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

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am imagining the scenario of a man who decides one night that he would like Viagra. He has the choice of going to the pharmacy or going on eBay. Since it would be more discreet to get it on the Internet, perhaps he would choose that method. However, it would really be unfortunate for him to end up with a counterfeit product after placing his order. Instead of getting any kind of benefit from the drug or pill, he might only have a negative reaction, because the government did not legislate as it should have.

Obviously, his plans for the evening would be much different. I agree. Let me give a very specific example, Mr. Speaker.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I will be finishing my session with this speech on Bill C-8, but I am always pleased to take part in this democratic exercise, too often abused in the House, of exchange or debate among parliamentarians on the various bills introduced by the government or by private members.

However, I cannot help but note that we set an extraordinary record of 76 time allocation motions a few days ago. I get the impression we will soon need an Excel file to follow all the bills that have been subject to a time allocation.

Speaking of software, or rather counterfeit software, obviously none of the examples I will be citing involve the members here. No one here buys counterfeit products, and no one encourages piracy. However, everyone knows someone who has done so and who has had problems. I will come back to that subject later.

Getting back to my 76 closure motions, unless the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons rises in the next few minutes to make the traditional announcement and trigger the 77th closure, Bill C-8 seems headed for an open, democratic debate in accordance with the rules of the House. I should be happy, but, after 76 closure motions, you will allow me to feel somewhat pessimistic and to say I am skeptical of that prospect. Why? Obviously because government members are probably glad and very much aware that the NDP, a dynamic and structured official opposition if ever there was one, agrees with most of the bill’s content and is preparing to support the bill at the this stage, still hoping that a few improvements can be made at the final stage.

What are we to understand from that? The Conservatives allow all members to speak if they think as they do or if their thinking is similar to their own. However, the axe falls the moment we have a different opinion to express on another bill.

I can cope with closure personally, but I do not think our Canadian democracy can afford that luxury or option. Even if my remarks were not true, there is still a perception. As they say in the advertising industry, perception is very often reality. I hope that the Canadians and Quebeckers who vote and re-elect their members to the House of Commons will have a perception that corresponds to reality. That is the end of my comments on that subject.

The subject before us is the bill entitled An Act to amend the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. I would have been more comfortable debating the part of the Copyright Act that deals, for example, with artistic creations such as musical works, artworks, choreographies and many other things. Where intellectual property or value are at issue, I must admit I always join the debate because that was a battle I waged for a very long time in my previous careers.

The same is therefore true of products of all kinds. To ensure that a trademark that is valued and used by consumers can continue surprising them with its creativity and affording them the means to pursue their objectives, we must combat counterfeiting and piracy to the best of our ability.

Of course, no one in the House has done this, but we all know someone who has travelled to a city in or outside Canada and not exactly scoffed at items offered to him or her at absurdly low prices.

We may think of watches that in all respects resemble watches by Gucci and Tag or Swiss brand watches. We may also think of handbags that our spouses dream of but that we cannot afford to give them. The prices of these products are absurdly low. Most people know very well that these are counterfeit products, and the booths where they are sold obviously provide no invoices. We can imagine that the after-sales service, long-term guarantees and product quality vanish, not to mention the fact that, on every occasion, we are undermining the original product.

Counterfeit products sometimes seem real to the eye. With wear, however, everyone knows that the quality is not there and that someone is trying to take advantage of someone else’s creative process to make a fast buck, without offering any after-sales service or reinvesting in the business whose product has been copied. This is also the case of sunglasses.

There has been a wave of flea markets over the past 10 years, particularly in Quebec, although they have recently been somewhat less popular. I do not know whether that was the case in the other regions of Canada. People thought that, by going there often, they would unearth the find of the century at an absurdly low price. Of course, someone may once have picked up a Renoir for $150 because he found it in the closet of a grandmother who did not know the value of the work she owned. Most of the time, however, what people found were counterfeit pieces.

