House of Commons Hansard #39 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was goods.
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-8, An Act to amend the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin
There being no motions at report stage the House will now proceed without debate to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin
When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?
Candice Bergen Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
Combating Counterfeit Products ActGovernment Orders
Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont Alberta
Conservative
Mike Lake ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today to speak to Bill C-8, the combating counterfeit products act. I am happy to say that the bill passed through the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology with all-party support. The committee heard many witnesses and introduced a number of amendments that improve this important piece of legislation.
However, before I speak to the particulars of Bill C-8, allow me to remind the House of the important measures that our government has already taken and will continue to take to support Canadian consumers. In the recent Speech from the Throne, the government committed to taking strong action to protect consumers and families that is aimed at lowering prices, enhancing access and choice, and ensuring fair treatment.
The modernization of our intellectual property laws has also brought real benefits to consumers. Last year, Canada's long-standing copyright laws were updated and brought into the 21st century through the Copyright Modernization Act. The amended copyright act allows for legitimate and commonplace actions by Canadian consumers to be protected under copyright law. Canadians no longer have to be concerned about the legalities of time shifting television programs on their personal video recorders, transferring music from their CD collection to their MP3 player, or remixing music or videos for non-commercial purposes and sharing it on social media. By enacting the Copyright Modernization Act, the government listened to the concerns of Canadian consumers and provided them with legitimate protection for their actions. Canada now has a modern copyright regime that will play a critical role in protecting and creating jobs in Canada's digital economy.
It is the resolve of our government to continue to bring forward legislation that empowers Canadian consumers and instills confidence in the marketplace.
It is in this spirit that I will speak to Bill C-8, which addresses the real need for protection against allowing counterfeit goods to enter Canada. By reducing the trade in counterfeit goods, the bill would help protect our economy, support innovation, and benefit both businesses and consumers. For years, Canadian stakeholders in the business community have been seeking improvements to our intellectual property laws in order to better tackle the problem of counterfeiting and piracy. They have told us repeatedly that Canadian brands and works are being copied and taken advantage of, causing hardship not only to legitimate businesses but also to Canadian consumers.
Let me reiterate: counterfeit trademark goods are not only harmful to the economy, but they are often made without regard to Canadian health and safety standards which could harm consumers and their families. How so? Consumers could inadvertently buy counterfeit products that look like the real thing but could cause significant harm. For example, witness testimony at the industry committee mentioned several dangerous products. The CSA group talked about counterfeit circuit breakers found in a hospital in Quebec that were supplying power to life support equipment. Committee members were shown a video of a counterfeit circuit actually exploding under conditions that simulated normal electrical use. The International Trademark Association mentioned counterfeit food, medicines, and automotive parts. Canada Goose explained that the stuffing in counterfeit versions of their jackets are, at best, of very low quality, and at worst, not sanitary.
It is easy to see how these types of goods could present serious health and safety issues for anyone who would encounter them. Canadians who spend their hard-earned dollars to buy what they believe are high-quality products backed by a brand name are furious when they learn that they have been deceived.
Bill C-8 is our government's response to this problem. It amends the Trade-marks Act and the Copyright Act to provide new tools for rights holders, border officers, and law enforcement to better fight this issue. Most importantly, it puts in place strong measures to protect Canadian consumers and their families from the threat of counterfeiting.
Allow me to explain how the bill would provide for a stronger border regime, new civil causes of action, and new criminal offences. First, the bill gives copyright and trademark owners additional tools to protect their intellectual property rights at the border. Importantly, Bill C-8 provides border agents with the authority to temporarily detain suspected shipments and the ability to verify their suspicion with rights holders. Under the new system, rights holders would be able to file a request for assistance with the Canada Border Services Agency, asking for border officers' help in detaining suspected counterfeit or pirated goods. Allowing trademark and copyright owners to exercise their rights at the border means fewer shipments of counterfeit and pirated goods into the Canadian market, to the benefit of businesses, consumers, and their families.
