfeiting and piracy mean in the context of the--
Mr. Speaker, my apologies. When I speak of counterfeit trademark goods, I am referring to knock-off goods--
My apologies. I am referring to knock-off goods that are distributed on a commercial scale and that closely resemble the legitimate goods, but that bear an unauthorized trademark--
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
Kellie Leitch Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is easy to get a little caught up at this hour. I know that when even the whip is laughing at my comments, I have a definitely reached a new low in the House of Commons.
I am glad that you are staying straight-faced, Mr. Speaker. I will stay concentrating on you.
It is easy to associate counterfeit goods with designer clothes, watches and so on, similar to what was being spoken about in the lobby by the member for Mississauga South earlier this evening. The reality is that counterfeit goods extend well beyond luxury goods. They are found in nearly all types of commercial and industrial products, from shampoo to smart phones, from industrial ball bearings to brake pads--
The Acting Speaker Barry Devolin
Order, please. If the parliamentary secretary is unable to proceed, would she prefer to cede the floor to another member?
Kellie Leitch Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON
Mr. Speaker, I will proceed.
Today they are more pervasive and more difficult to detect and, in this sense, much more problematic. Consumers may even unwittingly purchase a good that they assume to be legitimate, but which contains counterfeit components. We owe it hard-working Canadian families to prevent exposure to such products.
Copyright piracy is the making of illegal copies without consent of copyright holders and their subsequent commercial distribution. We know from our stakeholders, that copyright piracy is increasingly moving online.
The issue of copyright piracy in the physical marketplace is far from resolved, when we think of CDs, DVDs or software being offered for sale in stores and in other markets.
Commercial counterfeiting and piracy are growing issues in Canada and around the world. As with illicit activities, the scope of counterfeiting and piracy is difficult to track and measure.
However, this is what we do know. The RCMP investigated over 4,500 cases of IP crimes in Canada between 2005 and 2012. In 2005, the RCMP seized over $7 million worth of counterfeit and pirated goods. In 2012, this number had grown to $38 million, a fivefold increase.
Canada is not alone. Other developed countries are signalling a rise in the prevalence of counterfeit and pirated goods in the marketplace.
This increase in the value of seizures in Canada is also consistent with what we have heard from Canadian businesses. They have been telling us for years now that counterfeiting and piracy have an impact on innovation and economic growth across the country.
Over the last six years, organizations such as the Canadian Intellectual Property Council and the Canadian Anti-Counterfeiting Network have issued reports calling for legislative changes to deal with counterfeiting and piracy. Most recently, we heard the same calls from several witnesses at a study before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.
The measures proposed in the bill are crucial if we are to keep creating high-tech jobs in the future.
Businesses have been overwhelmingly vocal in their support of the bill. For example, Mr. Kevin Spreekmeester, vice-president of global marketing at Canada Goose Inc. and co-chair of the Canadian Intellectual Property Council, said, on March 1:
Canadians have long been victims to the illicit counterfeit trade and the new measures announced today should be welcome news for consumers, businesses and retailers alike.
Mr. Jayson Myers, president and CEO of the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, explained that counterfeiting:
—has been a longstanding priority issue for manufacturers...[they] punish legitimate businesses. They are a drain on our economy and on jobs – and they put the health, safety and environment of every Canadian at risk...
Counterfeiting and piracy hurt our economy. However, beyond their economic impact, there are serious criminality and health and safety issues that we simply cannot overlook.
The commercial production and distribution of counterfeit and pirated goods has been associated with organized crime. This is just another line of business for them and it may help them fund other types of activities, such as drug smuggling and illegal firearm sales.
As for health and safety, there are numerous examples of counterfeit goods that could expose Canadians to danger. Think of the counterfeit batteries or car parts, medicines or baby food.
In 2005, 11% of counterfeiting and piracy cases examined by the RCMP involved harmful products. In 2012, this number grew to 30%.
I would also like to take a moment to speak about one of the particular issues that illustrates the growing threat posed by these goods.
In July 2012, Canada Border Services Agency officers referred a shipment to the RCMP for investigation. This shipment contained 476 counterfeit wheel bearings, with a commercial value of $45,000, which were to be used by the Canadian mining industry.
What this illustrates is the fact that these goods have not been subjected to Canadian safety standards and may cause harm as a result. Who knows whether these pieces of equipment would have actually functioned to the standard of levels that we expect in Canadian equipment.
With the new provisions in this bill, we will start to get a fuller picture of the threat that commercial counterfeiting and piracy pose to the Canadian economy and to address it within Canada and at its borders.