Counterfeit works can be particularly dangerous. I have heard my colleagues speak at length about drugs. Although people did not shop at flea markets to buy a lot of drugs, equally dangerous things could be found there. I am thinking, for example, of electrical components found at lower prices than at regular hardware stores. These were not used items. They looked new and were properly packaged but did not meet CSA standards. CSA standards are the Canadian standards that, according to the government, are the responsibility of the provinces, for example where pyrrhotite is concerned, but that is another debate I do not want to engage in.

Let us imagine that, to save a few pennies, someone buys switches that do not meet Canadian standards and installs them on his electrical panel. While he sleeps peacefully, parts of the electrical panel could overload and cause a fire that, at best, might result in material damage or, at worst, could have a serious impact on the health and lives of the people living in the house. This is a common occurrence.

Another example is those hunting jackets that were purportedly made of goose down. They were comfortable and very warm. After getting the coat caught on a tree branch, someone realized that what was supposed to be goose down was instead a kind of padding that was hard to identify and probably highly inflammable. That made the product dangerous.

I will now skip right to the conclusion of my speech since time is short. I hope to have the opportunity to discuss these matters at greater length when I answer my colleagues’ questions.

In conclusion, I would like to echo the sentiment expressed in the title of the report that the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology prepared in 2007. The title of that report was, “Counterfeiting and Piracy are Theft”.

I believe the title was very much inspired by a campaign that was designed to make music users more aware of the fact that not only was copying theft, but also that theft takes money away from the creators who allowed consumers to enjoy the products of their creativity.

It is not easy to strike a balance between rights holders’ interests and those of users and consumers. My NDP colleagues and I believe that that balance should serve as a guide for all of the suggested improvements to the wording of this bill.

I will stop there and will be pleased to answer my colleagues’ questions.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

He did not have time to discuss a particular aspect of counterfeiting and piracy: the question of information. By definition, any criminal activity is very difficult to measure. Criminals do not declare their activities. It is always difficult to get a true picture of a criminal activity, and the only numbers we can refer to are the ones from actual seizures. I would therefore like my colleague to explain how reducing the resources available to carry out more seizures has a direct impact on the number of seizures actually carried out. It necessarily has an impact on the quality of the information and statistics. Reducing the resources available for carrying out actual seizures has consequences not only for the seizure, but also for the presumed statistics about the criminal activity in question.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker that is a very complex and important question. It would definitely deserve a longer answer than I am able to give in the time available to me.

I will say two things in reply. First, I think that the theory that we will have to do more with less has to stop. Let us draw the curtain on cost-cutting.

Another point is particularly worth mentioning. In this area, secrecy reigns supreme. That is one reason why the NDP had proposed an amendment that I thought was very wise, appropriate and intelligent, which was to require that an annual report be submitted to Parliament containing information about the goods forfeited. Unfortunately, it was rejected by the Conservatives. We would have been able to create a database, with incomplete data, of course, but data that would then have been used for making relatively credible extrapolations about seizures carried out by the RCMP in Canada.

We would thus have started to take the measure of the Canadian counterfeiting and piracy market. This was a brilliant amendment, but it was rejected for some reason I find hard to explain. I hope that in the hours of debate we will continue to hold this evening, someone on the government side will rise and explain to me what the reason was for rejecting this amendment, other than pure partisanship. I admit that I do not see an angle from which such a sensible amendment could be rejected.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech because, once again, he brilliantly explained certain aspects of this bill. As well, he told us about his personal experience, particularly in relation to copyright, which is important. Our creators should be paid and should receive royalties when they create.

My colleague also mentioned the current dysfunctional state of the House of Commons, in terms of the repeated gag orders imposed by the government. I would also like to note that in the monster bill, Bill C-31, the budget implementation bill, division 25 deals with amendments relating to international treaties on trademarks.

Could my colleague explain why the government did not split this bill? We could have examined this part of Bill C-31 in greater depth. I would like to hear his comments on that.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the answer I would like to give my colleague from LaSalle—Émard is essentially found in the final words of his question.

