Bill C-8 (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.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Thank you all very much.

While the debate on Bill C-31 has been going on, and of course, Bill C-8, being very similar, the government has insisted that this was going to be good for business, right? But the amount of letters and other things from IP people and lawyers from across this country flagging this issue have been very overwhelming.

Can you tell me a little bit more about this? Since a lot of people seem to think this is going to hurt businesses in Canada, and you have more or less all been alluding to that fact, could you reiterate some of the ways that it's going to affect business in Canada if this goes forward?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and through you to our witnesses.

This is Bill C-31, Canada's economic action plan. I think you outlined the benefits and how our economy will grow as a consequence of businesses being able to focus more on marketing and sales, and not having to re-qualify for all the trademarks with these different countries involved in the treaties. Thank you for clarifying why it's part of Canada's economic action plan.

Going through this, I know we did study Bill C-8, and I believe, Mr. Halucha, you were here. Would you refresh our memories on the difference between a certification mark and a trademark?

[Paul Halucha]

Thank you very much for the question.

I would agree that the two objectives you outlined, making sure Canadian companies were more competitive and ensuring costs were brought down, were the two policy objectives of the decision the government took to move forward with these treaties.

Stakeholders have been supportive of parts of the provisions. The committee will note that elements of this bill are also contained in Bill C-8, the anti-counterfeiting bill that was debated extensively here in the fall.

For example, they're supportive of elements like the expansion of trademark registration to more modern forms of trademarks. These non-traditional marks that were discussed at the time have received support.

There are procedures like allowing applicants to split their applications. For example, if they are in a process and they have a portion of the application that is controversial that may be the subject of opposition, but another component that isn't, they can split them off and proceed with the one where there is no controversy so they can acquire and protect that IP as quickly as possible. That also has received support.

I think it's fair to say that in general, everyone is supportive of the accession to the Madrid Protocol and the Singapore Treaty. There has been some discussion on whether or not the benefits will accrue equally. There's clear observation that internationally, multinational companies have a preponderance of the types of marks, and therefore they will benefit more than potentially small businesses that don't need the Canadian market or are present in only a small number of countries.

It depends a bit on whom you are talking about in terms of who will benefit.

One issue that has come up, which has been raised certainly with us in a number of pieces of correspondence, is the issue of use. That has been a decision that was taken in terms of how to administer this protocol to the benefit of Canadians. A form in particular has been eliminated, or the proposal is to eliminate it as part of this. There's a compliance cost to businesses to filling out this form, and it doesn't exist in other jurisdictions outside of Canada that are party to the protocol, with the exception, I believe, of the Philippines.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, first, let me acknowledge my colleagues', and I say that in the plural, co-operation with respect to both Bill C-30, the fair rail for grain farmers act, and Bill C-25, the Qalipu Mi'kmaq first nation act, today. We appreciate that co-operation.

This afternoon, we will continue with the second reading debate on Bill C-33, First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act. That debate will conclude tomorrow and we will then proceed with a committee study of this important legislation this spring.

Monday shall be the fourth allotted day. We will debate a proposal from the New Democrats.

The Liberals will then get their turn on Tuesday, which shall be the fifth allotted day. I am still waiting to see a proposal from the Liberal leader on the economy. Maybe he is still finessing his newest definition of the middle class. I recommend to him the recent study from the U.S.A., the one that has been widely reported, which demonstrated that the Canadian middle class, according to his recent definition, that is the median income, is doing better than ever in history. For the first time, the Canadian middle class is doing better than its American counterpart. Perhaps we will see that on Tuesday as the subject of debate in the Liberal motion, since they claim that the middle class is their priority.

On Wednesday, we will start the report stage debate on Bill C-23, the fair elections act. I want to take this time to acknowledge the hard work of the members of the procedure and House affairs committee. My friend was just talking about the hard work they have been undertaking and the difficult pressure they are under. Largely, it should be said, it is a result of the lengthy filibuster, of which the New Democrats were so proud, at the start, whereby the committee lost many days, when it could have heard witnesses.

Notwithstanding that loss of work, those delay tactics, and the obstruction by the New Democrats, the committee has got on with its work. It heard from almost 70 witnesses. It had over 30 hours of meetings. Now it has gone on to complete about a dozen or so hours of detailed study of the clauses of the bill and the government's reasonable and common-sense amendments to the bill. I expect that it will complete that work shortly.

Despite the long hours the committee members are putting in, I know that they will be keenly anticipating the appearance, before the next constituency week, of the Leader of the Opposition at that same committee. That will, of course, be in compliance with the House order adopted on March 27 respecting the allegations of inappropriate spending and the use of House of Commons resources by the New Democratic Party. There the hon. member for Outremont will have the opportunity to answer many important questions of interest to all Canadians, including, I am sure, some questions from his own caucus members, who have been dragged into the scheme the NDP leader has put in place.

Finally, on Thursday morning, we will consider Bill C-3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act, at report stage and third reading. After question period, we will resume the third reading debate on Bill C-8.

Bill C-8—Notice of Time Allocation

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the third reading stage of Bill C-8, An Act to amend the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose, at the next sitting, a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage of the bill.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, in light of this afternoon's debate, I did want to make a short statement with respect to the business of the House.

First, the sixth allotted day will not be tomorrow. I will return to the House at a later time to designate a new date.

Second, the first item to be considered tomorrow under government orders shall be Bill C-8, the combating counterfeit products act, at third reading.

Finally, I give notice that with respect to the consideration of the privilege motion of the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, at the next sitting a minister of the crown shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that the debate be not further adjourned.

