The world according to David Graham -

2018-11-29 PROC 135

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

(1100)

[English]

The Chair (Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.)):

Before I get to the reason for this meeting, I want to update the committee on two things.

One is that the Liaison Committee has asked us where we're travelling between March and June. I said New Zealand, but they wouldn't agree. I assume we'll just put in that we don't need any money for that.

The other thing—and this is more for David Graham—you will remember that the PPS reported in estimates that they will be buying unmarked cars with the new money. You may have noticed there are some new marked cars showing up. PPS just wanted to let you know those were bought with the old money. The new unmarked cars are still coming.

Also, there's been general agreement that in the second half, instead of going into subcommittee, we're going to continue on with the full committee, because then it would have to go to subcommittee anyway.[Translation]

Good morning, welcome to the 135th meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Today, we will consider the fourth report of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business submitted to the Clerk of the Committee on Thursday, November 22. The subcommittee recommended that Bill C-421, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (adequate knowledge of French in Quebec) be designated as non-votable.

Pursuant to Standing Order 92(2), we are pleased to have with us the sponsor of the bill, Mario Beaulieu, member of Parliament for La Pointe-de-l'Île, to explain why he is of the opinion that this bill should be votable. He is accompanied by Marc-André Roche, a Bloc Québécois researcher.

Thank you for being here, Mr. Beaulieu. For your information, the correspondence you sent on Tuesday was distributed to the members of the committee. You can now make your presentation to the committee.

Mr. Mario Beaulieu (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ):

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for having us here.

As I indicated in my letter to you, the subcommittee may have found my Bill C-421 clearly unconstitutional, but it did not specify which section of the Constitution or the Charter it was alleged to have violated. In the absence of a clear indication, I will provide an overview of all the provisions that may be relevant. I hope this will answer your question. Otherwise, I am at your disposal to answer any questions you may have.

As you mentioned, I am accompanied by Marc-André Roche, the assistant to my colleague, the member for Joliette. Since we don't have a research team, he gave me a hand.

As you know, the standard used to assess whether a bill is unconstitutional is not very high. On page 1143, Bosc and Gagnon state: Bills and motions must not clearly violate the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I emphasize the words “clearly violate the Constitution Acts”. It has long been established that a disagreement on the constitutionality of a bill is not enough to make it non-votable. I have a feeling that you will not have difficulty in making your decision.

Right now, permanent residents must meet a number of criteria to become Canadian citizens. These include passing two proficiency tests: a general knowledge test about their host society and a language proficiency test, where they must demonstrate that they have adequate knowledge of English or French.

Bill C-421 is quite simple. It amends the Citizenship Act to ensure that permanent residents who ordinarily reside in Quebec must demonstrate that they have an adequate knowledge of French.

The first constitutionality criterion is the division of powers. Citizenship falls under federal jurisdiction under section 91.25 of the British North America Act, 1867, which specifies that naturalization and aliens fall under the jurisdiction of Parliament. Clearly, my bill meets that condition.

That leaves the Charter. Since the subcommittee has not indicated any specific provisions to support its decision, I will go through it as quickly as possible.

First, there are mobility rights. Subsection 6(2) of the Charter states that citizens and permanent residents have the right to move anywhere in Canada, to take up residence in any province and to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province. Whether or not Bill C-421 is passed, nothing would prevent a permanent resident residing in another province from moving to Quebec, settling and working there. Nothing would prevent a permanent resident residing in another province from obtaining Canadian citizenship there, then moving to Quebec and enjoying all the rights and privileges associated with Canadian citizenship.

Since Bill C-421 has no impact on mobility rights, I gather that this is not why the subcommittee found the bill to be “clearly unconstitutional”.

Then there is the language of communication with federal institutions. Subsection 20(1) of the Charter states that the public may communicate with the federal government in either English or French at their discretion, and that the government must be able to provide services in English or French where numbers or the nature of the service warrant it.

Bill C-421 has no effect on the language of communication between the public and the federal administration. Whether or not this bill is passed, a permanent resident will still be able to communicate with the federal government in either English or French.

Similarly, the oath of citizenship may continue to be administered in either French or English, in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. I might have preferred it otherwise, but that would have made my bill unconstitutional. That's why I did not propose it.

(1105)

Bill C-421 simply requires that permanent residents residing in Quebec demonstrate that they have an adequate knowledge of French, the official language and the normal language of communication in Quebec.

Let me remind you that there is already a degree of asymmetry in the application of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. In Quebec, the Government of Quebec selects and supports immigrants and implements integration programs. Knowledge of French holds a prominent place in all those stages.

Bill C-421 supports Quebec's efforts and extends the granting of citizenship, which already exists at the previous stages, namely selection, support and integration. The selection, reception and integration of immigrants, as well as the granting of citizenship are four elements of the same process. I have difficulty seeing how knowledge of French would be constitutional in the first three steps, but unconstitutional in the fourth. In any event, Bill C-421 has no effect on the language of communication between the public and federal institutions, which resolves the issue of its compliance with subsection 20(1) of the Charter.

There are still the provisions on official languages.

Subsection 16(1) of the Charter states: English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada.

I emphasize the words “equal rights and privileges as to their use”. Bill C-421 contains no provisions or requirements regarding the use of English or French. It only refers to the knowledge of French. Knowledge and use are two completely different things. In addition, subsection 16(3) clarifies the scope of the Charter:

Nothing in this Charter limits the authority of Parliament or a legislature to advance the equality of status or use of English and French.