Why is the government not allowing us the resources and the time to examine this bill in depth? The answer is in the question. This is what we have been seeing for three years now: bills that can be termed monster, mammoth, dinosaur or omnibus bills.

Whatever we call them, the result is always the same: we do not have the time that we, as opposition members, need. The same is true for the witnesses who come before the committee and are often asked to focus on a very specific aspect of the question they are asked, rather than sharing their expertise with us, which would allow for a thorough examination. When you say thorough examination, you are saying New Democrats rather than Conservatives.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue working in the House and to continue talking about the NDP's proposals and vision on a variety of subjects. In this case, it is about copyright, counterfeiting, smuggling and intellectual property rights.

Since the Conservatives asked all parliamentarians to sit in the House later, that is, to debate and work until midnight every night, they have set a record of 157 or 160 missed turns to speak, if not more, because they refuse to rise in the House and debate and speak. However, we in the opposition are doing the work. They ask us to sit but they refuse to speak, to debate or even to ask us questions. They sit speechless and silent, kind of like the 21 members from British Columbia who for two days now have refused to give interviews about the approval of the northern gateway pipeline project. That is rather significant. I think we can talk about a deafening silence. Blaise Pascal himself would be a little terrified if he were aware of the silence of these infinite spaces. It has been very revealing.

I have the pleasure of rising to speak to Bill C-8, which, it must be acknowledged, contains some good provisions and good intentions. Some parts of it are on the right track, which does not happen often. There are quite a few problems that are going to cause us concern, in particular a certain inconsistency. First, they are going to impose more measures to reduce smuggling and counterfeiting at the borders, but at the same time they are going to eliminate hundreds of positions for employees who enforce those measures. I will try to come back to this a little later.

We are talking here about intellectual property and trade law. My father is a writer and my brother is a musician; consequently, coming from a family of artists, I am very aware of copyright, smuggling and counterfeit issues. Artistic creation is the bread and butter that brings in income every day. People work and the fruit of their work brings them an income and results. If the fruit of their labour, their inventiveness, their artistic genius, their innovation, or their creativity is stolen, this represents money that is not coming in to pay their mortgages, send their children to school, travel or buy clothes. When I think of them, I tell myself it is important to have measures that will curb and fight against smuggling and counterfeiting, because this has an impact on the people who create, think, innovate and bring new products and new ideas to the marketplace, whether we are talking about artistic works or commercial products. These two elements are not incompatible.

The NDP and I are pleased to note that Bill C-8 also establishes a balance between the rights of creators and respect for consumers, so that we do not have a police state that will interfere in private life. When the trade considerations in the massive transfer of goods are not involved, but it is rather a matter of individual consumption, the bill will ensure that there is also some balance and some moderation.

My wife and I have two daughters, Marianne and Aurélie, and they have iPods that they use to listen to music. I do not always know where their music comes from, or which Internet site they visited to get it, because they listen to a lot of music. It is even difficult to talk to them because they always have their earphones in their ears. I would not want them to be punished because they are music lovers. The Internet today allows you to access files for which the creator has not received compensation, unfortunately. We must think about this balance and have an Internet that is accessible and free.

That being said, we must look at how Bill C-8 responds to the issue of copyright and to the issue of contraband and counterfeiting. My colleague from Trois-Rivières spoke earlier about products that can sometimes be found on the sidewalk or in public markets. It is very difficult to know how many of these products are legitimate and whether they have come from the real company that invented the product or whether it is a really exciting cheap copy.

I once was a young student in New York and I was shown a lot of different things. Today I am quite sure that those were not real Guccis for $10. However, it is extremely difficult to assess the scale of counterfeiting and copies in Canada, whether for digital files or real objects such as a tie, a jacket or a shirt.

