Debates of June 19th, 2014

Combating Counterfeit Products Act

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to tell a very quick story about my father, who worked for his entire career with Customs and Excise. He worked on the GATT side, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. It was really important that everyone understood the nomenclature and that when we had to enforce copyright, our trading partners agreed on the rules and understood that nomenclature, such as we declare that a book is a book. It sounds simple, one would think, but these debates often go on in trade agreements. In the case of GATT, it was really important to get it right.

I would say to my colleague that if we are handing these powers over to our border officials to use these powers to crack down on counterfeiting, they need to understand exactly what the legislation means. These resources for Canada Border Services agents are absolutely critical. They need to have the proper training so that this legislation will actually work.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, counterfeiting is clearly a criminal activity sometimes. We do not talk nearly enough about the fact that these people can not only counterfeit a product but also sell a dangerous product.

At the international level, if we integrate these products into products made in Canada, our entire production chain loses its value.

Could my distinguished colleague tell us about the impact of counterfeiting on our international image?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

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

It is an incredibly important one. I think of the example in aerospace. Recently there were some investigations in the United States about certain parts for planes. When some of them were examined, they were found to be counterfeit. This is very serious. Imagine if planes have counterfeit parts and there is no oversight as to the quality. We are talking about putting people's lives in danger.

[An hon. member]

The Hercules.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

My colleague just reminded me of the Hercules. These are the workhorses for our military. If we find we have counterfeit materials in the supply chain, this is very serious. That is an extraordinarily important question.

The other aspect relates to very small items, such as pills and prescription drugs. In the European Union there was a crackdown by Germany in the whole area of counterfeit medicines. Again, people's lives hang in the balance if they are provided with counterfeit drugs that are not effective.

It is an extraordinarily important question. We have to get this right, because it is important to make sure that we we create things to very high standards and with proper oversight. We could criticize the government about the need to strengthen the oversight it provides, but we have to make sure we get this right. We want to fight counterfeiting because it can affect people's lives.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party will support Bill C-8 at third reading, because the fight against counterfeiting is so important to our economy.

First of all, it is a matter of respecting the economic rights of creators and copyright or trademark owners, who have invested their research into developing their product. This requires time and money. Very often, they invest in advertising and marketing for their product, to demonstrate its quality and the significance of buying it.

Some people pay the bills, while the counterfeiters run off with the profits. This is a great recipe for making a respectable company go under. In addition, when the counterfeit items are of poor quality, both the company’s market and the value of its trademark collapse. If we want to protect our businesses, we must ban this kind of practice.

We must make sure that consumers are really buying the product they are paying for. If you pay $3,000 for a beautiful Rolex watch, you expect it to contain a little bit of gold and silver. If you pay $15 for it in a back alley in New York, of course there will not be any gold or silver in it. It cannot be anything but a toy. Nonetheless, the brand of the watch is being undermined.

Let us imagine that a counterfeiter makes an almost exact copy of a watch but replaces the gold and silver with lower quality metals. First of all, he increases the amount of profit he makes from this inferior product. Then the legitimate company loses the sale and the brand value declines, because the owner believes the watch should last a lifetime but it stops working after six months. It is the value of the brand name that takes a hit. It is important to preserve it.

Very often, it is just a question of keeping the public safe. For instance, children’s toys cannot have lead paint in them. All the major brand companies know this, and the counterfeiters do as well. However, the counterfeiters sometimes like to make a little more money and do not comply with essential international public health standards. They use hazardous products.

If these people started making prescription drugs, there would be a problem. In Canada, we feel it is absolutely awful that prescription drugs we import may be of poor quality, depending on the plant where they were manufactured, even within a company. The plant manager lowers the quality of the brand-name product. This has happened in the United States, where some companies have been banned from selling prescription drugs. We hope of course that control will happen in Canada. It is a matter of public health.

If we expect a prescription drug to contain 70% of active ingredients, and there is a problem if it only contains 50% or if it contains 115%. Doctors write their prescriptions for medications whose properties they know. If someone starts playing around with them, it becomes a public health issue.

