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.

Combating Counterfeit Products Act

[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, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, having worked in the private sector on this for one of the largest brand owners in the world, my perspective is that industry has been working with law enforcement and border officials on training and on preparing to have this registry and these rights. This is an area where active participation in partnership with IP rights holders will save money over time because it is the expertise of the people who own the marks, make the texture, or make sound, who are training and working with our professionals at CBSA in a way that would make its operations more efficient and give it the tools to move quickly. This is a terrific case where CBSA will get the tools it is asking for and partner with IP rights holders who are affected to save Canadians from the risks of counterfeit goods, while also making it more efficient and saving money.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I hail from the western GTA. My neighbours work in communities like Oakville, Burlington, Mississauga, and Brampton. They are primarily concerned with good-paying jobs that will pay for the mortgage and allow them to provide benefits to their family. Perhaps the hon. parliamentary secretary can tell us specifically how this legislation would improve the lives of working Canadians in the GTA.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill is for job and economic promotion in Canada. In the parliamentary secretary's area of the province of Ontario, in particular that larger area of Mississauga and Brampton, is the highest concentration of headquarters of Fortune 500 companies in Canada. These companies invest in our country by manufacturing, distributing, and selling goods here. Their intellectual property rights have been robbed for years.

Over eight years ago, Canada was identified by the U.S. trade representative as a country that is not equipping its borders and does not have the IP regime to stamp out this crime. We were on a list with countries in the Middle East and in other parts of the world that do not recognize IP. This would bring it up and ensure that these companies and brands that invest in Mississauga and the GTA keep their investments flowing and keep jobs being created.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague and friend from the trade committee for this thoughtful speech in the House on this important subject.

I would note one question. Both the member and members of his caucus have suggested yet another round of study or audits and consultation, when he knows that there are goods that pose risks now to Canadians. He knows well that for the last decade, industry has been asking for these safeguards. Would the member not tell this House that it is better to move quickly than to suggest further rounds of committee study and audits?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this chance to tell the hon. member that it is a pleasure to work with him at committee.

What is really important in this case is to make sure that we start collecting meaningful data not only to make sure that we understand the scope of the problem but to track our progress.

According to RCMP Superintendent Ken Hansen, the former co-chair of INTERPOL's intellectual property crime action group, the RCMP can only investigate 25% of the goods the CBSA Toronto office flags as being fake. Only one-quarter of RCMP investigations and seizures of counterfeit products were potentially harmful to consumers in 2011, but that proportion has steadily risen from 11% in 2005. That tells us that we are seeing more counterfeit products. We are indicting them, but we are unable, with the resources we have, to actually fully investigate them. Those products are becoming more and more harmful to the Canadian public.

I agree with my hon. friend that we do not need to hear anymore about the existence of the problem. We know it exists. However, obtaining data so that we can more clearly understand what is happening and put resources in the right places to address that problem is simply smart implementation of policy.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Vancouver Kingsway. I learn so much every time he speaks in the House. I appreciate that, since it helps me understand the bill and understand why we will support it. It also helps me understand the limitations of the bill.

The member spoke about something that worries me a great deal, which is that we are missing a lot of data. This government is not really concerned with that. Ever since it eliminated the long form census, it has been hard to keep track of things. We are less and less knowledgeable about what is going on. The member referred to that in his response to the question from the member for Durham.

Organizations like the OECD have clearly stated that there is a need for better data on counterfeiting. It is not just the RCMP that is calling for this information.

Could my colleague tell me why the government has not managed to gather better data on this issue or to propose some kind of plan to more effectively collect data? The Conservatives want to pass the bill as quickly as possible, but we need to know what we are dealing with. We need to know what this will entail and who will be affected.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for the wonderful job she has been doing representing the justice file in this country and for helping to build a progressive, responsible justice policy for us. I was going to joke and say that every time I rise in the House, I learn something new too, often by accident.