It is difficult to understand how we are going to be able to fight against counterfeiting if we do not have a real idea of the scale of the phenomenon and exactly what it is we are fighting against. Industry Canada states that the retail value of counterfeit goods seized by the RCMP increased from $7.6 million in 2005 to $38 million in 2012.

My colleague from Saint-Jean—and I must point out that Saint-Jean is my home riding, where I spent my childhood and my teenage years—said earlier that this is a somewhat simplistic view that we must be careful about, because these are only the goods that were seized by the RCMP. There has been an explosion in the number of goods that have been seized. However, what percentage of all the contraband or counterfeit items on the marketplace do the goods that were seized represent? There is no way of knowing.

I am seeing some frantic waving. I have a confession to make, Mr. Speaker. I am going to share my time with my eminent colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, who has just come to my rescue in an extremely professional way.

We cannot rely solely on the number of goods that were seized by the RCMP when determining the full extent of trade in contraband or counterfeit good in 2009. However, we can say that, in 2009, the OECD estimated that international trade in counterfeit and pirated goods could account for up to $250 billion. That is huge. What methods has this government implemented to address this problem?

We see that Bill C-8 is a step in the right direction, but we do not know how the enforcement scheme it proposes will be financed. This is a small problem. There are a lot of bills that have good intentions, which could even be called wishful thinking. I am referring, for example, to the Victims Bill of Rights, which contains no budget for training, compensation or support for families who might need it. It is good that some political progress has been made over the past eight years on victims’ rights and on the fact that opposition members are bad guys who control and always defend the criminals, but sometimes it is necessary to put some money into the proposals that are made.

In the 2012 budget, the Conservatives cut $143 million from the Canada Border Services Agency. Border officials are the ones who are going to be enforcing the rules set out in Bill C-8. The Conservatives say that they are going to crack down on smugglers and counterfeit goods, but then they make budget cuts of $143 million over three years, which includes a loss of 549 jobs by 2015.

I would like to hear my Conservative friends and colleagues say again that they are tough on crime and tell us how they are going to be able to limit contraband and counterfeit items at our borders—as the United States has asked us to do, by the way—with 549 fewer jobs by 2015. It means squaring the circle. They have increased the responsibilities and set even higher objectives and, at the same time, they have slashed the resources available in the field to do the work. Unfortunately, this is the Conservatives’ trademark.

If they do not walk the talk, or vice versa, there is a problem.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his excellent speech on Bill C-8.

Although he said the official opposition would be supporting this bill, he pointed to some significant deficiencies. The first one that comes to mind is the lack of funding despite the government’s good intentions. I am trying to imagine how such a bill could be implemented when the Conservatives cut $143 million from the Canada Border Services Agency’s budget last year.

I know my colleague closely monitored the last Conservative budget and saw that many budget cuts were made to numerous services, which affected various departments. Now, once again, we have been presented with a bill that is inconsistent with the budget envelopes and the cuts made by the Conservatives. I would therefore like to know how my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie feels about that.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not really feel very good about it.

The Conservatives do not put their resources where their mouths are. This is a kind of betrayal or pointless political game. They make people believe they will act, but they do not act. That will have very bad consequences for the Conservatives.

According to Ken Hansen, Superintendent of the RCMP and former co-chair of the Interpol Intellectual property crime action group, the RCMP can investigate only 25% of the goods that the Toronto office of the Border Services Agency flags as being fake.

Consequently, even when the goods are reported as potentially fake, the RCMP, which has also undergone cuts, can investigate only 25% of the cases reported to it. We can very well thump our chests and say we are going to make sure the law is enforced and the bad guys go to prison, but, when cuts are made to the Border Services Agency, 55 jobs are cut, and the RCMP then tells us only 25% of cases reported as potentially dangerous will be investigated, there is a major problem.

The Conservative government cannot be serious.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. I am going to pretend I am a Conservative for 15 seconds, but not for very long or else I will feel sick.

If a Conservative dared rise to justify his position, I believe he would tell us that it is okay to cut staff because the technology is so advanced that they can now use sophisticated rays to see through containers more quickly and effectively.