Second, with regard to civil infringements, Bill C-8 adds a series of activities to the existing civil causes of action in the Trade-marks Act. Currently, trademark owners can only pursue a civil action against a counterfeiter when a good is being sold.
Bill C-8 fills important gaps by making it a civil infringement to manufacture, possess, import, export, or attempt to export counterfeit goods for commercial purposes. By targeting activities that occur earlier in the supply chain, the bill helps rights holders keep counterfeit goods out of the Canadian market and out of the hands of unsuspecting Canadian consumers.
Not only does this bill add new civil causes for activities prior to sale, it also targets the practice of shipping labels separately from goods in order to avoid detection. Bill C-8 adds specific provisions against manufacturing, possessing, importing, exporting, and attempting to export labels or packaging that are destined to be associated with counterfeit goods. This measure protects consumers from counterfeiters who may apply counterfeit labels to goods here in Canada in an attempt to avoid getting caught.
To summarize the civil measures, Bill C-8 equips rights holders with improved tools to assert their trademark and copyright in a civil context.
In recognition of the fact that counterfeiting is an unlawful act, the bill adds new offences to the Trade-marks Act for selling, manufacturing, causing to be manufactured, possessing, importing, exporting, or attempting to export counterfeit goods on a commercial scale. The new criminal offences also cover services, labelling, and packaging. This is important because law enforcement knows that criminal groups are involved in the production and distribution of counterfeit goods. These groups forego safety regulations, certifications, and quality controls in order to maximize profits. They simply do not care about the health and safety of consumers. For these groups, counterfeiting is just another profitable line of business. The new criminal offences will give law enforcement agencies additional important tools to fight against serious and organized crime. They will help us keep those goods off the market and help protect Canadian families.
All of the measures I have just outlined pertain to sale for commercial purposes. That is the focus of Bill C-8 and of law enforcement authorities. In this way, Bill C-8 will protect consumers and their families from the threat of counterfeit goods by reducing the presence of these goods in the Canadian market.
In addition, Bill C-8 provides a specific exception at the border for individuals importing or exporting counterfeit or pirated goods intended for personal use when these goods are in their possession or personal luggage. Simply put, Canadians may cross the border with counterfeit goods or pirated copies for personal use. However, let me be clear. Every person who supports counterfeiting at any level hurts the Canadian economy and risks his or her health and safety.
As I mentioned earlier, there is also a possibility that counterfeit goods and pirated copies are connected with organized crime, which often profits from the sale of counterfeit goods.
The measures in this bill are designed to help federal agencies and rights holders target their efforts to confronting criminals who gain commercially from the sale of these goods. This is the balance that the government has achieved with this bill. If we want to target those who profit from counterfeiting and piracy, we have to put our efforts into stopping commercial activities relating to counterfeiting and piracy, not in stopping individual Canadians who may inadvertently carry a counterfeit good in their luggage.
Another area where this bill achieves the right balance is with regard to the respective roles of the state and rights holders in the fight against counterfeiting and piracy. Trademarks and copyrights are private rights. We believe that the trademark and copyright owners have an important role to play in defending these private rights. That said, the government also plays a key role in keeping unsafe products out of the Canadian market and in stopping serious and organized crime.
With Bill C-8, the government puts in place a framework that allows trademark and copyright owners to protect their rights more efficiently at the border and within the country. For example, rights holders will have the ability to file a request for assistance with the Canada Border Services Agency. This will allow rights holders to receive information from border officers about shipments suspected of containing counterfeit or pirated goods, allowing them to pursue remedies under the Trade-marks Act or the Copyright Act.
Rights holders who choose to file a request for assistance will be asked to assume the costs of storage and destruction of counterfeit and pirated goods. For its part, the government will continue to play a leading role in stopping goods that present health and safety issues or that are linked to criminal activities. Border officers will continue to refer these goods to the RCMP and Health Canada as appropriate.
In my introduction I mentioned the work of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, as we reviewed Bill C-8 for several weeks. In particular, I would like to highlight a number of substantive amendments that were adopted by the committee that will clarify and improve the application of Bill C-8, while keeping with the balance I alluded to earlier to help better achieve outcomes for Canadians.