Combating Counterfeit Products Act

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to stand today and speak to Bill C-8, An Act to amend the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

It is also a particular pleasure to stand in the House when parties are in general agreement about a piece of legislation. We on this side of the House feel it is our constitutional responsibility and our political duty to provide a rigorous opposition to government. The flip side of that, though, as typified by our late leader Jack Layton, who was always looking for ways to work together in the House, is that it is incumbent upon us to congratulate the government when it does bring in a piece of legislation that would advance the legislative agenda in Canada. I think we would do that with this piece of legislation.

We are dealing with copyright and trademarks. I am wondering if the NDP should now trademark our policies and positions against the incursions that the Liberal Party continues to make.

The Liberal leader is getting kudos in the news right now for removing Liberal senators from partisanship by removing them from caucus. New Democrats put forth a motion in the House, in October, that called on the House to request exactly that. It called on the parties to remove senators in the Senate from their caucuses. The Liberal leader voted against that just three months ago, which leads to questions of hypocrisy. In terms of taking ideas that are not really owned by them, it is quite timely that we are talking about that here today. I am wondering if political parties should start taking advantage of it.

The official opposition New Democrats are going to support this legislation at report stage, and a brief summary of our position on this issue is as follows.

We New Democrats believe that dealing with counterfeiting and infringement is important for both Canadian businesses and consumers, especially where counterfeit goods may put the health or safety of Canadians at risk.

Intellectual property requires an approach that strikes a balance between the interests of rights holders and the interests of users and consumers. Again, I want to congratulate the Conservative government for tabling a bill that largely strikes that balance because it is a difficult area. I do not think the bill is perfect, but I am looking forward to seeing improvements and hearing from Canadians and interest groups at committee to hopefully find out where the bill can be improved and honed. I encourage the government to be open to those ideas because that can only make the legislation better.

Bill C-8 would amend the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act. Its purpose is to “strengthen the enforcement of copyright and trade-mark rights and to curtail commercial activity involving infringing copies and counterfeit trade-marked goods”.

This legislation would add two new criminal offences under the Copyright Act for possession and exportation of infringing copies and would create offences for selling or offering counterfeit goods on a commercial scale. The bill would create a prohibition against importing or exporting infringing copies and counterfeit goods and introduces some balance to that prohibition by creating two exceptions: first, for personal use, items in one's possession or baggage; and, second, for items in transit control.

The bill would grant new powers to border officials to detain infringing copies or counterfeit goods. This is a significant policy shift, as until now border officials required these private rights holders to obtain a court order before being able to seize infringing copies or goods.

Bill C-8 would grant powers to the Minister of Public Safety and border officials to share information on detained goods with rights holders and would widen the scope of what can be trademarked to the features found in the broad definition of “sign”.

I will stop here and pause for a moment to talk about the health implications of copyright or trademark infringement.

Many of us think of copyright infringement as the archetypical issue of buying a knock-off Prada bag. When a consumer travels to Asia and buys goods for personal use that are not the real item, that is a problem. That is a serious infringement of the rights holder's rights and the creator's rights, and that is something that nobody can countenance.

However, that is not the worst aspect of this type of issue. I went to the U.S. embassy in Ottawa about six months ago, where a presentation was put on by U.S. officials that was frankly nothing short of shocking. They gave us information and showed us material that indicated that counterfeiting is going on with things like automobile airbags and prescription medication. In other words, there are places in this world that are making knock-off airbags and selling them to Canadian autobody shops, which then will install in Canadians' cars what they think are factory-authorized airbags. They may pay the price for that mistake with injury or death when the bag does not function as it is supposed to.

Canadians are always facing issues with prescription medication costs. That is another idea that I hope other parties in the House will come to agree with New Democrats about, to finally get a national pharmacare program in this country so we can deal with the very real problem of people being able to afford their medications. Why would any Canadian want to buy knock-off or non-authorized medications? It is because medications are too expensive, and that should never be the case. There are other ways to get at an issue like that. However, in the meantime, when there are producers selling false medications, not only in Canada but the United States and Mexico, that presents a serious problem to Canadians' health.

I want to talk a bit about the background to this situation. Measuring the problem of counterfeit goods and copies in Canada, and its corresponding impact on our economy, is very difficult. Nevertheless, New Democrats support dealing with counterfeiting even if we are not able to fully quantify the extent of the problem. We know it is real and that it exists. However, it remains unclear as to how the Canada Border Services Agency would implement enforcement measures in the face of cuts that originated in budget 2012. Our analysis of the budget information shows that the current government has slashed $143 million in funding to CBSA, which has further reduced front-line officers and harms our ability to monitor our borders. I will be giving more numbers on that in a few moments.

I think it is fair to say that the government previous to the current one has long been aware of the difficulties that exist with respect to counterfeiting copies and goods in Canada. That was a challenge that was identified first in a 1998 OECD report on the economic impact of counterfeiting. The reason that there is difficulty in getting a firm handle on the extent of the problem is because of the clandestine nature of counterfeiting. By the very nature of the issue it is done underground and in secret, and the parties involved are trying to skirt and avoid scrutiny.

Therefore, much of the data we have is estimated based on actual seizures, anecdotal evidence, or from industry itself, in which case the collection methods may be unavailable to assess. Nevertheless, the 2007 industry committee report on counterfeiting recommended that the government establish a reporting system that would track investigation, charges, and seizures for infringing copies and counterfeit goods as a means of collecting some data. The recent 2013 report notes that it is difficult to obtain a precise estimate of the market for counterfeit or pirated products in Canada. I would repeat: as a piece of good policy in this country and good regulatory control, we should be looking for ways to collect actual data to monitor and track the extent of it. That would be so we not only know the extent of the problem we are dealing with, but also as a means of measuring the efficacy and success of our attempts to deal with it, such as is the goal of this bill.