Now that I have described the scope of this issue and the very tangible consequences of counterfeiting and piracy for businesses, consumers and the economy, let me turn to a description of the key elements of Bill C-56, the combating counterfeit products act, and of how this bill would help in the fight against commercial counterfeiting and piracy.
To confront this, we must give new authorities to border officers to enable them to act when they encounter commercial counterfeit or pirated goods at the border. We must also give rights holders the tools they need to stop counterfeiting and piracy before these illegal goods can enter the Canadian market and undermine their brand and their work. Third, we must give law enforcement the tools it needs to pursue those who gain commercially from this illegal activity.
With respect to the bill itself, let me expand. First, the bill would strengthen Canada's intellectual property rights enforcement regime at the border. Currently, border officers are not allowed to search for and detain counterfeit and pirated goods without a court order obtained by the trademark or copyright owner, which has proven to be onerous for businesses overall.
Bill C-56 introduces a process that would allow rights holders to submit to the CBSA a request for assistance, which would enable border officers to share information with rights holders regarding suspect commercial shipments.
The request for assistance would allow rights holders to record details about their trademark or copyright at the border, and to provide contact information. It would also contain practical information about how to identify legitimate versus counterfeit or pirated goods. The request for assistance would be an effective tool to enable rights holders to defend their private rights in civil court.
Let me be clear. Bill C-56 would not allow border officers to seize goods for copyright or trademark infringement. It would provide the authority for border officers to temporarily detain goods suspected of being counterfeit or pirated, and then provide limited information to rights holders regarding those detained goods.
This information could only be used to determined if the goods were counterfeit or pirated, or to assist the rights holders in pursuing remedies in the courts. The courts would remain the only competent authority to determine whether goods detained at the border infringed intellectual property rights and to apply appropriate remedies.
The bill would also amend the Trade-marks Act and the Copyright Act to allow border officers to temporarily detain shipments suspected of containing commercial counterfeit and pirated goods. Border officers would be able to act either following a request for assistance or on their own initiative.
With these new measures at the border, we would only target commercial counterfeiting and piracy. There would be a personal use exemption, which means we would not be searching individual travellers possessing personal use quantities.
The bill would provide a specific exception at the border for individual consumers importing goods intended for personal use, as part of their personal baggage.
Goods that were made legitimately in the country where they were produced would be excluded from the new border measures.
With this bill, we would send a clear message. We understand the threats that counterfeiting and piracy represent for our businesses, for the economy and for the health and safety of Canadians, and we are acting accordingly.
Our government has been clear. Our focus remains on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for Canadians. Counterfeiting and piracy directly threaten each of these. With the provisions in the combating counterfeit products act, our government would be taking action to curb the presence of these illegal goods in our country and at our borders.
The Acting Speaker Barry Devolin
The time for government orders has expired. When this matter returns before the House, the hon. parliamentary secretary will have seven minutes remaining.
Bill C-56—Time Allocation MotionCombating Counterfeit Products ActGovernment Orders
York—Simcoe Ontario
Conservative
Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
moved:
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.
The Speaker Andrew Scheer
Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1 there will now be a 30-minute question period.
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, sadly, it is not a surprise that the Conservatives have, yet again, moved to shut down debate in the House of Commons, even before the debate has started.
What is of mild surprise to me is that the Government House Leader has not memorized this Standing Order. He uses it so often, on so many pieces of legislation, that he should have it by rote now.
What is unfortunately at the heart of this is that we as the official opposition have a couple essential jobs that we must do on behalf of Canadians, and that is to hold the government to account and to check that the government's spending, which is done on behalf of Canadians, is done properly and accurately.
On spending, clearly the government has run roughshod over its original principles of actually minding the taxpayer dollar, from the F-35 to the scandals in the Senate.
On the aspect of legislation, which is the process before us yet again, the government is breaking, even further, all records in Canadian history for shutting down debate in Parliament. We attempted to work with the government on this legislation. We offered up certainty as to how many speakers and when so the bill could move forward with some progress. In that offer, the government has refused all reasonable requests, moves time allocation, shutting down debate again, which ironically enough takes longer than the offer we gave to the government, suggesting that the New Democrats are stonewalling or that the House cannot proceed.
What part of “yes” does the government not understand? What part of “Let's work together on legislation” does the government not understand?