That subsection of the Charter refers to the “equality of status or use of English and French” in Canada. The Supreme Court even recognizes that French is the minority language in Canada. It recognizes that, for English and French to progress towards equality in Canada, French must be predominant in Quebec. In the 2009 Nguyen decision, it ruled as follows: ...this Court has already held... that the general objective of protecting the French language is a legitimate one... in view of the unique linguistic and cultural situation of the province of Quebec...

This allows the court to conclude that: ... the aim of the language policy underlying the Charter of the French Language was a serious and legitimate one. [The materials] indicate the concern about the survival of the French language and the perceived need for an adequate legislative response to the problem...

I am talking about a constitutional judgment.

The measures to ensure the primacy of the French language in Quebec effectively promote the equality of status or use of French in Canada. It could even be argued that the government's current practice with a view to making Quebec bilingual contravenes this, since by making French weaker in Quebec, it does not promote the equality of the two languages in Canada. That being said, there's no need to debate this here.

I had to show you that my bill is not “clearly unconstitutional”. I think I have.

I am at your disposal to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

(1110)

The Chair:

Thank you very much.[English]

I'm not going to do regular rounds of questioning. I'll just let anyone who wants to ask questions to ask questions. Just let me know.

Madame Lapointe. [Translation]

Ms. Linda Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, Lib.):

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to the committee, Mr. Beaulieu.

committee hansard proc 10771 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on November 29, 2018

2018-11-29 TRAN 123

Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

(0845)

[English]

The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)):

I'm calling the meeting to order. This is the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities of the 42nd Parliament, meeting 123. That shows that we've had a lot of meetings in our session.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are doing a study assessing the impact of aircraft noise in the vicinity of major Canadian airports.

As a witness today, we have, in person, Antonio Natalizio. Welcome.

From the Direction de santé publique de Montréal, we have David Kaiser, Medical Efficer, urban environment service and healthy lifestyle.

From Les Pollués de Montréal-Trudeau, by video conference, we have Pierre Lachapelle, President.

We will open by asking Mr. Natalizio to give us his comments. Please keep them to five minutes. Thank you very much.

Mr. Antonio Natalizio (As an Individual):

Thank you, Madame Chair and committee members. I speak to you as a resident of Etobicoke Centre of 44 years, where planes fly over as low as 700 feet and their numbers increase yearly. I acknowledge the benefits of airports to our city and region, but there are negative impacts. The two need to be balanced. To achieve a balance, I urge you to consider three things: the health impacts of noise, the need for noise regulation and the need for a long-term plan.

Regarding health, there is now sufficient evidence linking environmental noise exposure to cardiovascular problems, mental health problems and cognitive learning difficulties in children. As parents and grandparents, we need to be concerned about these impacts on infants and adolescents, because they are vulnerable. Other countries, such as Australia, Germany and the U.K., have eliminated or curtailed night flights. I hope you will conclude that it's time for Canada to join them.

Regarding regulations, only three of the many civil aviation regulations pertain to noise. They are ineffective and insufficient to regulate the night sky. This deficiency has allowed Toronto Pearson to remove the old night curfew and reduce the restricted night period from eight hours to six hours. lt has also allowed it to double night flights in the past 20 years, and if nothing is done, they will double again in the next 20 years.

The night sky needs to be regulated. The old night curfew needs to be re-established so we can have uninterrupted sleep. It's a basic human right. We espouse human rights on the world stage but fail to look in our own backyard. Children are our most precious resource, but airports have ignored their right to sleep. Many airports have implemented night curfews and have continued to thrive. Contrary to industry predictions, the sky didn't fall. Airport night hours must be realigned to the body's need for eight hours of sleep, as we had prior to 1985. Six hours are inadequate, and the consequences are significant. Insufficient sleep costs Canadian businesses over $20 billion a year in lost productivity, and it costs society more than $30 billion in health costs.

The U.K. has regulated the night sky, and Heathrow is now a shining example. Although bigger than Pearson, it has an annual night flight limit of only 5,800, compared to Pearson's 19,000 and growing. The GTAA wants to make Pearson the biggest international airport on the continent, and to do that, it will keep increasing night flights. Airports such as Heathrow, Sydney, Zurich, Munich and Frankfurt are leaders in aviation noise management because of government regulation, not because it's in their corporate DNA. New regulations are a must.

Pearson communities are exposed to more than 460,000 flights per year, and this level of traffic generates many concerns. From January to July of this year, the GTAA received 81,000 noise complaints. The equivalent number for last year was 50,000, and it was 33,000 for 2016. How do they compare with other major Canadian airports? They are not even in the same ballpark.

Our growing concerns are not being addressed by the GTAA. Therefore, I urge you to recommend the creation of an independent watchdog. Countries that are concerned about community health impacts have an aviation noise ombudsman. Australia was one of the first, and the U.K. is the most recent. With your help, Canada can have one too.

Regarding the long term, we cannot rely on the aviation industry to find an equitable solution for the region. This is clearly a government responsibility. ln 1989, the government established an environmental assessment panel to address Pearson's expansion plans and the need for new airports to serve the long-term needs of the region.

(0850)

When the panel recommended against Pearson's expansion, the government dissolved it and the long-term question was never addressed. Three decades later, our communities are paying the price for that decision. We now have an urgent need for a long-term solution.

I urge you to address the region's need for another airport and, in the interim, to recommend greater utilization and expansion of neighbouring ones.

In summary, Madam Chair, we need to address health impacts, because they are real and costly; regulate the night sky, because sleep is a basic human right; and study the long-term issue, because a solution is urgently needed.

Thank you for the opportunity to be here. I look forward to your questions.

The Chair:

Thank you very much.

We move on to Mr. Kaiser for five minutes, please.

Mr. David Kaiser (Medical Officer, Urban Environment Service and Healthy Lifestyle, Direction de santé publique de Montréal):

Thank you for inviting me. I think I'll speak in English, because I understand that that's the majority, but I'm happy to answer questions in English or French.