Much of the information in Canada comes from statistics from actual seizures, as I mentioned. Industry Canada notes that the retail value of counterfeit goods seized by the RCMP increased from $7.6 million in 2005, to $38 million in 2012. In 2009, the OECD estimated that international trade in counterfeit goods and infringing copies could be valued at up to U.S. $250 billion worldwide.

Again, we know anecdotally that counterfeit products can pose risks to the health and safety of consumers, whether we are talking about the issues I mentioned, airbags and medicine, or even counterfeit electrical components or unsanitary stuffing in the clothing that our children wear.

I have noticed reports that counterfeit batteries have actually exploded while in the custody of police officers, and there are at least eight cases of children in Canada being burned by counterfeit batteries, things that seem innocuous. People may ask, “What is the problem if people pick up a couple of batteries? They are cheaper than the real ones, and there is no harm being done.” Well, there is and there can be serious harm done by counterfeit goods. It is not just about economics.

I want to talk about the cuts to the CBSA. New Democrats believe that dealing with counterfeiting is important both for Canadian businesses and for consumers. As we said, we are not going to make much progress on this file if we do not start getting a good handle on what the extent of the problem is so that we can measure and track the success of our efforts to combat it, as well as provide the resources and tools to those we ask to enforce the principles of this bill, our Canada Border Services Agency staff. They are the men and women in this country who every day go to work and put their lives on the line to defend our borders, but who also have an incredibly important responsibility to protect our borders in every aspect, which includes ensuring that illicit goods do not come into our country.

In budget 2012, the Conservatives imposed $143 million in cuts to the CBSA. That reduced the number of front-line officers and reduced our ability to monitor our borders. This year, the CBSA report on plans and priorities alone indicates a loss of 549 full-time employees between now and 2015.

What is more, under Bill C-8 customs officers would be asked to make highly complicated assessments as to whether goods entering or exiting our country infringe upon copyright or trademark rights. Such an assessment for infringing copies could include, for example, considerations of whether any of the exceptions under the Copyright Act apply. That is something that even our courts have difficulty with. For this reason, New Democrats believe and want the CBSA officers to be adequately funded to implement the bill without compromising the other important responsibility of protecting Canadians and our border.

The United States, our major trading partner and the country with which we have so much trade and goods going back and forth every day, has wanted stronger enforcement measures in Canada for counterfeit and pirated goods for years. In fact, I believe that is why I, as the official opposition trade critic, was invited to the U.S. embassy last year to work with United States officials and hear their concerns.

In its 2012 Special 301 Watch Report, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative stated that the U.S. continues to urge Canada to strengthen its border enforcement efforts, including by providing customs officials with authority to take action against the importation, exportation, and transshipment of pirated and counterfeit goods.

In its June 2012 report on counterfeiting in the Canadian market, the Canadian Intellectual Property Council identified counterfeiting as a barrier to competitiveness and specifically recommended that customs officials have powers, that Canadian law be amended to bring criminal and civil sanctions for counterfeiting and piracy, and that enforcement officials have the power to seek and implement strong remedies for infringements.

In terms of trade, this piece of legislation effecting well-thought-out and well-resourced remedies to deal with this issue is important to Canada. In a speech I gave earlier this week, I mentioned that Canada is a trading nation, and exporting and importing are extremely important parts of our economic development. Therefore, I think any piece of legislation that would assist our competitiveness and help us protect Canadian businesses and rights holders is a good thing in terms of promoting trade.

A 2007 study conducted by the industry committee produced a report called “Counterfeiting and Piracy are Theft”.

This report shows the importance Canadians need to attach to what is often considered to be simply a minor commercial crime. It is something that hurts the rights holders. It hurts businesses and companies that invest in research and development and go to great lengths to produce goods and services in the market. We have to be respectful of their ability to derive an economic benefit from their hard work and research.

At the same time, we have to balance interests. New Democrats recognize that legislation in this area must balance the interests of copyright and trademark holders with those of consumers and users.

Bill C-8 contains some of the less controversial provisions in ACTA, and the NDP has publicly questioned whether Bill C-8 signals the government's intent to ratify it. ACTA, which Canada has signed but not yet ratified, contains copyright provisions that have been heavily criticized for failing to achieve this necessary balance.

ACTA refers to the piece of legislation the European Parliament rejected after an unprecedented outcry in Europe. The European Parliament was urged to reject that agreement because the benefits were far outweighed by the threats to civil liberties. It is an example of a piece of legislation that failed to achieve the balance the New Democrats are calling for in this legislation.

The European Parliament rejected ACTA because of the risk of criminalizing individuals and because of concerns about the definition of commercial scale, the role of Internet service providers, and the possible interruption of the transit of generic medicines.

New Democrats have taken those concerns to heart, and we have applied the same concerns very rigorously in our analysis of the bill before us today. We support Bill C-8, because in our estimation, the bill is much narrower than ACTA, and it contains a number of provisions that do offer balance. There are important personal-use exceptions and exceptions for goods that are in transit. The bill does not specifically address Internet service providers.

New Democrats do, however, continue to be concerned about the broader provisions in ACTA and will continue to speak out against any legislation that we believe infringes unnecessarily on civil liberties or digital rights in a digital world.

New Democrats want effective legal and policy tools to deal with counterfeiting and infringement that can negatively affect Canadian businesses and consumers, especially where the health or safety of Canadians is at risk. We want legislation that requires an approach that strikes a balance between the interests of rights holders and the interests of users and consumers.

New Democrats are calling for better information and data on counterfeiting. We want safeguards in place to ensure the appropriate use of any new enforcement powers for border officials, and we want to make sure that our border officials have the resources they need to carry out this important task.

I have already mentioned that budget 2012 included $143 million in cuts to CBSA over three years. That was $31.3 million in 2012-13, $72.3 million in 2013-14, and $143 million by 2014-15.