First, the bill was amended to clarify that rights holders can use information obtained from border officers about suspected shipments to seek out-of-court settlements. Such settlements are part of the process of pursuing remedies under the act. They would enable rights holders to assert their rights in a cost-effective manner.
Second, the knowledge requirements of the new criminal offences introduced in the Trade-marks Act were found to be unnecessarily high, which in turn meant a low probability of successful prosecution.
If we want the bill to provide an effective deterrent for counterfeiters, we have to make sure that criminal offences can be prosecuted. The amendments introduced at the committee achieve this goal by requiring the crown to prove that the accused knew that he was copying a trademark and that he did not have the consent of the trademark owner to do so. The criminal offences will continue to apply only to activities on a commercial scale and only to registered trademarks.
The third amendment introduced at the committee stage concerns the definition of “distinctive” in the Trade-marks Act. Some witnesses expressed concerns about changes in the wording of the definition. These changes were meant only to modernize the language, and there was no intention of changing the meaning of “distinctive”.
The committee moved to replace the expression “inherently capable of distinguishing” with the expression “adapted so to distinguish”, which is currently found in the Trade-marks Act. This amendment alleviates the concerns of stakeholders and removes any risk of costly and unnecessary litigation associated with the reinterpretation of the new definition.
The final amendment I would like to mention concerns the new civil causes of action in the Trade-marks Act. Originally, the bill's new civil causes of action for manufacturing, possessing, importing, exporting, and attempting to export only applied to the goods and services for which the trademark was registered. In contrast, the existing causes of action for selling or distributing apply to all goods and services that could be confused with a registered trademark, whether or not the goods and services are on the trademark register. The committee's amendment ensures that both the existing and the new civil causes of action have the same scope of application.
Bill C-8, as amended by the industry committee, is further proof that our government is focused on protecting consumers and their families. By keeping unsafe products out of the hands of unsuspecting consumers, it would enhance consumer confidence in the marketplace and would help legitimate businesses in the fight against counterfeiting and piracy.
I would urge all members of the House to support the bill and refer it to the Senate as soon as possible to ensure that Canadian rights holders, customs officers, and law enforcement have the tools they need to fight counterfeiting and piracy domestically and at our borders.
Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for such an interesting speech. The discussions in committee really helped improve this bill. The governing party even put forward amendments to its own bill, which goes to show that there were improvements to be made.
Since over 1,000 Canada border services employees have been fired, it will be difficult to implement these changes. There are fewer and fewer border guards, who are Canada's first line of defence.
How can this bill be implemented if there are not enough people to do it?
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member referred to the work of the industry committee. Of course, members from all parties on that committee work very well together. Actually, it is one of the better committees I have had the chance to be on in my time. As we go through the committee process, the questions that are asked to get information from the witnesses lead us, as a government, sometimes to look at some of the things in the legislation, and important changes are made. That is an important part of the process.
In relation to his question, I do not agree with the assertion he made about the numbers. Second, any piece of legislation like this is made in close consultation with the experts. Of course, the experts at CBSA are consulted on a piece of legislation like this.
The bill would give new tools to the officers to do their job and to attack an important problem, something they recognize as an important challenge. We have done that with this piece of legislation. It will be up to the experts, the CBSA, to determine how best to use this new tool we have given them to do the important job they do to protect Canadians.
As we look at the budget that is coming up, for example, I hope that the hon. member will support the government's efforts to be one of the only countries in the developed world to have a balanced budget by 2015. Having that budget balanced by 2015 will enable us to continue to support the important work of both the CBSA and all the other excellent public servants who work so hard for this country.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I will save my comments regarding the balanced budget and how the government took a multibillion dollar Liberal surplus, converted into a deficit, and is now hoping to get it balanced, for the budget debate.
Having said that, the issue of fraudulent and counterfeit goods has had a fairly significant impact on the Canadian economy. The member makes reference to safety issues. It is very important for us to recognize the impact they have.