I'm a public health physician. I'm at the Montreal public health unit. I was invited here because we've done work on the health impacts of environmental noise, and more specifically airplane noise. I want to go through, from a public health perspective, how we see noise from aircraft as being an important issue and where we think there's work to be done in order to improve public health.

At Public Health, we've been working on this for about 10 years. It starts, actually, from community noise complaints. It comes from people who called us to say they think there's something going on here and they would like us to investigate. Building from that, we've been able to develop a lot of knowledge in Montreal about the real impacts.

At an international level, it's very clear. The World Health Organization just put out, actually, their new noise guidelines about a month ago. In the lead-up to that, they did a lot of scientific work over the last year, looking at the health impacts of various environmental noise sources. I want to focus specifically on what they found in terms of scientific evidence for aircraft noise.

There's high-quality evidence, which means many studies that go in the same direction, that indicates a link between noise from aircraft and what is called “annoyance”. Annoyance can maybe sound like something that isn't specifically a public health concern, but if you live in a place that is noisy and have lived there for a while, you know that annoyance over time is something that really does affect quality of life and is related to other health impacts.

Second is sleep disturbance. On this, there's what the WHO calls moderate-quality evidence. That means there are fewer studies, but they do go in the direction of a link between aircraft noise and disturbed sleep.

What's even more concerning is that, in the long term, there is now moderate-quality evidence that aircraft noise specifically has impacts on cardiovascular health. That includes hypertension, or high blood pressure. It includes stroke. It includes heart disease. Some of that is really being annoyed for 30 years by noise in the environment. It generates stress. It generates high blood pressure. It can lead to heart disease but also disturbed sleep. We know that disturbed sleep dysregulates the body and can result in hypertension and heart disease. Also, important in the current context is that it can lead to obesity. There's starting to be better evidence about the links between chronic noise exposure and obesity.

There's less good evidence about cognitive impacts—that includes in children but also in adults—as well as mental health and quality of life.

Just to put some numbers to it, we know that about 60% of the residents on the Island of Montreal are exposed to noise levels that may have impacts on their health. For aircraft noise, more specifically, we have almost 5,000 units with about 10,000 to 12,000 people who live inside what is called the NEF 25, or noise exposure forecast of 25. They're in a zone close to the airport, where we know there are likely to be impacts. About 6% of the people on the Island of Montreal, or one person in 15, say they are highly annoyed by noise, and about 2%, or one person in 50, report that they have their sleep disturbed by airplane noise. This is specifically for airplane noise.

Those numbers can seem small, until you think about how few people actually live close to the airport out of the 2 million people on the Island of Montreal. If you look at distance to the airport, about 40% of the people who live in that NEF 25 report being highly annoyed by noise, and 20% of the people live within two kilometres of the airport. So you're getting people who live pretty far from the airport reporting that they're highly annoyed.

From a public health perspective, that brings us to recommendations that we've put out for several years now. We put out a brief in 2014, and four years, as you know, is not that long for policy to change. A lot of those recommendations are still, I think, very relevant. I just want to highlight two that I think are most pertinent at your level.

(0855)

The first is not a complicated recommendation; it is not based on extensive science. In order to better understand what's going on and to inform people of potential impacts to their health, we need to have access to data. At the present time, we don't have access to information about where planes are in the air, how many there are, and what types they are. We don't have access to the noise measurements. Access to data is recommendation one.

The Chair:

I'm sorry, Mr. Kaiser. We're very tight for time.

Mr. David Kaiser:

Okay.

The second recommendation is just to continue working on administrative and technical improvements to reduce noise at the source. I think those two things at the federal level are still very salient.

Thank you.

The Chair:

Thank you very much.

Mr. Lachapelle, you have five minutes, please. [Translation]

Mr. Pierre Lachapelle (President, Les Pollués de Montréal-Trudeau):

Thank you. [English]

The Chair:

committee hansard tran 35637 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on November 29, 2018

2018-11-28 INDU 140

Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

(1555)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Dan Ruimy (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, Lib.)):

Welcome, everybody, to meeting 140 as we continue our five-year legislative review of the Copyright Act.

A voice: It's been a long study.

The Chair: It's almost done. We're down to the wire on this study.

First off, we have some folks with us today. Unfortunately, we couldn't be here earlier. We had votes and that seems to take precedence over anything else.

With us today we have, as individuals, Jeremy de Beer, Professor of Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa. We have Marcel Boyer, Emeritus Professor of Economics, Department of Economics, Université de Montréal. We have Mark Hayes, Partner, Hayes eLaw LLP, and we have Howard P. Knopf, Copyright Lawyer. Mr. Knopf is Counsel at Macera & Jarzyna.

All right, we have lost half an hour. You have up to seven minutes. Less is better, it gives us more time to ask questions. We do have another committee meeting here at 5:30.

Why don't we start with Mr. de Beer? You have up to seven minutes.

Professor Jeremy de Beer (Professor of Law, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual):

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and committee members.

My name is Jeremy de Beer. I'm a law professor at the University of Ottawa and a member of the Centre for Law, Technology and Society, but I'm appearing here in my individual capacity.

I offer this committee only my own views, but based on my experience as a former legal counsel to the Copyright Board of Canada and adviser to the Copyright Board of Canada, as well as to collecting societies, user groups, government departments and international organizations. For over 15 years I've designed and taught courses on copyright, argued a dozen cases on copyright and digital policy before the Supreme Court, and published extensively in this field.