My friend says that we should take their word. He should be careful about what he is suggesting. He is suggesting somehow that when the New Democrats make an offer, a public offer or a private offer, to the government on behalf of the legislative body in this place, it is presented in a dishonourable or dishonest manner. I am sure my friend across the way did not mean to insinuate that because it would certainly be unparliamentary.
However, at what point does the government want to be reasonable and be a government of competence rather than a government of arrogance and ideology, ramming legislation through with no consideration at all for the purpose of this place, which is to have debate, have discussion and make this a better country?
Bill C-56—Time Allocation MotionCombating Counterfeit Products ActGovernment Orders
Mégantic—L'Érable Québec
Conservative
Christian Paradis ConservativeMinister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture)
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House to once again extol the virtues of Bill C-56.
As we know, in recent years, evidence has suggested an upward trend in global trade in goods. 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 safety.
Furthermore, counterfeiting has become a priority for Canada's key trading partners and other G8 countries, many of which have taken steps to strengthen their respective intellectual property rights enforcement regimes. That demonstrates how important this bill is.
There are some very concerning numbers in terms of this problem. Just let me quote the fact that the RCMP has identified the value of counterfeit products has increased about five times from what it was back in 2005. Back in 2005, it was about $7.6 million and in 2012 it was about $30 million. We cannot close our eyes to this problem. This is a serious threat.
Bill C-56—Time Allocation MotionCombating Counterfeit Products ActGovernment Orders
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's attitude toward democracy has really come up short. Every day it seems the government is trying to bring in time allocation, limiting a member's ability to contribute to debate. No prime minister in the history of Canada has used that tool as often as the current Prime Minister has.
We have noticed a huge difference since the government acquired that majority attitude. It is really most unfortunate and it does not matter whether it is time allocation in regard to our wheat board, which offended 20,000-plus Prairie farmers, or the budget, which has had a profound negative impact on Canada's middle class. Time after time, the Prime Minister has denied members of Parliament the opportunity to stand in their place, represent their constituents and provide due diligence on legislation.
My question is for the Government House Leader who refuses to stand and answer this question time after time. Why has the Prime Minister taken such a negative attitude toward democracy in the House of Commons in the last two years?
Bill C-56—Time Allocation MotionCombating Counterfeit Products ActGovernment Orders
Conservative
Christian Paradis Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, the bill that we are talking about is very crucial. Under the leadership of the Prime Minister, we want to tackle this issue. We are addressing concerns about the health and safety of Canadians. We are talking about combatting organized crime. We are putting in place a prohibition of counterfeit labels.
Let me just quote some supportive groups.
The Food and Consumer Products of Canada said, “Counterfeit products pose a danger to Canadians. Congrats to the government on taking this positive step”.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce said, “We welcome new legislation aimed at tackling counterfeit and pirated products”.
This is what the stakeholders think. This is what Canadians think. They expect their government to take care of their health and safety.
Glenn Thibeault NDP Sudbury, ON
Mr. Speaker, like many on this side of the House, I am appalled at once again having to go through time allocation and having our time limited on such an important subject. I do agree with the minister that Bill C-56 is an important bill that we need to address.
In 2009, recommendations were made by the industry committee to do exactly what the minister talked about. Why is it taking so long for the government to act when we can protect consumers and Canadians a lot sooner?
At the industry committee, we heard from businesses that said cuts to the CBSA would impact and harm Canadian consumers.
Here we are again, having an opportunity to debate a bill, but time is being cut. We can bring forward good amendments to make the bill stronger, to protect Canadians, but we cannot do it when the Conservatives keep pulling the rug from underneath us.
Bill C-56—Time Allocation MotionCombating Counterfeit Products ActGovernment Orders
Conservative
Christian Paradis Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, we have to act on this issue. There are stakeholders supporting this. They have put a lot of pressure on the House of Commons to get this through. It is ironic. On one hand, the opposition says we are going too fast. On the other hand, it says that we are dragging our feet.
I think we all agree on the principle, and the numbers are there. The value of these counterfeit goods was $7.6 million in 2005 compared to $38 million in 2012. We cannot afford to just close our eyes and say that everything is good.
There were two House of Commons committees that worked on this matter. It is time for us to move on. We are ready to go with sound and solid legislation, taking care of the health and safety of Canadians, combatting organized crime and prohibiting fake labels.
This is also good for the economy. We have innovators who struggle to invent new products, but when there are people who trick Canadians like that, it just jeopardizes all of their work, their time, their energy and the resources and the capital they put into their projects.
We have to demonstrate leadership and say enough is enough, that this kind of practice is no longer tolerated in our country. No one will argue against that. This is just good common sense.