The question I have for the member is not necessarily related to enforcement as much as it is about ensuring that the issue is being best addressed. For example, does he see a role for the consumer, and if so, to what degree?
The member made reference to our borders. Our border control officers do a phenomenal job given the resources they have.
How does the government see us addressing this issue going forward in terms of the involvement of consumers and others? Is this something that was talked about at committee? I for one was not at the committee, so maybe he could provide some comment on that.
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Mr. Speaker, of course, there was wide consultation on this issue. Obviously, consumers have a role to play, as do Canadian businesses, importers, exporters, and border services officials. Certainly all were consulted.
With regard to the consumer, it is an interesting question, because obviously, the primary focus of this legislation is to protect Canadian consumers. At the end of the day, though, consumers also have a role to play. As I mentioned in the middle of my speech, we are not targeting an individual who buys a counterfeit purse or something similar in another country and brings it back home. That is still wrong. It is still wrong to support counterfeit products, and there is a danger in doing that. It obviously hurts business.
However, the bigger concern is that with some of these products, not so much purses but some other counterfeit products, there may actually be a personal danger. Of course, we want Canadian consumers to be aware of that, and people need to take responsibility when they consider what it is they are purchasing.
Combating Counterfeit Products ActGovernment Orders
Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley Nova Scotia
Conservative
Scott Armstrong ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development
Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if the parliamentary secretary could elaborate on some of the health concerns we face in Canada due to counterfeit products. He mentioned in his speech that we have issues with the feathers that fill coats that come in from other countries in an illegal way. He talked about some electrical devices that exploded because they were counterfeit.
I had not thought a lot about the actual health concerns before today. I wonder if he could elaborate on some of the health concerns this bill would address.
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Mr. Speaker, this is a really important point. Again, we heard this over and over again at committee. It was a real eye-opener for the committee members on all sides to see the example of the circuit breaker, for instance. We do not really think about these things. When we think about counterfeit products, we think more about clothing, accessories, and those things we more typically see.
In a case like the Canada Goose example, we saw a strong example of a product we would think would be harmless in the counterfeit version, but I cannot even get into the wide range of things they found in these jackets that were completely unsanitary.
Look at the possibility of counterfeiting medicines and creating medicines that people are taking because they think they will make them better, but those medicines have not gone through the same standards and safety controls a medicine would go through here. They may not contain anything that will actually help a person.
These are real and serious problems in relation to this issue. People think about counterfeiting oftentimes more from a business standpoint, but in the interest of protecting Canadian consumers, safety, as we heard at the committee, is a major issue.
Dan Harris NDP Scarborough Southwest, ON
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his speech. We sat on the committee together when we were doing a lot of the studies prior to the bill. The things that were being found in those jackets were reprehensible. They were absolutely disgusting. Many of us did not want to even touch the counterfeit jackets, and of course, there were the electrical products.
During that study, we talked a lot about the 2007 committee report that recommended ex officio powers. I am pleased to see that in the bill now. It also recommended a reporting system for counterfeit goods.
Most of the data the government has is anecdotal. We do not actually have a system in place to determine how large the problem is. Of course, the OECD has made it clear that there is a need for better data when it comes to counterfeiting.
I would like to ask the member what is in the bill that would seek to address that concern so that we can actually measure the size and scope of the problem so we know how big it is and what kinds of resources to put in to tackle it.
I would say that cutting $143 million from CBSA will make it more challenging. Adding ex officio powers would mean more training requirements and more work on that side.
How would that be measured and balanced to make sure that the resources are there so that we can properly tackle the counterfeit goods coming in?
Mike Lake Conservative Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member. When he was on the committee, I always enjoyed his lively style of intervention.
Both NDP questions today centred on spending more money, as they generally do in this place. It does not matter what we are debating, the NDP's questions are centre on spending more money.
In this government, we are looking at the amount of money that is spent on behalf of taxpayers of this country. We are saying that we can do better with that money. We can get that budget balanced and still take important steps like this to give tools to our border officers.