My hon. friend raises the issue of what the OECD has said. Here is what the Canadian Chamber of Commerce Canadian Intellectual Property Council has said:

...the Canadian system has no tools to track and report on the instances of counterfeiting that are actually detected in this country. According to European Commission regulation 1891/2004, customs authorities in all EU member states are obliged to report statistics on customs seizures.... the CBSA does not have a mandate for reporting...crimes at the border....

In other words, the position of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce is that the CBSA, in addition to the RCMP, should and must include the combatting of intellectual property crime as part of its mandate. I think that is a very wise suggestion by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, and I would urge the government to pay attention to that, because the New Democrats will certainly be pushing for that kind of data collection.

Before I sit down, I would say that we often hear politicians talk about red tape and creating regulations. Certainly there are cases when there are regulations that are unnecessary that ought to be reviewed, but regulation is also at the heart of enforcing good policy. The best policy in the world is not worth much if we do not have the resources to actually meaningfully track and deal with the problems. That is the difference between wise regulation, effective regulation, and red tape. I urge all members of the House not to lose sight of that distinction.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague on his speech. Knowing his good intentions and his hope for a better country, I cannot help but notice that he raised the good work done by the committee and validity of the bill.

I have a question for him. Does he believe that the righteous attitude by all the parties will carry over into the implementation, more specifically with regard to financial support for the Canada Border Services Agency?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, hope springs eternal. We on this side of the House believe in a well-financed government. We think Canadians see an important role for government to play, particularly when it comes to enforcing basic rights and freedoms in our country.

The ability of businesses in this country to make money and to protect their intellectual property rights, and the wishes of Canadians as consumers to protect their rights and their health and safety are things that require us as politicians to make the investments.

Unlike people on the other side of the House, who view government expenditures as unnecessary costs, I view them, and I think the NDP views them, as investments in our country. We will continue to urge having a well-financed federal government. The government has gone on quite a cutting splurge, and I think we need to be aware that cuts to these areas are not going to be a way to implement policy.

I cannot say that I am optimistic, given what I have heard about the government's budget intentions. We are seeing cuts across the board, across departments. We are seeing the closure of veterans' offices and coast guard services and cuts in the number of CBSA officers. I think that is regrettable. New Democrats will stand against those cuts that put Canadians at risk.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from January 31 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.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin.

We are now switching from the situation in Congo, but I want to finish pleading with my colleagues across the way to really consider that issue. If there is one issue that is not partisan, it is this one about what is happening in Congo. I think we can somehow find a way to agree on how to stem the violence in Congo.

The bill that I am now addressing is Bill C-8. Members will know that this legislation has quite a lengthy history. I do not mean just Bill C-8, but the whole issue of copyright and the Trade-marks Act and making consequential amendments to other acts.

This issue requires caution. It requires an understanding of not just the law but enforcement of the law as well.

Many people are concerned about how international treaties and copyright interplay. They are concerned about the fact that we are in the midst of finishing negotiations on CETA and how that agreement would relate to copyright. It is important to note that the international agreement dealing with counterfeiting also comes into play here. Many have noted that while a treaty to combat counterfeiting presently exists, not many countries have signed on to it, about which there is some concern. It is this international context, and how it would apply to this legislation, that we are dealing with.

If we abide by certain rules made by legislation such as this and there are trade deals or other treaties we have to contend with, it is important that we understand what those trade deals and treaties mean. In the case of CETA, it is important to understand how it would apply.

I am pleading with the government yet again to at least tell us what is going on with respect to CETA, because it would affect trademark and copyright legislation. My understanding is that there could be consequences from the CETA deal for copyright and trademarks. I would like to hear about what action the government is taking. I would like to know what success, or lack thereof, the government has had with respect to CETA, and the sooner the better.

Here we are trying to find a way to help people create in an unhindered and legal way, while also making sure that the creative class will be able to access technology and ideas and material and will not be suppressed. The law has to find a balance. By the same token, we want to make sure that what we are creating and what we have copyright protection for will not be usurped or be taken and used without the creators benefiting from their work. It is obviously a delicate balance.