I'd like to specifically mention just two of my recent articles commissioned by the Government of Canada. One was a widely cited empirical study on the Copyright Board's tariff-setting process, which I did for the Departments of Canadian Heritage and what is now Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. The other was a thorough review for ISED on methods and conclusions from evidence-based policy-making. I cite these studies to emphasize that my views aren't based on the special interests of certain industries or mere speculation, but on rigorous research that I hope will help this committee make some well-informed decisions.

It’s my third appearance in about a week before a parliamentary committee. Last week my testimony to the Senate's Standing Committee on Banking, Trade, and Commerce focused on proposed reforms in Bill C-86, the budget implementation act, to the Copyright Board and the collective administration of copyright. Yesterday, I testified to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage for its study on remuneration models for artists and creative industries, which will feed into this committee's review of the Copyright Act.

I won't repeat that testimony, but I would like to highlight the most important points. First, as I told the banking committee, the resources and proposed reforms to the board and collecting societies are on the whole good, but there remains some important work for this committee to do on a policy level. To the heritage committee, I made the point that if artists have remuneration problems, the root cause may not be copyright at all, but rather power imbalances and unfair contracts with publishers, record labels and other intermediaries. I said that if the government wants to expand anyone’s rights, it could start by recognizing and affirming that copyright doesn't derogate from indigenous people's rights over knowledge and culture.

I think most importantly that whatever the heritage committee and this committee recommends must take account of the dramatic extension of copyright protection in Canada’s most recent trade deal with the United States and Mexico, the USMCA.

With that, let me turn to the statutory review of the Copyright Act that this committee is mandated to do. You do not have an easy task. I've seen the 100 briefs already submitted, and the list of 182, and counting, witnesses you’ve heard from. Here's what I take from all of that. It's much too soon since the last round of amendments to consider any major overhaul of Canadian copyright law. In my view, the most important recommendation this committee can make is to get off the hamster wheel of perpetual copyright reform. lt's not just pointless. It's counterproductive to reopen the act every five years, as section 92 currently requires. Just looking at the list of special interest groups coming to you cap in hand makes one’s head spin.

The act was modernized. That was the word, it was the “modernization” act in 2012. Before that there was a massive expansion of copyright in 1997, and before that in 1989. How can anyone credibly claim to have evidence on whether the last batch of reforms is working or not? How can anyone say with a straight face that the act is already out of date again? These frequent reviews aren't free. There are cash expenses, there are opportunity costs, you could be focusing on other things, and most importantly, there are big policy risks.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that copyright is unimportant. To the contrary, it's a crucial issue. My point is that we need, and we have, technologically neutral principles, and we need the time to properly implement and interpret, in practice and by the courts, and then consider the principles before giving lobbyists another kick at the can.

(1600)

When it is seen in that light, I think it becomes easier to discount a lot of the rhetoric and the recommendations around—to list just a few examples—statutory damages to coerce educational institutions into buying licences they may not need or want, website-blocking schemes or special injunctions to give copyright owners more procedural powers than other plaintiffs have, iPod or Internet taxes or other cross-subsidies, and on and on and on.

That said, there's one very recent game-changer that I think this committee should consider, and that's the dramatic expansion of copyright required by the USMCA. The USMCA will give copyright owners an additional two full decades of monopoly. Copyright in Canada will soon last for the life of an author plus 70 years. On average, if you look at life expectancy, that's 150 years—a century and a half—that we have to wait to freely build on and embellish works in the public domain.

I understand why we did that. I'm a pragmatist. If that's what it took to salvage free trade in North America, all right. However, what it means is that Canada has now aligned the term of protection of copyright with that in the United States but not the safety valves, like fair use, that are so crucial for driving innovation. Without counterbalancing measures to align Canadian and American copyright flexibilities, Canadian innovators would be at a huge disadvantage.

In light of the time, let me conclude with my general point on this. For the theory of free trade in copyright-protected works to function in practice, both the floor and the ceiling of protection have to be harmonized. We can't take just the bad of American law without taking the good, so my recommendation above all for this committee is to ensure that in any measures it takes, it consider the changes that USMCA will bring in its report.

Thank you very much.

The Chair:

Thank you very much.[Translation]

Mr. Boyer, over to you. You have seven minutes.

Mr. Marcel Boyer (Emeritus Professor of Economics, Department of Economics, Université de Montréal, As an Individual):

Thank you very much for the invitation.

Conflict exists between creators and users. Obviously, creators want to benefit from the value their creations generate for users. Users want to minimize payment for such inputs in order to channel savings towards other means of reaching their goals, their objectives or their mission. We have two particular examples before us: replacing copyright payments with scholarships or other services for students, or investments in broadcasting facilities in smaller communities or markets.

Is this a standard conflict between buyers and sellers? The answer is yes and no, and I will explain why. As I am an economist, I am going to talk about what economic efficiency or optimality tells us about this conflict.

(1605)

[English]

Copyrighted works have two characteristics. First, they are information goods, or assets—I'm going to say that—which means that once produced or fixed, their use or consumption does not destroy such goods or assets. They remain available now and in the future for consumption by other people. That would be different from the standard public goods, which have to be produced every year, things like national defence or public security, for instance.

The second point is on digital technologies. What exactly they have changed in the world of copyright is that they have reduced to zero or almost zero the cost of reproducing and disseminating copyrighted works—whether they are music or books—and therefore, maximal dissemination becomes possible. Digitization challenges the delicate balance of creators' and users' rights. The excludability level favoured by copyright may have become too severe for the digital world, hence the conflict we're facing today.[Translation]

Economists have been studying this type of problem for many decades and analytical solutions do exist.

An optimal solution when allocating resources would be to have the price set at zero for this type of good or asset. That way, the goods could be distributed to the maximum extent possible. However, we then have a problem: how to compensate creators within such a system.