With regard to food, Canada bans a certain level of pesticides. If this level is exceeded, the food in question is not safe. The counterfeiters will use poor quality products in their cans and stick on a label from a company that has a good reputation to sell them. They do not meet the standards and this also poses risks.

This is why the NDP is in complete agreement with Bill C-8. We have to make sure this protection is provided in order for food, toys, drugs and even construction materials to have real value. This is the era of globalization, and very often we receive by-products that are incorporated into our own national production. That is what the problem of contamination is all about. If a contaminant enters our production chain at some point, then when the product comes out the end, our chain of production will have a lower value. The estimated value of our product will not be what we had hoped because we will have been duped. This is therefore important. It is a question of security, not just physical but also economic.

One major flaw must be noted, however. It is all very well to enact the finest laws in the world, but if there is no one to enforce them, then things are not going to work. Unfortunately, in recent years, a significant amount has been cut from the budget of the Canada Border Services Agency. That has led to 549 jobs being cut. That is a huge number. We can imagine how many containers inspectors can check and how many long-term investigations they can do into counterfeit products that appear on the market. Those investigations are important. Legislation is nothing if there is no structure to ensure that it will be enforced.

We recently discussed a free trade agreement with Honduras. The problem I raised at the time was that there is no point in having a law that prohibits murder in that country if the leaders of the country can go around killing people with complete impunity because the police will never bother them for it. This is somewhat the same problem.

Prohibiting counterfeiting in a piece of legislation is all very well, but it is not going to stop a fraudster from trying to do it. What is really going to stop them from doing it is telling them that all the lovely dishes from China with lead paint that we find in their container are going to be destroyed with a crusher and the container is going back to China. If we do that once or twice, I guarantee that the third time, they are not going to be interested in bringing in a container with dishes that have lead paint. That is the border. That border is important. It is called the law and the justice system. It is not just thinking that because we are pure of heart, everyone is going to have the same ethics as we do. Ethics have to be protected.

Obviously, it goes without saying that this is difficult to quantify. As I said, we do not have the number of inspectors we need. We know that counterfeiting exists and is here. We have a general idea because companies say their sales are down. How do we determine the value of an underground activity when it is hidden and there is no one to ferret it out? We have seen it grow. The RCMP says that in 2009 it seized $7.6 million worth of goods, and that in 2012 it seized $38 million worth. That is just the tip of the iceberg, because we cannot determine the extent of this underground activity. It is hidden and we do not have the personnel we need to shed light on it.

I will quickly conclude by saying that giving our customs officers the powers they need and instituting civil and criminal penalties for counterfeiting trademarks enables them to share information with the owners of the trademarks and the products. These are things that the NDP and the international community agree with entirely.

We are going to support the bill and we are even going to try to improve it in committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin for his very eloquent and very enlightening speech. I would like to take advantage of his qualifications as an economist and get some further information about one of the last points he made. In my opinion, the issue of counterfeiting or piracy, is similar to the issue of under-the-table work in the construction industry, for example.

We can roughly estimate the revenue that society loses as a result of people working under the table. Although it is difficult to do, because of its illicit nature, has anyone been able to put a value or a number on the extent of the problem for the Canadian economy?

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have a general idea.

The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development has indicated that it amounts to $250 billion per year, which is a huge amount. Here, we know only about the portion that we catch, but we know it is enormous and that it is important. The companies that are the victims tell us. They see their market shrinking even though their product is still just as popular. There are therefore commercial indicators, namely, the fact that the sales of the companies that sell the products are affected. There is economic harm. Does it have to be measured within Canada? No. That is the problem, and it relates to our credibility with our own market and our financial and economic partners. They tell us that things are not going well in our country and we are causing them to lose money. For example, Adidas says that it sees its products everywhere here, but it is not selling any, so something is not quite right. Obviously, an ambassador is going to be called in and is going to be told that his country is turning a blind eye to fraud. Canada must not get this reputation. In fact, that is the reason why Bill C-8 needs to be implemented quickly and effectively.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague briefly addressed the issue of counterfeit drugs. Since I am a nurse, the subject is of particular interest to me. At the international level, it is a veritable epidemic. In some African countries, there are more counterfeit drugs than legally produced drugs. When the counterfeiters started out, of course, they had a very shoddy way of doing things. Now, they go so far as to reproduce the packaging and holograms. It is very disturbing. Canadian hospitals have unknowingly bought counterfeit drugs and doctors have prescribed them to their patients, thinking they were the real drugs.