I would like to go over some of the aspects of the bill and what it proposes to do.

As I said, this legislation has a long history. I remember previous Parliaments that attempted to deal with the copyright issue. It should be noted that many of our trading partners have been pleading with us, particularly our friends south of the border, to get this done and get it right. The new ambassador brought it up in a recent meeting with us. He indicated that this was an important issue for the United States because most of our trade is done with that country.

Bill C-8 deals with counterfeiting and infringement, which is important. It proposes to add two new criminal offences to the Copyright Act for the possession of and export of infringed copies. The bill would also create offences for the selling or offering of counterfeit goods on a commercial scale.

There is some contention as to the degree of the export and import of counterfeit goods.

I cite Michael Geist, because he is the expert in the country on this issue. His testimony at committee raised some questions about the extent to which there is counterfeiting. He should be listened to, because he is an expert. He asked this very good question: what is the scope of the studies that are referenced by government and officials? In other words, do we have accurate data?

That said, it is important that we have legislation that would deal with counterfeiting and the trade of counterfeiting materials, as contemplated in this bill.

That is the first part. The bill adds two new criminal offences under the Copyright Act for possession and exportation of infringing copies and creates offences for selling or offering counterfeit goods on a commercial scale.

The other aspect is that it creates a prohibition against importing or exporting infringing copies and counterfeit goods. It introduces some balance to that prohibition by creating two exemptions. One is personal use. As I referenced earlier, it relates to the creative class and those in the knowledge industry. I will use educators as an example.

I come from the business of teaching. As educators, it is important that we have access to knowledge and make it available to students. There is a balance that has to be struck so that we will not arrest teachers if they are just sharing materials with their students to allow them to gain knowledge. That is one of the areas we have to keep in mind.

The other one we have to look for is items in transit control.

Finally, the bill would grant new ex officio powers to border officials to detain infringing copies or counterfeit goods. That is a significant policy shift, because until now border officials required these private rights holders to obtain a court order before seizing infringing copies or goods. The bill grants new ex officio powers to the Minister of Public Safety and border officials to share information on detained goods with rights holders. It also widens the scope of what can be a trademark to the features found in the broad definition of “sign”, which includes all sorts of things: shapes, colours, scents, et cetera. What we want to see on this side is that we strike that balance. These are fairly important new powers that are being given to the government.

I will finish by saying that it is fine to pass laws on copyright and trademark to make sure that we deal with what we are focused on—that is, those who decide to get into the business of knock-offs and use the creations of others to benefit themselves when they have not had any input into the creation of any goods, ideas, or products. By the same token, how do we enforce these measures?

Members will hear from my colleagues tonight about some of the problems we have with the government's cutting of border services in this area. On the one hand, it is fine to give powers to border agents to say, “Here it is; you make sure that you deal with the infringements on copyright”, but on the other hand it has cut the budgets of those who are responsible for dealing with this authority.

This is an issue with our friends south of the border. They are aware of this. We have had issues with our friends south of the border regarding regulations. Let us make no mistake, this is a trade issue. They want to know if we are serious about this issue and will bring in laws that are modern and up to date with current copyright thinking. That means little unless we have an enforcement mechanism, to say the least. It is not only about passing laws; it is also about ensuring that we have resources on the ground to enforce them.

Members will hear from my colleagues and me that we have to get it right and make sure that we do not go too far in terms of infringing on those in the creative class, those in the knowledge business, and those who need to have access to materials, while on the other side making sure that if we bring in new responsibilities for our border agents, we do not cut their budgets. It is important that we give them support and training as to what these new powers mean and how they will exercise them.

At the end of the day, we will be supporting the bill to ensure that we do our bit as a country, that we have a balance in terms of the copyright obligations, that those in the creative and knowledge classes have access to the materials they need to create, and that, on the other hand, we provide our border agents with the proper support that they need in material supplies and training.

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.