As we have the debate we are about to have on the budget coming up, I would ask the NDP members to first read the budget before they actually engage in the debate, which is always a good idea, and to second consider actually supporting our measures to get the budget in balance so we can continue to move forward with these important initiatives to the benefit of Canadians.
Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to share my time.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin
Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to share her time?
Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to specify that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville.
Before I begin my speech, I would like to wish everyone a Happy Vietnamese New Year. Tet is the start of a new year and, according to the lunar calendar, this is the year of the horse. In Vietnamese, we say, “chúc mung nam moi”.
Now back to Bill C-8. Counterfeiting is a crime that harms legitimate trade. It puts the health and safety of Canadians at risk, as we have just heard. Counterfeiting is when a recognized trademark is put on a fake product in the hopes of fooling clients and businesses.
In recent years, counterfeit products have caused serious injuries. There were batteries that exploded and caused burns, drugs that had very dangerous side effects, and toys that injured children. In addition, there are clothes that are made with materials that are dangerous to our health and substandard coat linings that cause skin disease, for example.
The proportion of counterfeit products that are dangerous to our health is on the rise. In 2005, the proportion was 11%; however, it is now 26%. Canadians should not have to take risks when buying imported products.
Counterfeiting also has a devastating effect on businesses, especially small and medium-sized businesses. Our small and medium-sized businesses invest their creativity and their resources in the development of unique, reliable and competitive products. When counterfeit goods enter the Canadian market, they cause serious damage to businesses, and small and medium-sized businesses do not always have the means to take the counterfeiters to court.
The value of counterfeit goods seized by the RCMP has risen from $7 million to $38 million over the past seven years. The OECD estimates that the value of counterfeiting worldwide is approximately $250 billion a year. China is the main source of counterfeit goods. In 2011, 80% of counterfeit goods came from China, and that trend is on the rise. The United States is the second-largest source.
We hope that Bill C-8 will help reduce the amount of counterfeit goods in Canada. The bill basically aims to strengthen the fight against counterfeiting by amending the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act. In fact, the bill will add two new criminal offences under the Copyright Act for possession and exportation of counterfeit goods. Furthermore, it also creates offences for selling or offering counterfeit goods on a commercial scale. It also prohibits the importing of counterfeit goods, while creating two exceptions: the first exception is products imported for personal use, given that people do not always know when something they buy outside Canada is counterfeit, and the second has to do with items in transit control, that is, goods that are passing through Canada on their way to their final destination.
Bill C-8 also gives border officials new powers to intercept infringing copies. Thus, they will no longer have to wait for a court order, which makes a lot more sense. The Canada Border Services Agency and the Minister of Public Safety will also be able to share information on detained goods with copyright holders. These tools will help fight counterfeiting.
However, it is of the utmost importance that we have the resources to enforce the law. The Conservative government has made major cuts to border services. Contrary to what the parliamentary secretary said earlier, approximately $143 million in cuts will be made, resulting in the loss of 549 full-time jobs between now and 2015. That is quite significant given that the border between Canada and the United States is almost 9,000 km long.
The Franklin border crossing in my riding was closed in 2011. Border guards and RCMP officers came to see me immediately to tell me how concerned they were because the smuggling of tobacco, drugs and weapons across the border is a major problem. Now that the RCMP and border services have fewer resources, it is becoming increasingly difficult for them to keep Canadians safe. Border guards and RCMP officers are being given more responsibilities and fewer resources, making it even harder for them to protect Canadians from counterfeiting and maintain border security.
Let us not forget that Bill C-8 will require customs officers to analyze the products entering and leaving the country to determine whether they are counterfeit copies and whether they fall under one of the exemptions. In the case of counterfeit goods, customs officers will have to detain the goods, store them and contact the rights owners. They will have to take care of all that in addition to doing their regular duties.
One has to wonder whether the Canada Border Services Agency will have the means to implement the law without compromising its other responsibilities, which are to protect Canada's borders and keep our country safe.
The president of the Customs and Immigration Union, Jean-Pierre Fortin, had this to say about the cuts to the Canada Border Services Agency:
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.