The government minimized the loss of full-time employees by saying that the numbers would be around 200. It was then 250 in a more recent order paper question, Question No. 846. That means that those budget cuts, according to the government's own admission, resulted in the loss of 250 border guards and border officials. However, this year's CBSA report on plans and priorities indicates a loss of 549 FTEs between now and 2015.

New Democrats find it very difficult to see how a bill like this would be implemented in practice in the face of that. We are asking our border officials to take on additional, onerous requirements in a very important area with fewer staff. On this side of the House, we are going to continue to pressure the government and urge it to make sure that we have the tools and resources necessary to carry this out.

It is one thing to be tough on crime. It is another thing to come up with smart policies and to put the resources there that would actually make a meaningful dent in that problem.

Again, I congratulate the government in bringing forth a thoughtful bill. The New Democrats will support it at second stage and at committee, and we hope we can work together to make this good bill an even better one for the benefit of all Canadians.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the parliamentary secretary opposite that Bill C-8 is a step in the right direction and that certain tools will be made available to the Canada Border Services Agency. However, could the member tell us what additional financial and human resources will be allocated to CBSA officers? The national president of the Customs and Immigration Union commented on the CBSA cuts, which amounted to about $143 million. He said that these cuts could make it harder for border officers to ensure the safety of the public, to fight crime, and to crack down on the trafficking of arms, drugs and child pornography.

What financial resources will be made available? We did not manage to get an answer in committee, so I hope that the member opposite will be able to share some information with us.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise today in the House to speak, for the second occasion, on our important work to update our intellectual property regime and, more specifically, to combat counterfeit products, Bill C-8.

This is not just a modernization of our IP regime here in Canada but a bill that would have major impacts on public safety, on economic activity and revenues, and on jobs, because counterfeit products not only lead to risk for Canadians but lead to job losses.

Our present legal framework for intellectual property is also incredibly out of date. Like many areas, our government is moving on important issues of public policy, while other previous governments preferred to kick the can down the road. In fact, the Trade-marks Act was last amended in the 1950s and is out of date. That is before many members of the House were born. Also, with respect to trademarks, it does not even recognize the current state of intellectual property.

A few years ago, I had the good fortune to have a column in Marketing magazine, and in 2012 I wrote a column on the emergence of sound trademarks in Canada. It might interest the House, especially on a Friday, to know that in the U.S. sounds have been trademarked for some time. We are all familiar with the NBC TV broadcast chime that started with radio and is on television. We all know the MGM lion roar. Well, the MGM lion roar is now a sound mark. In 2012, the Canadian intellectual property office allowed, for the first time, a sound mark. A lot of our big companies and big brands will use a sound to associate a connection with that brand. In the marketplace it is called a sound mark or a sting.

Even the language of the act would be modernized from using the old term “wares” to using the more broad and modern term “goods”.

The landscape has changed. Sounds, colours, three-dimensional shapes, textures, and even taste are a critical part of a brand's identity. Companies, employers in Canada, spend millions of dollars securing these brands and this intellectual property.

Speaking of colours being associated with brands, I cannot resist to note that the colour blue is widely known to associate with strength and trust, while the colour red is considered boisterous and flashy. I think these differences between blue and red illustrate the differences between the Conservative leader and Liberal leader perfectly.

Bill C-8 would also enable IP rights holders to stop counterfeit goods at every step in the process: ports, distribution, and retail. As I mentioned the first time I rose to speak on this subject many years ago, for five years I was in-house corporate counsel at Procter & Gamble in Canada. In 2006, I was confronted with the ugly face of counterfeit goods in my job as a lawyer for the company. I assembled a brand protection team, with the support of the company president, Tim Penner; my general counsel, Eric Glass; our head of security, a proud OPP veteran working for P&G, Rick Kotwa; and a regulatory scientist, Jennifer Cazabon, who was in the gallery earlier today with her daughter, Maya. We put together a team to investigate and stamp out counterfeit goods that were affecting that company. They were not only affecting its revenues, its investments in Canada, and its jobs but potentially the safety of people who buy products because they trust the brand. They trust the logo, the trademark.

Bill C-8 would allow rights holders, like Procter & Gamble and other companies, to stop counterfeit goods throughout the criminal activity used to bring them to consumers' homes. The bill would provide better tools to investigate commercial counterfeiting and help reduce trade and counterfeit goods by promoting new enforcement tools to strengthen our current enforcement regime. The bill would provide new criminal offences that criminalize the commercial possession, manufacture, or trafficking of counterfeit goods or trademarked counterfeit goods.

It would also create new offences for trademark counterfeiting and equip law enforcement and prosecutors with the right tools to stamp out this problem.

The act would also give border officials, the CBSA, the authority to detain suspected shipments and contact the intellectual property rights holders about their brands and their rights being attacked. It would allow Canadian businesses to file a request for assistance with the Canada Border Services Agency, in turn enabling border officials to share that information with the rights holders regarding suspect shipments.

This bill is yet another example of our government consulting widely with employers and key stakeholders, and listening. These changes, protections, and new enforcement mechanisms are what industry and rights holders have been demanding for over a decade. Increasingly, our well-trained and professional workers at CBSA have also been asking for these tools to do their job better and more efficiently.

It is also important to note, on the subject of counterfeit goods, that criminal networks around the world are feeding on counterfeiting as a highly lucrative profit to help fuel other enterprises. We know that these international criminal networks throughout the world bring tremendous harm and oppression, not just here in Canada but around the world, and the proceeds from these IP crimes fuel that. In 2005, the RCMP declared organized crime to be the primary actor in this area of malfeasance. Stamping out counterfeit products and IP crimes starves these criminal networks of funding and the ability to hurt.