Economists have studied solutions such as limited distribution, whereby distribution would not be optimal and the price would be set higher than zero in order to ensure fair compensation for rights holders, while still trying to distribute the products as much as possible with some possible tinkering between the two solutions.

In order to put this or these types of solution into practice, we have to know the value of the product in question. What is the competitive market value of the works that are protected given that they are information goods or assets and that digital technologies have changed the commercial domain, making it nearly impossible to have a competitive market or to even sell those goods commercially?

How can we solve this problem that I have called, in one of my publications, the Gordian knot of today's corporate world?[English]

We can arrive at a solution through four key changes.

First, move away from the current circular heuristics in favour of direct inferences of competitive market value from the behaviour and choices of users. This can be done. It is not done today. We say that we're going to set up the rates today at that level because two years ago or four years ago we did that. Therefore, we're constrained by those decisions.

Rights holders are significantly shortchanged by the current Copyright Act provisions, including exceptions of many kinds, and the way they are implemented. The undercompensation of creators, as compared to the competitive market benchmarks, is a significant impediment to a more efficient and vibrant economy. The undercompensation totals several hundred million dollars per year in Canada.[Translation]

Secondly, we have to avoid stigmatizing creators, who are seen to be opposing the digital economy and maximum distribution of works through exceptions, including fair use.

Who, from apart the creators, should pay for these public policies?

Here's a first example.

In 2012, the government passed regulations to exclude microSD and similar cards from the definition of “audio recording medium”, thereby preventing the Copyright Board from setting a levy on such cards to compensate rights holders.

Here is the government's justification, and I've quoted a governmental publication: Such a levy would increase the costs to manufacturers and importers of these cards, resulting in these costs indirectly being passed on to retailers and consumers. ... thereby negatively impacting e-commerce businesses and Canada's participation in the digital economy.

committee hansard indu 30674 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on November 28, 2018

2018-11-27 TRAN 122

Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

(0800)

[English]

The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)):

I call the meeting to order.

Good morning, everyone. Thank you all very much for coming in for an eight o'clock start this morning. There are so many of you here, so we really appreciate it. I'm sure you didn't appreciate the call for eight o'clock, but thank you all very much for making it here this morning.

We gather here this morning to study a number of votes from the supplementary estimates (A), 2018-19: namely, votes 1a, 5a, 10a, 15a and 20a under Department of Transport; vote 1a under Canadian Air Transport Security Authority; and vote 1a under Canadian Transportation Agency.

I'm delighted to welcome the Honourable Marc Garneau, Minister of Transport, along with officials from Transport Canada. We have Michael Keenan, deputy minister, who has been here often to visit us, and André Lapointe, assistant deputy minister for corporate services and chief financial officer, as well as Lawrence Hanson, assistant deputy minister for policy.

From the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, I would like to welcome Neil Parry, vice-president of service delivery, and Nancy Fitchett, acting vice-president of corporate affairs and chief financial officer.

From the Canadian Transportation Agency, I'd like to welcome Liz Barker, vice-chair, and Manon Fillion, chief corporate officer.

We also have representatives from three other departments.

From the Department of Western Economic Diversification, we have Barbara Motzney, assistant deputy minister, policy and strategic direction. From the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, we have Sheilagh Murphy, assistant deputy minister, lands and economic development. From the Department of Indigenous Services Canada, we have Scott Doidge, director general, non-insured health benefits directorate, first nations and Inuit health branch.

Welcome, everyone. Thank you very much for coming.

On vote 1a under the Department of Transport, Minister Garneau, you have five minutes, please.

Hon. Marc Garneau (Minister of Transport):

Thank you, Madam Chair.[Translation]

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the invitation to meet with the committee. As you know, I am joined by several people today, as the chair mentioned.

I'm pleased to be here to talk about some of the important work being done in the federal transportation portfolio, which includes Transport Canada, Crown corporations, agencies and administrative tribunals. Funding for these federal organizations helps to make Canada's transportation system safer, more secure, more efficient and more environmentally responsible. I, and the organizations in the federal transportation portfolio, remain committed to sound fiscal management and solid stewardship of government resources, while delivering results for Canadian taxpayers.

Transport Canada's supplementary estimates (A) for 2018-19 total $32 million. This figure includes funding for a variety of programs. There is $10.5 million in new funding. Most of this new funding will be used to transition to the Government of Canada's holistic and transformative system for impact assessment and regulatory decision-making.

(0805)

[English]

New and incremental resources will allow Transport Canada to meet its responsibilities, which have been expanded under the new impact assessment and regulatory review system. This includes a transformative approach to working with indigenous peoples to advance reconciliation, recognize and respect indigenous rights and jurisdiction, foster collaboration and ensure that indigenous knowledge is considered.

This system includes modifications that would create the Canadian navigable waters act, which is currently before Parliament as part of Bill C-69. The changes would ensure that the public right to navigate is protected in Canada's navigable waters and would restore lost protections and incorporate modern safeguards.[Translation]

These supplementary estimates include a reprofiling of funds totalling $21.6 million. This reprofiling includes funding for safety-related capital infrastructure at local and regional airports, for a variety of rail safety projects under our rail safety improvement program and for maintenance on ferries on the east coast.

Transfers from Transport Canada to other federal departments in the supplementary estimates total less than $1 million, and there is $840,000 listed for statutory employee benefit plan costs related to the aforementioned projects.

I am very proud of Transport Canada's ongoing work.[English]

I'll take a few moments to highlight a specific priority, which is investment in our country's transportation corridors, particularly our trade corridors. “Trade Corridors to Global Markets” is one of the five themes of transportation 2030, our government's strategic plan for the future of transportation in Canada.