Experienced people are concerned. How can the government ensure that all of the measures proposed in Bill C-8 are funded without affecting other surveillance services? The government refuses to comment on this, despite all of the questions we asked about it in committee.
The other major issue is the lack of data on counterfeiting in Canada. We do not know the magnitude of the problem. All we have are statistics on actual seizures. We do not have any information about what type of goods are being counterfeited and where they come from. We do not have any information on all of the counterfeit goods that are on the market.
The Canadian Intellectual Property Council believes that the Canadian system does not have the tools to track cases detected and report them to the authorities. European border authorities must publish statistics but, in Canada, the Border Services Agency is not mandated to report infringements of intellectual property rights.
In committee, when we asked the RCMP whether they had an idea of the number of Canadian manufacturers charged with importing or exporting counterfeit goods, the federal policing superintendent replied that he did not have any statistics in that regard.
In fact, the RCMP's police information retrieval system does not track enough information to provide a clear picture of the number of counterfeit goods imported or exported.
In 2007, a report by the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology recommended that the government establish a reporting system that would track investigations. It is difficult to tackle this problem without the facts and the exact figures.
How can we measure progress after we implement this law without a baseline? Let us be realistic. Without funding for tracking counterfeiting and without a team of experts to manage border measures, the legislation will have very mixed results.
The NDP attached a dissenting opinion to the committee's report on its study of the bill. We are calling on the government to consult with consumer associations and industry. We would also like customs officers to have the powers they need to do their jobs while ensuring compliance with civil liberties and usual procedures. We are also asking that the agency be provided with sufficient funding, it goes without saying, to fight counterfeiting and continue doing the work it does every day.
In conclusion, the NDP supports the fight against counterfeiting. Our approach respects both copyright holders and citizens. We are also pragmatic. We know that if we pass a law but do not allocate the necessary resources to enforce it, the outcome will be poor. Fighting counterfeiting effectively without taking away from other border control activities means providing the appropriate resources to the relevant authorities.
The government must also stop cutting front-line officer positions. The number of full-time jobs has been reduced by 549.
We have also taken a very close look at Bill C-8 in committee, and we believe that it does not compromise Canadians' basic rights. The bill does not include censorship, does not criminalize travellers, and does not cover goods in transit.
However, there must be conclusive evidence and follow-up on analyses. Most importantly, the government must provide adequate human and financial resources to our border services and RCMP officers.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the safety issue. We know and understand that there is a great deal of importation in different forms, things such as electrical components and medical products. Medical issues are something I am most concerned about. When different types of medicines are brought in proclaiming to replace other types of medicines that have gone through a process of certification, it is very dangerous. There are electrical components brought in with substantial price differences from the real thing and, again, they pose a safety issue for Canadians.
My question to the member is this. Just focusing on the issue of safety, does the member see other opportunities that we can, as legislators, move toward to enhance consumer awareness on these issues? For example, the Government of Canada will spend hundreds of millions of dollars on wasteful ads when, in fact, we could be spending more on consumer advisory-type information ads. I ask her to comment.
Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg North for his question.
The Conservative government is spending its money in a pretty ideological way and paying for ads about programs that are not all that useful to people in terms of raising awareness of fraud and counterfeit goods that could pose a risk to health, the economy and the ability of our businesses to compete.
Counterfeit medicines are certainly extremely dangerous to people's health since Health Canada has not evaluated them. They can have really serious side effects that could be terrible for people's health. The government should spend money raising people's awareness about the quality of goods and where they come from.
There should also be resources for producing reports, which is what the NDP asked for in committee. We asked for an annual report to be produced to follow up on analysis of these goods. Unfortunately, the Conservatives rejected our amendment in committee.
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, which was very well researched. The member's riding is home to a large cluster of the border crossings in the Montérégie area, between Dundee and Hemmingford, I believe.
In my past life, before I was elected in 2011, I had the opportunity to be around many border officers. They told me how much their everyday tasks had changed. When my colleague was studying this bill, did she get the impression that the realities faced by border officers had been heard or understood?