The public safety elements of Bill C-8 are also very important and deserve highlighting. The bill would give border officers additional tools to work with their government partners at Health Canada and the RCMP. This would ensure that unsafe or unsanitary products that could harm Canadians are pulled from the market.

In my case, Procter & Gamble found that law enforcement officers could tell it that they knew there was a suspicious activity regarding one of its brands, but there could be no tracking and no proper investigation. There would be no prosecution because the tools were not there; so law enforcement, busy as it was, would have other priorities that were more likely to lead to criminal charges and jail time.

I hope we can move ahead quickly with the passage of this bill. By protecting consumers and families and by encouraging businesses through innovation, protecting their brands, and encouraging them to invest in Canada, these amendments would not only promote innovation and creativity; they would help stimulate job growth.

In my situation, while I was at Procter & Gamble, this one employer in eastern Ontario was the largest private sector employer in the communities of Belleville and Brockville, making important investments in manufacturing jobs in an area of our province that has chronic unemployment. Large companies around the world estimate losses in the hundreds of millions or billions of dollars due to the theft of the goodwill surrounding their brands.

The Canadian Anti-Counterfeiting Network, leading Canadian employers, brands, and academics have all been asking for us to update our intellectual property regime in Canada and provide law enforcement with the tools to stamp out these products, which will not only lead to job losses but will fuel crime and pose health risks to Canadians across the country. I truly hope that all my friends in the House will recognize that there has been a decade of asking for this. With our government, we are delivering.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague on the government side.

This is definitely a step in the right direction, and we are always delighted when the government goes in the right direction, but there are still not enough resources. This government seems to have a great deal of difficulty understanding that resources are needed to make improvements. Every time the government takes a step forward, it insists on taking a step backwards. For example, when it passes one regulation, it abolishes another. This government seems to go in opposite directions at the same time.

The Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities says that the required resources will be available to implement what is being proposed by Bill C-8 today. Even the union is wondering where these resources will come from. Exactly what resources is he talking about?

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a privilege for me to rise today and speak in support of Bill C-8, the combatting counterfeit products bill. I will begin by indicating that I will be splitting my time with the member for Durham.

Counterfeit products are a threat to all Canadians. They undermine the success of Canadian businesses by stealing the good reputation of a business in order to sell knock-off goods. The inferior nature of these knock-off goods then serves to tarnish the reputation of quality that the real Canadian business has worked so hard to establish.

However, counterfeit products are not simply a threat to Canadian businesses. Counterfeit automobile parts, counterfeit circuit breakers, counterfeit drugs, and many more dangerous counterfeit products also pose a threat to the health and safety of Canadians. The government has reintroduced the combatting counterfeit products act because we are committed to ensuring that the hard-earned reputations of Canadian businesses are maintained and that all Canadians are protected from the dangers posed by counterfeit products.

I would like to take this opportunity to focus on one of the key elements of Bill C-8. New provisions introduced in this bill would provide businesses and rights holders with better tools to stop those who form a part of the supply chain for counterfeit goods and to obtain compensation from them . These supply chains are essential to the spread of counterfeit products and are directly responsible for counterfeit products entering the Canadian marketplace.

Under the current Trade-marks Act, it is prohibited to sell, offer to sell, distribute, or advertise counterfeit products or services. What this means is that any person found to be selling, distributing, or advertising counterfeit products can be sued by the rightful owner of the trademark that the counterfeit products are attempting to imitate. For example, if someone is selling counterfeit jackets out of the back of a van, the legitimate company, under the current law, is able to sue that individual, both to stop him or her from selling and as a means of getting compensation for the damage done by the counterfeiter. Similarly, that company would also be able to sue an individual who is advertising counterfeit jackets or an individual who is found to be distributing counterfeit jackets to others for the purpose of sale.

However, the problem with this current system is that it does nothing to target those individuals who are part of the supply chain that enables the sale of counterfeit products. Under the current law, the rightful trademark owner has no means of stopping those who produce, import, export, or store counterfeit products prior to a distributor or seller actually selling the counterfeit goods. To illustrate the problem, allow me to give some examples.

Let us imagine that a manufacturer of car parts finds a production line for counterfeit car parts operating somewhere in Canada. Under the current Trade-marks Act, despite knowing that car parts with another person's trademark on them are being produced, the owner of the trademark would be unable to ask a court to stop the production line. Until those individuals producing fake car parts attempted to make a sale or began to advertise their counterfeit products, the owner of the trademark would have no legal recourse to stop them or obtain compensation for damages.

In another case, let us imagine that a brand-name hockey manufacturer finds a series of storage units full of hockey jerseys bearing a counterfeit trademark. Under the current Trade-marks Act, the legitimate manufacturer would have no grounds to seize the counterfeit jerseys, even if the manufacturer was certain that they were indeed counterfeit. Until the legitimate manufacturer could produce evidence of the sale, attempted sale, or advertising of these counterfeit jerseys, he or she would not be able to seize the jerseys. Imagine if this was one's favourite hockey team.

Again, imagine that a legitimate electronics company has grounds to believe that an importer is bringing thousands of fake smart phones into the Canadian market. As members can appreciate, this would be a concern for me as the member of Parliament for Waterloo, for obvious reasons.

Under the current law, they would be unable to go to court to get an order preventing that importer from bringing those counterfeit smart phones into Canada. Unfortunately, once the counterfeit phones arrive in Canada, it is much more difficult to ensure that they are not released into the Canadian market, where unsuspecting Canadian consumers may be tricked into purchasing them.

Clearly, there are gaps in our current laws that need to be filled in order to better combat counterfeiting. Our legislation needs to be updated to ensure rights holders can protect their rights and that Canadian consumers can have confidence that they are purchasing the goods they intend to.

