Bill C-8 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Combating Counterfeit Products Act
An Act to amend the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedOct. 28, 2013
- Debated in principleOct. 28, 2013
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberOct. 2, 2014
- Passed the second chamberDec. 8, 2014
- Became lawDec. 8, 2014
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Stephen HarperPrime Minister
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
What it set out to do
On 28 October 2013, the Minister of Industry introduced Bill C-8, An Act to amend the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (Combating Counterfeit Products Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Counterfeit trademark goods, commonly described as “knock-offs,” closely resemble the legitimate product and bear an imitation or non-genuine trademark. The retail value of counterfeit goods seized by the RCMP increased from $7.6 million in 2005 to $38 million in 2012. 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 trade-mark rights and to curtail commercial activity involving infringing copies and counterfeit trade-marked goods. More specifically, it • creates new civil causes of action with respect to activities that sustain commercial activity in infringing copies and counterfeit trade-marked goods; • creates new criminal offences for trade-mark counterfeiting that are analogous to existing offences in the Copyright Act; • creates new criminal offences prohibiting the posse…
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
68% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (15,333 words introduced, 15,015 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill kept its core civil, criminal and border measures on counterfeit goods but was updated with final assent details and chapter numbering after passage. Minor wording and procedural notes from first reading were removed or replaced.
- Title and introduction details were replaced with final assent and chapter information.
Before: “C-8 Second Session, Forty-first Parliament, 62 Elizabeth II, 2013 HOUSE OF COMMONS OF CANADA BILL C-8 An Act to amend the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts FIRST READING, OCTOBER 28, 2013”
After: “Second Session, Forty-first Parliament, 62-63 Elizabeth II, 2013-2014 STATUTES OF CANADA 2014 CHAPTER 32 An Act to amend the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts ASSENTED TO 9th DECEMBER, 2014 BILL C-8”
- Added restriction on use of customs information in the final version.
After: “44.05 (1) A person who receives a sample or information that is provided under section 44.03 shall not use the information, or information that is derived from the sample, for any purpose other than to give information to the customs officer about whether the importation or ex- portation of the copies is prohibited under section 44.01.”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill sets clear dollar amounts, day limits and defined terms for offences and detention periods, yet repeatedly hands customs officers and the Minister open discretion plus tests such as 'reasonably believes' and 'considers appropriate'. Those subjective grants make outcomes depend on individual judgment rather than fixed rules.
Open to argument
“may, in the officer's discretion, to obtain information about whether the importation or exportation of the copies is prohibited under section 44.01, provide the owner of copyright”
Leaves the decision to supply samples or information entirely to the officer without objective criteria.“may, in the officer's discretion, if the Minister has accepted a request for assistance”
Conditions further disclosure on discretionary acceptance and further discretion to disclose.“provide for any other matters that the court considers appropriate”
Open-ended judicial power defined only by the court's own view of appropriateness.“in a manner that is not likely to have the effect of depreciating the value of the goodwill”
Uses a predictive and evaluative standard rather than a concrete prohibition.
Clear-cut
“on conviction on indictment, to a fine of not more than $1,000,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years or to both”
Fixes maximum penalties with exact figures and no variable factors.“the customs officer shall not detain, for the purpose of enforcing section 44.01, the copies for more than 10 working days — or, if the copies are perishable, for more than five days”
States an absolute maximum period measured in working days.“"working day" means a day other than a Saturday or a holiday”
Supplies a closed definition that removes ambiguity about counting days.
Discretion. Customs officers decide whether to detain, sample or disclose on the basis of their own suspicion or discretion; the Minister may demand security in any amount and form the Minister fixes and may accept or extend requests for assistance at will.
Challenging the law itself. Broad discretion and phrases such as 'reasonably believes' and 'considers appropriate' could support a vagueness or overbreadth argument under Charter s. 7 liberty interests.
Disputing a charge under it. An accused can dispute whether the officer's discretionary choice to detain or disclose was properly exercised and whether the required knowledge element existed, but the fixed penalties and time limits are harder to contest.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
no evaluation found
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.