We can have the best products in the world, but if we can't get them to our customers quickly and reliably, we will lose business to other suppliers. We are working with stakeholders to address bottlenecks, vulnerabilities and congestion along our trade corridors, and the trade and transportation corridors initiative is a significant part of this effort.

We announced the trade and transportation corridors initiative in July 2017, including the national trade corridors fund, which is a cornerstone of this initiative. The national trade corridors fund is designed to help infrastructure owners and users invest in our roads, bridges, airports, rail lines, port facilities and trade corridors. Through this fund, our government is investing $2 billion over a span of 11 years. We have already announced funding for projects, including railway corridors, airport runways, port facilities, bridges, highways and more. These are critical transportation assets that support the movement of goods and people in Canada. The national trade corridors fund has been accelerated, as you know, to enable more projects to address bottlenecks to trade diversification.

Our trade corridors are important for moving domestic trade to international markets and for helping Canadian businesses to complete, grow and create more jobs for the country's middle class. Canada is a trading nation, and one in six Canadian jobs depends on international commerce. For our economy to succeed, we have to ensure that our products, our services and our citizens have access to key global markets. This is an important reason why I am proud of the work Transport Canada is doing throughout the trade and transportation corridors initiative and the national trade corridors fund.[Translation]

But Transport Canada is not the only organization in the federal transportation portfolio. The Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, or CATSA, is also an important part of the Canadian transportation landscape.

CATSA is seeking to reprofile $36 million of capital funds in supplementary estimates (A) this year. The majority of this capital reprofiling—approximately $29 million—is for postponed equipment purchase and integration work for the new hold baggage screening system. This is part of CATSA'S capital life-cycle management plan to align with revised airport project plans.

My mandate has not changed since being named Minister of Transport three years ago. I continue to ensure that Canada's transportation system supports economic growth and job creation. I continue to work to ensure that our transportation system is safe and reliable, and facilitates trade and the movement of people and goods. I continue to work to ensure that our roads, ports and airports are integrated and sustainable, and allow Canadians and businesses to more easily engage globally.

The financial resources sought through these supplementary estimates would help the organizations in my portfolio as we continue to ensure that our transportation system serves Canadians' needs now and for years to come.

Thank you. If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them.

(0810)

[English]

The Chair:

Thank you very much, Minister Garneau.

We'll go to Mrs. Block, for six minutes.

Mrs. Kelly Block (Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, CPC):

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I want to thank you, Minister Garneau, for joining us today for 90 minutes. We're very pleased to be able to ask many questions. We look forward to your answers. I also want to welcome the departmental officials you've brought with you. There's quite a team here today. I do appreciate the fact that they've taken the time to join us this morning.

I know that we are studying the supplementary estimates and government spending, but I would like to ask some questions around a bill that we studied recently. It was referred to us by the finance committee. It was part of the budget implementation act, Bill C-86.

There were a couple of divisions in the budget implementation act that I think come directly from Transport Canada. They were buried within this budget implementation act between pages 589 and 649, in divisions 22 and 23. They contain substantial changes to the Canada Shipping Act and the Marine Liability Act.

One of the witnesses appearing before the committee for the Chamber of Shipping noted that clause 692 of this bill appears to be another mechanism with which to implement a moratorium on specific commodities through regulation and interim order, not legislation as the government has already done through Bill C-48. The witness noted that this contradicts what should be the government's objective in providing a predictable supply chain.

Quite honestly, Minister, there is no question in my mind that the inclusion of this clause in Bill C-86 will have a further chilling effect on Canada's oil and gas industry. My question for you this morning is, can you assure Canadians that this will not be yet another measure to undermine Canada's oil and gas sector?

Hon. Marc Garneau:

I thank my colleague for the question.

Of course, the parts in Bill C-86 that she is referring to have to do with modifications that we will be making to the Canada Shipping Act of 2001 and the Marine Liability Act. These were referenced specifically in the budgets of 2017 and 2018 in the context of the oceans protection plan, which is a very important government initiative.

Canada relies on safe and clean coasts and waters for trade, economic growth and quality of life. We also recognize that our oceans hold a special place in the traditions and culture of Canadians, notably indigenous communities. We are taking decisive, concrete action to ensure that our oceans will continue to be enjoyed by all Canadians today and for generations to come.

To support safe and environmentally responsible shipping, divisions 22 and 23 of Bill C-86 propose legislative amendments to enhance marine environmental protection and strengthen marine safety. That is the purpose of those two.

Mrs. Kelly Block:

Thank you very much. I appreciate your answer on that. I would like to follow up with you on another question, since you did raise the oceans protection plan. We had this question for your ADM, who appeared before our committee on Bill C-86.

committee hansard tran 47793 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on November 27, 2018

2018-11-26 14:05 House intervention / intervention en chambre

Athletes, Retirement from work, Skiing, Statements by Members,

Athlètes, Déclarations de députés, Départ à la retraite, Ski,

Mr. Speaker, world champion skier Erik Guay announced last week that he is retiring. A true class act, he made his farewell run yesterday at a World Cup downhill ski event in Lake Louise.

Throughout his two decades of dedication to the sport, he showed what it takes to become the most medalled skier in Canadian history while remaining a gentleman and inspiring an entire generation of young skiers.

Last year, at an event at Mont Tremblant to recognize his most recent world championship, he spent hours signing autographs and being photographed with fans without ever saying no, losing his smile, or doing anything but being there for everyone else. This is but one small example of who Erik is: accomplished yet humble, competitive but selfless.

Erik, on behalf of everyone in Laurentides—Labelle and across Canada, I want to congratulate you on your career. Thank you for being the athlete you are.