Part of what the combatting counterfeit products bill proposes to do is to fix these loopholes in the law. It would do so by adding new civil provisions to the Trade-marks Act that would tackle all parts of the counterfeit supply chain, not just point of sale.

Specifically, the Trade-marks Act would be amended so that along with selling, distributing, or advertising, individuals who are found to be manufacturing, causing to be manufactured, possessing, importing, exporting, or attempting to export counterfeit products could also be stopped and sued for damages by rights holders. These are overdue provisions.

Under the proposed changes contained in the combatting counterfeit products bill, a legitimate car parts manufacturer would be able to stop the manufacturers of counterfeit car parts under the new manufacturing provision. A legitimate hockey equipment company would be able to seize the storage units full of fake hockey jerseys under the new possessing provision. Under the new importing provision, a legitimate electronics company would be able to prevent an importer from bringing counterfeit smart phones into Canada.

These new provisions will serve to better protect the interests of rights holders by giving them the ability to ask a court to halt the actions of members of the supply chain for counterfeit products. The new provisions will also create a much-needed deterrent to those counterfeiters who, up until this point, had been able to participate in the supply networks critical to counterfeit operations with little risk that they could be targeted by the law.

To sum up, we need the expanded civil provisions contained in the combatting counterfeit products bill to effectively combat counterfeit products that pose serious risks to Canadian businesses and to Canadian consumers. I urge my fellow members of this House to swiftly pass the combatting counterfeit products bill.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise again to resume my comments on Bill C-8. I would like to speak a bit about what is in the bill.

Bill C-8 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 trademark rights and to curtail commercial activity involving infringing copies and counterfeit trademarked goods.

More specifically, the bill creates new civil causes of action with respect to activities that sustain commercial activity in infringing copies and counterfeit trademarked goods. It creates new criminal offences for trademark counterfeiting that are analogous to existing offences in the Copyright Act. It also creates new criminal offences prohibiting the possession or export of infringing copies or counterfeit trademarked goods, packaging or labels.

The bill enacts new border enforcement measures enabling customs officers to detain goods that they suspect infringe copyright or trademark rights. I think my colleagues in the House obviously agree that it is important to protect copyrights and trademarks. It is important to protect Canadians' jobs. This is how they earn their living.

The bill also allows customs officers 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. The bill exempts the importation and exportation of copies and goods by an individual for their personal use from the application of the border measures. This is important to consider.

The bill also 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. Obviously, in this situation, it would be illegal to use a wiretap. We are already hearing about illegal wiretaps that the government has done.

Bill C-8 also amends the Trade-marks Act to, among other things, expand the scope of what can be registered as a trade-mark and allow the Registrar of Trade-marks to correct errors that appear in the trade-mark register. That is important.

Personally, I hope that, in the future, the government will introduce a bill ensuring that these provisions apply not only to trade-marks but also to official marks. I think that significant changes must be made to official marks legislation and to how we correct past mistakes.

Finally, the bill streamlines and modernizes the trade-mark application and opposition process.

Now that I have given a bit of a review of what is in the bill, let us talk about what happened after the bill passed second reading and went to committee, where a variety of proposals for amendments were brought forward.

The fact is that this is unfortunately a case, another case, of the Conservative government using its majority to ram through a flawed piece of legislation that could have done a much better job of protecting Canadian business interests and Canadian consumers.

We are supporting the bill, because it is important to have some measures to protect these interests and to try to stop this enormous flow we are seeing of counterfeit goods into Canada.

Nevertheless, it does not mean the bill could not be better. We certainly would have liked to have seen it made better.

Every single amendment we brought forward and that the NDP brought forward at committee was torpedoed by the Conservatives there. The Conservatives followed orders. When the minister appeared, he stated that he wanted the bill passed by committee quickly and that he would allow no more than four days of hearings. To no one's surprise, that is exactly what happened.

When we talk about having less partisanship around here, about having more collaboration around here, this is what we are talking about. I hope that the changes we are proposing to the Senate make it a less partisan place and a more collaborative place. If we succeed in having a less partisan Senate, a Senate that is appointed in a non-partisan way, we would actually have to have more collaboration between the members of this House and members of the other chamber. That might even influence this chamber to become more collaborative and non-partisan. Hopefully it will be less hyperpartisan than it has been in the past eight years under the Conservative government.

What a shame that there were not more days of hearings and the consideration of amendments during the committee stage. This could have been a really strong piece of legislation, but no one on that side was interested in anything other than bowing down to the minister and the PMO.

The committee heard from many witnesses who testified about the serious problems and serious shortcomings in Bill C-8. They are flaws that could have been addressed through amendments.

Now, everyone agrees that this is a step forward. Some would go as far as to say that this is a good step to bring us in line with the international community.

In fact, when I was on the committee and when I was previously the Liberal critic for industry, I actually met with the Mechanical Contractors Association of Canada and with the Canadian Institution of Plumbing & Heating. Both these groups were among those that were very concerned about counterfeit products coming into Canada. If we are talking about things that involve the plumbing and heating in our houses and in buildings where we work, the last thing we want are products that we think are up to Canadian standards but that are, in fact, counterfeit and have been brought in illegally and, unbeknownst to whoever brought them into Canada, are not the quality they are supposed to be.

That could create serious problems. It could lead to flooding. It could lead to fires. It could lead to serious dangers for Canadians.

I have not even talked about the issue of pharmaceutical drugs. When those come in and are counterfeit, we can imagine the concerns.

My colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, the member for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, was talking earlier about Canada Goose. I was on the committee last year when we heard from companies like Canada Goose about the kinds of outrageous things that are put into counterfeit jackets and other products that come into this country. We ought to be concerned about this.