The word “counterfeiting” always conjures up an image of containers on a dock in a port with a customs agent on hand. However, counterfeiting increasingly involves an individual behind his computer ordering a product that will come from outside the country, probably via Canada Post. The product will likely not be shipped in a container or involve all that technology.

Will there still be employees to monitor parcels that pass through the Canada Post network?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Trois-Rivières for his question.

One may legitimately ask that question since 549 jobs will be cut from the Border Services Agency by 2015 and Canada Post will lose 9,000 jobs over the next five years, according to what my colleague from Alfred-Pellan tells me. I am satisfied that her figures are absolutely reliable.

When public services and monitoring are cut to that degree, we open the door to potential criminals, fraudsters and smugglers, who will cheerfully go about their business. This shows the full extent of the carelessness and inconsistency of the Conservatives, who would have us believe they will be tougher, whereas they remind us of the anti-doping agencies that are always two or three steps behind because they do not invest enough to determine exactly what future fraud artists will be doing. That is extremely harmful.

If we equipped ourselves with the resources we need to act, I am convinced we could not only enforce copyright and intellectual property rights, but also protect the safety of Canadians. Many of these counterfeit and smuggled products pose health and safety risks for the people who buy them. This is a concern that we in the NDP have.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their incredible support. It really is an honour to be part of the NDP.

We support this bill, but I am pleased that a gag order has not been imposed and that we now have the opportunity to express our opinions. Since the beginning of this Parliament, 76 gag orders have been imposed. That makes 76 bills that we have not been able to debate appropriately. That is deplorable. I am therefore pleased that no gag order has been imposed this time, although, at the same time, we are not too sure what is coming.

I also find it deplorable that the party opposite and the third party have not taken part at all in the debates that have been held in the evenings for several weeks. We sit until midnight and we are the only ones rising to speak. I want to take this opportunity to speak out against that situation. I find it particularly galling.

We support Bill C-8, An Act to amend the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, despite its imperfections. However, we still feel justified in questioning certain aspects of it. The government will therefore not be able to say that we are opposed to everything.

Bill C-8 is designed to strengthen the enforcement of copyright and trade-mark rights and to curtail commercial activity involving infringing copies and counterfeit trade-marked goods.

Clearly, we always support companies, consumers, authors and musicians—my colleague was talking about music earlier on—and the whole area of the intellectual property of scientists, for example. There is also considerable mention in this bill of the health and safety of Canadians. I feel that the bill has a lot of merit in this area.

When we talk about counterfeit medication, for example, it can be a serious matter. A person ordering medication online for some kind of problem could choose the wrong product. If the person is allergic to that product, problems arise. That is one of the reasons why we support this kind of measure, which will help to keep Canadians healthy and to protect them.

Bill C-8 creates two new criminal offences under the Copyright Act, prohibiting the possession or export of infringing copies; it also creates offences for selling, or engaging in commercial activity with, counterfeit products.

It also creates a criminal offence prohibiting the importing and exporting of infringing copies and counterfeit goods, while introducing some balance by creating two exemptions, one for personal use, that is, items that a person has in their possession or in their luggage, and another for items in customs transit control.

The bill also gives customs officers new powers to detain counterfeit goods and copies. That is an important policy change, since up until now, border officials required copyright holders to first get a court order before they would seize infringing copies or counterfeit goods.

The bill also gives the Minister of Health and border authorities new powers that allow them to share with rights owners information relating to the detained goods. These are meaningful and significant changes that needed to be made to fight the counterfeiting of all kinds of items that could harm the health and safety of our fellow citizens.

The bill has also expanded the scope of what can be registered as a trademark, as described within the broader definition of “signs”, including colours, shapes, scents and tastes.