Safe travels home, my friend. Enjoy this time with your family. I have no doubt that we will be hearing about you again in the very near future.

Monsieur le Président, la semaine dernière, Erik Guay, un grand champion du monde, a annoncé sa retraite. Hier, il a effectué avec classe sa dernière descente sur le circuit de la Coupe du monde de ski alpin à Lake Louise.

Au terme de deux décennies de dévouement, il a démontré de quelle façon on peut devenir le skieur le plus titré de l'histoire canadienne, demeurer un gentleman et être une inspiration pour toute une génération de jeunes skieurs.

L'an dernier, lors d'une activité à Mont-Tremblant organisée en l'honneur de son plus récent championnat du monde, il a passé des heures à signer des autographes et à prendre des photos avec ses partisans. Il n'a refusé aucune demande, n'a jamais perdu son sourire et s'est contenté d'être là pour tout le monde. Ce n'est qu'un petit aperçu de qui Erik est: un athlète accompli mais humble, ainsi qu'une personne compétitive mais altruiste.

Erik, tous les citoyens de Laurentides—Labelle et tous les Canadiens se joignent à moi pour te féliciter pour ta carrière. Je te remercie d'être l'athlète que tu es.

Bon retour chez toi, mon ami. Profite bien de ce temps avec ta famille. Je suis certain qu'on entendra de nouveau parler de toi très bientôt.

Watch | Hansard

Ecoutez | Hansard

hansard parlchmbr statements tv 407 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 20:26 on November 26, 2018

2018-11-26 INDU 139

Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

(1530)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Dan Ruimy (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, Lib.)):

I call the meeting to order. We are going to get started. We have a busy meeting ahead of us.

Welcome, everybody, to meeting 139, as we continue our legislative five-year review of the Copyright Act.

Today we have with us, as an individual, Jeff Price, chief executive officer and founder of Audiam Inc. We have, from Facebook, Kevin Chan, head of public policy, and Probir Mehta, head of global intellectual property policy—say that five times fast. We have, from Google Canada, Jason J. Kee, public policy and government relations counsel. Finally, from Spotify, we have Darren Schmidt, senior counsel.

Welcome, everybody. You will each have seven minutes to make your presentations. We'll go through all the presentations, and then we'll get into our questioning.

Just so all of our members are aware, Mr. Schmidt, from Spotify, will leave at five o'clock. If you have questions for Spotify, front-load them. Is that fair enough? Excellent.

We're going to start off with Mr. Price. You have seven minutes.

Mr. Jeff Price (Chief Executive Officer and Founder, Audiam Inc., As an Individual):

Oops. I didn't even get my timer going.

The Chair:

It's okay. I will cut you off.

Mr. Jeff Price:

I assumed as much.

Thanks for having me.

My name is Jeff Price. I ran a record label called spinART Records for about 17 years, releasing bands like the Pixies, Echo and the Bunnymen, Ron Sexsmith, and even a Gordon Lightfoot record.

In 2005 I launched a company called TuneCore that quickly became the largest music distribution company in the world. I changed the global music industry business model. What I did was allow any artist anywhere in the world who recorded music to have access to distribute music and put it onto the shelf of digital music services where people would go to buy the music. Upon the sale of the music, I also changed how they were paid. I gave them 100% of the money. There was no record label between the artist and the retail shop. They were the record label. Anything that we were paid flowed through to them.

In addition, I allowed them to keep ownership of their own copyrights. The traditional music industry had to first editorially decide they were going to let you in, and then upon being let in, you would assign ownership of your copyrights to them, and then they would pay you about 12% of the money.

We democratized the music industry and let everybody in to put their music onto the digital shelves. When the music sold, they would get all of the money and they would keep ownership of their copyrights.

The company grew very rapidly. Within about a three-year period, the clients of TuneCore sold over $800 million in gross music sales of their music—the “everybody else”. All of this money flowed through and went back to them. TuneCore was paid a simple upfront flat fee for its service, so we commoditized distribution while democratizing it.

A number of years into running the company, a very strange thing happened. We were distributing, every single month, between 100,000 to 150,000 new recordings. To provide some perspective on that, the Warner Music Group, in its heyday, was distributing about 3,600 new recordings a year. We were distributing 100,000 to 150,000 new copyrights every single month. We were distributing 50 years in the music industry in a month. These days it's over 250,000 new recordings a month coming from these do-it-yourselfers, these people who own their own copyrights and get all of their money coming back to them.

Four years into running the company, I began to think about the second separate royalty these people got, because it turns out they were two things. Here's an example: Sony records hired Whitney Houston to sing the song I Will Always Love You, which I will sing at the end of this—no, I won't—but Dolly Parton wrote the lyric and the melody. Those are the two separate and distinct copyrights. Every time that recording streamed or was downloaded, there were two separate licences and two separate distinct payments that had to be made, one to Sony for the recording and one to Dolly for the lyric and the melody. It turns out that the clients of TuneCore—the do-it-yourselfers—were both Sony records and Dolly Parton at the same time. Every time there's a download or a stream, there are two licences and two payments. TuneCore was only collecting the payment for the recordings, not for the lyric and melody, and it began to embark on a curious adventure. Where is the second royalty?

I discovered over $100 million had been generated in the second royalty that they had never been paid because of inefficiencies in the system. There were no pipelines, no way to do this, and we began to recover that money.

Along the way, as we got to the end of my TuneCore tenure, I launched a second company in 2012. I left TuneCore and launched a company called Audiam. The $100 million that hadn't been paid to the Dolly Partons of the world, the songwriters, never left my mind.