It has also been said that the way the bill is, it is a bit like providing bread crumbs to a starving man. The impact of counterfeit goods in Canada is growing. In 2005, the value of seized counterfeit items, which are the items our Canadian Border Services Agency was able to stop and identify at the border and seize, was $7.6 million. That is quite a bit. However, by 2012, that number had grown to $38 million. I think we can all agree that it has probably grown significantly since then.

This ought to be a matter of serious concern to us, because it means that those counterfeit products are replacing products produced by Canadians, and it is taking jobs and work away from Canadians. We ought to be very concerned about that.

The fact of the matter is that both Liberal and NDP members of the committee brought forward reasonable amendments in good faith in an effort to improve Bill C-8 because they do recognize it is an important piece of legislation. However, instead of a strong bill that the Conservatives could be proud of, that all of us in the House of Commons could be proud of, we are left with the minister's determination that it be just the minister alone required to make us compliant under global treaties. We do not how that will work, so the bill needed to be amended.

The government failed to address the really big issues and to make meaningful change. This, I suppose, is not surprising from this crowd. The Conservatives are driven by their ideology and the optics of things, as we have seen so often. They seem to care less whether they really stand up for the real interests of Canadian businesses and Canadian consumers.

Many witnesses pointed out that this legislation is all punitive, but the Conservatives did not really want to hear that and why it could be problematic, and even rejected the measures we proposed to help small businesses. Many small businesses simply cannot afford to go through the courts, which is a very costly exercise, to protect their brands. In some cases, this does not help them.

We could have helped those businesses, who provide the jobs we all want for Canadians, if the government had been willing to listen to witnesses and accept amendments to Bill C-8. When the opposition proposed a simplified approach that would have made it easier for small businesses, the Conservatives shut it down. I should not be too harsh on Conservative committee members; after all, they are just doing what they have been ordered to do by the minister or the folks over at the PMO.

One of the more disturbing things that will happen with the legislation is that it will give our enforcement agencies a lot more work at a time when they are struggling because of short-sighted funding cuts. The RCMP and Canada Border Services Agency need the proper resources to do their job and to enforce legislation like Bill C-8, but they are not getting them from the government.

In the 2012 budget, the government cut $142 million from Canada Border Services Agency. My colleague says it was $143 million. Whatever it is, it is in that range. It is a bit like the fact that the Conservatives are talking about all of this stuff they will do for veterans, but failing to mention that they have cut 781 people from Veterans Affairs Canada. That is 22% of the workforce, yet they expect people across Canada to believe this will improve their service to veterans. It does not wash. I am frankly astonished that the Conservatives would do this. Why they have not been listening to veterans and hearing the concerns about these office closures and cuts to services, and pretending they will get better service, I do not really comprehend. It does not make sense for the government to do this, but it is not the first time I have seen something from the government that does not make sense.

When I speak of the bill, it is sad to see an opportunity to bring in a real strong piece of legislation squandered by the Conservative government. Nevertheless, the Liberal Party recognizes the need to provide new enforcement tools to help strengthen Canada's existing enforcement regime for counterfeit goods.

We believe that Canadian businesses and industry associations must be protected to ensure the well-being of domestic businesses; the health and safety of Canadians, including in regard to the items in our homes I spoke earlier about, such as electrical components and pharmaceutical products; as well as the integrity of the Canadian economy as a whole. This is important for those reasons.

We would like to see public education regarding possession, production and distribution addressed in Bill C-8. We see nothing coming forward from the government to do that.

We would like to investigate and further study how e-commerce may provide a loophole to the seizure and the reduction of the presence of counterfeit products. We see no interest in such a study from the government.

With the current government deficit, as well as the recent cuts to the budget of the Canada Border Services Agency, we question how the Conservatives will fund the new prevention and investigative system. How on earth will we improve services at our borders when they are cutting the funding dramatically?

Border officers, who are by no means copyright experts, will be given new and increased powers that are not overseen by courts, which may lead to illegitimate seizures and violations of the Charter of Rights. We have to be concerned about that. Why would we want to put the Border Services agents in that position? We should not be doing that to them.

There are several further areas in which concerns have been raised. With an increased number of seizures due to increased powers being given to border officers and the RCMP, how will the government fund such extensive investigative and legal operations? Should genuine or non-counterfeit products be seized and destroyed and, in that case, how will the government compensate companies and individuals? Moreover, how will the government protect the information of legitimate importers from potential misuse of the request for assistance mechanism? These are important questions. How will the government determine whether importers of counterfeit production are aware that products are counterfeit? Why are there no provisions for counterfeit goods being transshipped through Canada?

While Bill C-8 certainly does not accomplish everything that it might, it does mark a step forward in the fight against the deeply damaging practice of counterfeiting and moves Canada closer, if only slightly, toward a modernized intellectual property regime.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-8, An Act to amend the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today, even if it is for the three minutes remaining before we begin statements by members and question period. However, I obviously will have an opportunity to finish my remarks after question period, and I look forward to that.

I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-8, which is an important piece of legislation. I think it could have been improved at committee, and it is unfortunate that the Conservative government did not accept any amendments that were brought forward. This seems to be a pattern that we have seen over and over in committee. Rather than consider, discuss, and have a collaborative process when it comes to possible amendments that could improve a bill, the Conservative MPs on committees unfortunately seem determined not to consider them, or perhaps they are cowed and afraid of the PMO or the minister's office and do whatever the minister's office tells them and simply vote to defeat all amendments.

That is unfortunate, because this is an important bill. It is a bill that could be better. It could have improvements to make it a stronger piece of legislation to serve our country better. It could better serve our businesses that are so concerned about this issue of counterfeit goods.

I sat on the industry committee last year before that. As my hon. colleague the parliamentary secretary was saying earlier, we heard from various companies that expressed grave concern about the impact of the increasing amount of counterfeit goods coming into the country. When we consider the kinds of goods we are talking about here, it should be of concern to all Canadians.