What concerns me as I read this bill is the fact that several million dollars have been cut from the Canada Border Services Agency. The bill gives border authorities new powers, but how will everything be appropriately financed? How can they continue to be effective and to do their jobs? We agree that counterfeiting is a scourge and that something must be done about it. We also agree that they have other responsibilities as well. Are they going to be asked to work twice as much? I am not sure how it is all going to work. Are we going to clone them? I do not know. In short, this is something that really must be given particular attention. This is not the only situation where there have been budget cuts and increases in responsibility for the staff of an agency.

Take tax havens, for example. They say they want to fight against tax havens and allocate more resources to doing so, but the Canada Revenue Agency has undergone budget cuts. The same applies to Canada Post and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. The number of inspectors has been cut but they are being asked to provide the same level of service. That is particularly worrisome to me. I am curious and I would really like to know how this is all going to be implemented.

Naturally, we support political and legal tools that will combat counterfeiting and copyright violation effectively. Such violations can have a negative impact on Canadian businesses and consumers. As I said earlier, that is especially the case when the health and safety of Canadians are at risk, which often happens when counterfeiting is involved. On the other hand, intellectual property calls for an approach that strikes a balance between the interests of rights holders and the interests of users and consumers. We have to strike a fair balance there too.

We also need better ways to share information about counterfeiting with people. We have to implement measures to ensure that border services agents use their new law enforcement powers appropriately. That also includes better information about the extent of the problem. We have to raise people's awareness about what counterfeiting, intellectual property and copyright are. We have to explain that in terms people can understand. These are things of importance to society that I think have been somewhat neglected over the past few years.

Bill C-8 does not feature the same lack of balance as other copyright bills this government has come up with. It is a good improvement even though it is not perfect. Nothing is perfect, after all.

As I said earlier, we still do not know how the bill will be enforced. We would like the Canada Border Services Agency to have enough resources to carry out this work without interfering with its priorities. Those people have a lot of work to do, and cuts will not help them do more work. If we overload them, it will not work.

It is in the interest of Canadian businesses and consumers to combat counterfeiting, especially, as I said earlier, when counterfeit goods can jeopardize the health and safety of Canadians. To do that, we have to give those involved the tools they need. There has to be money for that. I see no other way. It will not happen if the government puts some relevant provisions in a bill but continues to make cuts.

I would like one of my colleagues opposite to share some thoughts about this. That would be really interesting.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for a very informative speech on this topic.

She talked about person-years and the employees who will be lost between now and 2015, totalling 549. What is interesting about this number, along with some facts and figures that I have here, is that the budget cuts introduced in 2012 amount to $31 million in the first year, $72 million in the second year, and $143 million in the third year. The number is going up, doubling each year, so that the big impact is going to be in 2015, when this new responsibility will likely be passed on to the border guards.

It seems to be a pattern throughout. Agencies and departments and all aspects of government are going to be hit with this all in one year. How is it that the government, which wants the border agency to do more to enforce this legislation, would ask it to do the job with 549 fewer employees? That pattern is going to occur throughout the entire public service.

Would the member care to comment on that phenomenon and the Conservative government's approach?

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his very relevant question.

I must admit that I am rather confused by the way this government is working. I do not really understand how it intends to achieve its goals while cutting funding, eliminating positions and preventing competent people from doing their job. It is particularly appalling. The government should work on this problem.

I understand perfectly that choices must be made. However, there are necessities in a budget, and when something is added, more funding is needed. The government wants the Canada Border Services Agency to do more but it is eliminating 549 jobs. That does not really make sense. We have no choice but to find a solution.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for her fine speech and for so kindly agreeing to share her time with me.

I would like to come back to my concern about the resources that are not made available to the government to enable it to concretely apply the measures set out in Bill C-8. I would also like to remind honourable members that money supposedly allocated for the border infrastructure fund two or three years ago ended up being used to build arenas and gazebos. Once again, the government did not allocate the resources needed to secure our borders.

Now the government is saying that it will make an additional effort to fight contraband and counterfeiting and will cut $143 million and 549 jobs. I would like to know what the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot has to say about that and whether she shares my concerns.