I would like to hear my colleague’s opinion on this epidemic. How can we solve the problem? How much of a risk do counterfeit drugs represent for Canadians’ health?

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a danger for Canadians and it is also a danger for those who buy Canadian products.

In the United States, they sell a drug made from a flu medication. One of the ingredients of that medication is basically freely available in Canada. Sometimes, it is also imported from foreign countries.

If that product is tainted, it will affect the entire production chain for Canada and the United States, where people take it legally. In addition, and this is the worst part, some of the production is misappropriated so that the illicit drug can be made.

Clearly, we are on thin ice. However, it is important to understand fully that not having absolute control over the quality of medications is harmful to people's health. Even worse, in this age of globalization, we import medicinal ingredients that are reassembled chemically to make another medication. If one of those ingredients is not good, we are selling medications that we think are of high quality when, in reality, they are not. That is the crux of the problem.

I would like to remind hon. members that counterfeit medications are rarely quality medications. They are produced by illicit activity and the people who engage in it have no scruples. Selling tainted medications does not bother them.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House for a third time today, this time to discuss 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 the NDP's intention, of course, to support it at third reading.

We in the NDP could not agree more with protecting consumers. It is only right to support bills of this kind that have that intent. It is important for Canadian companies and consumers to fight counterfeiting, which, we must remember, is a breach of intellectual property rights. That is no small thing. It is particularly important when the counterfeit products can jeopardize Canadians' health or safety.

The reason I have risen three times today in the House to speak on various bills is because they have one thing in common: the health and safety of Canadians. We can never be too careful to make informed decisions and to really make sure that everything is being done with respect to health and safety because, ultimately, lives are at stake. Once again, this is the issue here.

It is hard to see how a bill such as this one could be implemented when, last year, the Conservatives cut $143 million from the Canada Border Services Agency. That, of course, reduced the number of front-line officers even further and undermines our ability to control our borders.

The Conservatives added to the agency’s responsibilities while cutting its funding. That is where we are risking problems and where that is a concern. That is why we are here tonight in the House to raise this concern and express these well-founded fears.

This government has refused several times to take a balanced approach on copyright. The NDP believes that intellectual property requires an approach that strikes a balance between the interests of rights holders and the interests of users and consumers.

When we look more specifically at Bill C-8, we need to point this out. It adds two new criminal offences under the Copyright Act for the possession or export of infringing copies and creates offences related to the sale or offering for sale of counterfeit products on a commercial scale. It prohibits the import or export of infringing copies and counterfeit goods, and it ensures a balanced approach to this prohibition by creating two exceptions. One is for personal use and the other is for copies in customs transit control.

It 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.

It gives the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and border authorities new powers enabling them to share with rights owners information relating to the detained goods. Lastly, it expands the scope of what can be registered as a trademark, as described within the broader definition of “signs”, including colours, shapes, scents and tastes.

In June of 2012, I rose in the House to ask the government a question. I referred to a report by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce stating that one-third of all products pose a real threat to the health and safety of Canadians. That is why we have to take action against counterfeiting. This is not just about jeans and handbags.

My colleague said that whenever we talk about counterfeiting, people think we are talking about a handbag sporting a recognizable trademark that someone saw in some back alley in New York. That is the kind of thing most people think of. However, we are also talking about drugs, and that is very serious. They can contain uranium and lead.

We are talking about safety and security because it can be that serious. It is important to have the necessary resources to keep one-third of products from being hazardous to people's health and safety. It is really important for us to take action on this.

Many people support our position, and that is an important thing to add to the debate. Jean-Pierre Fortin, national president of the Customs and Immigration Union, commented on the 2012 budget cuts to the Canada Border Services Agency. He explained how those cuts would reduce border officers' ability to do their work:

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.