We are not talking just about things like hockey jerseys, for example, that really take away revenues from the teams that own those brands. That has an impact on those teams. Normally, people think NHL teams are wealthy and the players are wealthy, so they are not worried about them. However, if we think about it, with the dollar below 90¢ these days, we are going to hear more about the challenges that presents to NHL teams operating in Canada, because they pay their players in U.S. dollars, so that is a concern for them.

We also hear about things like pharmaceuticals or electrical components. We can imagine a counterfeit electrical component in a house. That counterfeit electrical component might lead to a fire. We need to be concerned about all these things.

I know my time before question period is coming to an end, Mr. Speaker, so I will pause and let you take over. I look forward to resuming my comments later.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the members of the House for giving their unanimous consent to allow me to speak this morning. It is greatly appreciated. I would also like to commend my colleague on her very intelligent and well-presented comments.

I want to speak to Bill C-8 today because it is an important measure for combating counterfeit products in Canada. I will begin by saying that we intend to support the bill at this stage because we believe it will greatly benefit Canada in terms of combating counterfeiting and piracy.

As my colleague mentioned, according to the OECD, the estimated cost of counterfeiting is $250 billion. That is a lot of money. It is quite troubling to know that all that money is going into the hands of people with questionable practices. When we talk about counterfeit products we immediately think of fake Louis Vuitton bags because they are everywhere. I see them every day. However, counterfeiting is much more than that.

Prescription drugs can be counterfeit and pose a serious risk to the health of Canadians. Electronic devices can also cause problems, especially small devices used on airplanes, for example. If a counterfeit device is used on a plane, it can cause serious problems and put the lives of Canadians in jeopardy. This is quite troubling.

I want to say a few words about a company in my riding that tests electronic components to see if they are counterfeit. I had the opportunity to visit that company roughly a year ago and I learned a lot of things, including that there are a lot counterfeit components. Honestly, I was surprised to see to what extent the components we buy from other countries are not always authentic. The people at this company explained to me the procedure they follow to test these components. It is quite an involved process and not something that everyone could do. I commend them for their work, which is essential. Thanks to them, a number of companies in Canada and in the United States can be 100% certain that the component they purchased is authentic and will work properly, especially when we are talking about aircraft equipment. Their work is quite impressive. I just wanted to take a bit of time to talk about a personal experience.

Back to Bill C-8, which proposes a number of different things that I would like to discuss in detail.

The bill adds two new criminal offences under the Copyright Act for possessing or exporting counterfeit copies and creates offences for selling counterfeit goods or offering them for sale on a commercial scale. It prohibits the import or export of counterfeit copies and counterfeit goods and ensures a balanced approach to this prohibition by creating two exceptions: personal use and copies in customs transit control.

The bill also gives customs officers new powers to detain counterfeit goods and copies. It gives the Minister of Public Safety and border authorities new powers enabling them to share information relating to the detained goods with rights owners. Lastly, it expands the scope of what can be registered as a trade-mark, as described within the broader definition of a certain term.

Basically, these are good measures, and the NDP supports them. However, there is one big problem, and I believe my colleagues talked about it. CBSA's funding has been reduced by $143 million. Officers are being asked to get more training and spend more of their time fighting counterfeiting. In principle, that is a good thing, but given the budget cuts, it is hard to imagine that they will be able to perform those additional duties.

We are seriously questioning the idea of giving our border agents more responsibility when we do not necessarily have the financial means to do so.

In that regard, I would like to quote Jean-Pierre Fortin, national president of the Customs and Immigration Union, who commented on the budget cuts as follows:

These proposed budget cuts would have a direct and real impact on Canadians and our communities across the country: more child pornography entering the country, more weapons and illegal drugs will pass through our borders, not to mention terrorists, sexual predators and hardened criminals.

Clearly, these budget cuts could have serious repercussions. The government should seriously consider that when asking border agents to take on more responsibilities as part of their job.

I would like to make another point. I asked this question during question period when the bill was introduced in the House. Does Bill C-8 signify that the government is planning on ratifying ACTA in its entirety? That is a very important question. ACTA has attracted widespread criticism on the international stage. The European Union rejected many clauses in the agreement, and I would like to take a few moments to highlight the most problematic ones.

For example, there are clauses that would criminalize certain individuals. There were concerns about the use of shell corporations, the role of Internet service providers, and potential interruptions in the generic drug supply. Those clauses were rejected by the international community.

I would like to reassure those who are fighting for an open Internet environment and who are speaking out against the idea of the government being able to block websites, that this bill does not seem to include those troubling clauses.

I want to congratulate the government on that, because introducing those clauses here in Canada could cause problems regarding Canadians' access to an open Internet environment.

Obviously, we will have more to say, but this seems to be relatively balanced in terms of our intention to ratify ACTA. I would encourage the government to think twice—or even three or four times—before it proposes such measures, if it intends to do so in the future, because this comes with a great deal of risk.

I want to support another aspect of this bill, and that is the exception for personal use. Naturally, when we see a bill on counterfeiting, certain questions come to mind. Will someone crossing the border who bought a knock-off of a Louis Vuitton bag be arrested? Will her bag be seized? That would be going a little too far, so I am glad an exception has been included for personal use, to avoid those kinds of situations.

We can also consider people who go through customs with a laptop and would be forced to turn it on to determine whether there are any pirated programs or illegally downloaded songs on it. Having to go through all of someone's software could cause a problem. I am therefore happy to see the exception for personal use, but that provision needs to be examined further to make sure that it will not cause any such problems.

Since my time is almost up, I would just like to reiterate our support for this bill. Fighting counterfeiting is an issue that is very important to the NDP. We are prepared to work with the government in order to find ways to strike a balance between the law, copyright holders and consumers. That is what really matters.