Mr. Speaker, before I talk about some more of the support we have been receiving, I would like to indicate that I will be sharing my time with the wonderful member for Trois-Rivières.

According to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce’s Canadian Intellectual Property Council, the Canadian system has no tools to track and report the instances of counterfeiting that are actually detected in the country. According to European Commission regulation 1891/2004, customs authorities in all EU member states are obliged to report statistics on customs seizures, and the Canada Border Services Agency does not have a mandate for reporting on intellectual property crime at the border. That is another important source of support.

We also have support from the World Customs Organization, which published Model Provisions for National Legislation to Implement Fair and Effective Border Measures Consistent with the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights at the WTO. In its introduction, the World Customs Organization indicates that model provisions ensure the effective enforcement of intellectual property rights at the border without undue restriction of the flow of trade in legitimate goods. The extent and effectiveness of customs interventions are dependent upon the resources available for customs administration.

We have the support of Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa and Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law, a field in which we will most certainly have to make some major progress. In relation to Bill C-8, he said that officers are not experts in intellectual property. The purpose of the assessment is to determine whether one of the exceptions in the Copyright Act may apply. This is a complex process. The courts often have a hard time deciding. Nevertheless, the bill still plans to give these powers to border officers without judicial review or a limit on the types of goods concerned.

I could cite more examples of support, but I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Trois-Rivières. It is important to do something about counterfeiting. It is not just a scourge. Counterfeiting results in economic losses, but it is also a health and safety issue.

We cannot allow drugs to be sold on the Internet when we do not have any information about them and they might contain uranium or lead. Honestly. We must absolutely make sure we have better legislation to truly fight counterfeiting.

I think that we have the full support of various players across the country, people who think that it is high time we do something about this.

As the deputy critic for consumer protection, I have risen in this House a number of times. I would obviously like us to move forward with this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. As the deputy critic for small business, she has raised a number of important points about the damage counterfeiting does to the Canadian economy.

Although we do not have any conclusive data and it is not always easy to determine exactly what impact counterfeiting is having on the Canadian economy, I think the testimony we have heard shows that there is an impact on small and medium-sized businesses.

My colleague also said that resources are needed to be able to protect consumers and ensure that imported products are safe and healthy. I would like her to talk about the fact that this government is constantly cutting funding, whether for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency or for all sorts of programs that protect consumers. Could she talk about that and about the resulting impact on the health and safety of Canadians?

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I think she did a good job of summarizing the key points that are keeping our debate going tonight.

It is difficult to measure the impact of counterfeiting, because it is illegal. Industry Canada points out that the retail value of counterfeit goods seized by the RCMP increased from $7.6 million in 2005 to $38 million in 2012. That is quite a substantial amount. I think action is long overdue.

In terms of health and safety, I know that the government has overlooked a number of issues. Must I repeat this? I have said it several times today in my remarks. In the case of XL Foods, the government did not take the appropriate action by cutting the number of inspectors. Inevitably, consequences, such as the tainted meat crisis, ensue. There is also the maritime search and rescue centre in Quebec City, in my riding. Clearly, being understood in their own language is a question of safety for people using the river. In short, these are health and safety issues.

I could name a whole host of issues that the government has failed to address, but I know that there will be other questions, so I will leave it at that. I want people to take action on this.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since my colleague has spoken a lot about counterfeit drugs, I would like to make a comment. I do not know what she will think of it. Some scientific and medical articles I read indicate that, currently, 75% of the Viagra on the market is counterfeit. Since men are embarrassed to ask their doctors for this drug, they try to get it without a prescription. An enormous amount is counterfeit. There are even pills that are blatantly counterfeit: somewhat handcrafted, they are simply painted blue.

I would like her to talk about the risks associated with counterfeiting when it involves products that people are a little embarrassed to ask for or go and get, even if they could probably do so legally. If they took the time to see a doctor, they would not get a counterfeit product.

Could my colleague share her observations with us?

[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.