When Audiam was born—my new company—I thought we really needed to go to work for the Dolly Partons of the world, or the people who work for the Dolly Partons of the world, and ensure their music is licensed and being paid for by the streaming and other digital music services. That's what Audiam now does—it licenses and collects money for Bob Dylan, Metallica, Red Hot Chili Peppers, the people who wrote the songs, who sometimes are the same people who did the recording.

We discovered, in the United States and in Canada, massive infringement. The digital music services were using these compositions, these lyrics and melodies, without licences, and they were doing it without any payments either. We embarked on a way to help remove that friction in licence and work with many of the people I'm sitting here with.

But the thing that has really stuck with me that I want to drive home to you as a committee is that the majority of copyrights that are being produced, created, distributed today in music come from the “everybody else”. They come from outside of that traditional industry. Their market share is growing as far as revenue and market share are concerned, while the major music record labels' market share is declining. It's these people who are being impacted by what's happening today, because they're getting the larger market share. As you go forward in time, the volume of copyrights that is being created will continue to be propagated from the diaspora, the “everybody else”.

(1535)

The really important point is that traditionally you would have a multinational corporation like Sony, one entity with three million copyrights; now you have three million individuals, each with one copyright. The way these people are impacted is contingent upon rulings, regulations, rates and so forth—copyright, and what should and shouldn't be licensed—but remember now it's about the individual as opposed to a multinational corporation, in many respects.

Two kids in their bedroom came to TuneCore, as one example of thousands. They wrote a song about sexting and sold over one million copies of this song around the world with no idea that they had earned these royalties. Their money ultimately was taken and given to the large music publishing companies—Universal, Warner and Sony—based on their market share, because they didn't even have the information to know that they earned it.

That's a quick summation of me and my company, and I suspect that's why I'm here today.

The Chair:

Thank you very much.

We're going to move to Facebook and Mr. Chan.

Mr. Kevin Chan (Head of Public Policy, Facebook Inc.):

Thank you very much, sir.

Before I begin, I apologize. I thought I had eight minutes, so I probably will go a little long.

The Chair:

He was six minutes, so we might allow for one minute over. [Translation]

Mr. Kevin Chan:

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, on behalf of Facebook, I want to thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak to you today.

My name is Kevin Chan, and I'm the head of public policy at Facebook Canada. I'm joined by Probir Mehta, the head of global intellectual property policy.

At Facebook, we encourage creativity and the spread of culture online. We believe that, through Facebook, content creators from all walks of life, including musicians, sports leagues, publishers and television or film studios, are given new ways to share their content, attract the offline audience and promote their creativity.

Facebook also gives rights holders tools to protect and promote their content, while protecting the right to freedom of expression for all users.[English]

I want to start by sharing some concrete examples of how we're working with artists, creators and cultural institutions across the country to promote and empower their work.

Many copyright holders have Facebook pages and use our tools to promote and expand the reach of their content. At Facebook Canada we have a partnerships team whose mandate is to work with publishers, artists and creators to help them maximize the value of the Facebook platform by reaching new audiences, engaging directly with fans and promoting their work here in Canada and around the world.

For the last two years, this team has led a partnership with the National Arts Centre, helping it fulfill its mandate of being an arts centre for all Canadians across the country. For the recent Canada 150 celebrations, Facebook was proud to have been the NAC's digital partner as its musicians and artists travelled across the country connecting with Canadians both physically and online.

To give you just one example, with respect to the NAC English Theatre's recent Tartuffe tour to Newfoundland, the sharing of some of the tour's content on Facebook allowed the NAC to greatly expand their footprint in the province, reaching over 395,000 Newfoundlanders online, or about 75% of the province's population.

We're also focused on supporting emerging creators, helping them engage and grow their community, manage their presence and build a business on Facebook. For three years we have supported emerging Canadian music artists through the Canadian Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences master class program, participating as mentors on how to reach new audiences on Facebook.

committee hansard indu 41143 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on November 26, 2018

2018-11-22 SMEM 18

Subcommittee on Private Members' Business of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

(1315)

[Translation]

The Chair (Ms. Linda Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, Lib.)):

Welcome to the 18th meeting of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which concerns the determination of non-votable items pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(1).

We can consult the chart of items in the order of precedence.

Ms. Blaney, do you have the document? [English]

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP):

Yes, I've read it. Can you pass it on?

Mr. David de Burgh Graham (Laurentides—Labelle, Lib.):

I'd like to make a motion to dispense. Can I move for now to dispense with the 10 items that I have no problems with right away? They are M-111, M-206, M-203, M-207, Bill C-278, M-174, Bill C-417—

Ms. Rachel Blaney:

Whoa. I was at M-207. Now you may continue.

Mr. David de Burgh Graham:

Sorry about that.

It was Bill C-278, M-174—I'm waiting for somebody to say, “Bingo”—Bill C-417, M-201, Bill C-415, and M-208. I have no problems with any of these, nor do the analysts, from what I can tell. [Translation]

The Chair:

Did you list Bill C-415?

Mr. David de Burgh Graham:

Yes, and I listed Bill C-208. I think there are 10 of them in the list.

The Chair:

Which ones are left?

Mr. David de Burgh Graham:

Bills C-331, C-419, C-420, C-421 and C-266.

The Chair:

Are there four left?

Mr. David de Burgh Graham:

There are five.

The Chair:

Right. So Bills C-331, C-419, C-420, C-421 and C-266 remain.

Does everyone follow? [English]

Mr. David de Burgh Graham:

Are you okay with letting those first 10 be done, and we'll just discuss the other five?

I move: That all items, except for Bills C-331, An Act to amend the Federal Courts Act (international promotion and protection of human rights), C-419, An Act to amend the Bank Act, the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Insurance Companies Act and the Cooperative Credit Associations Act (credit cards), C-420, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Official Languages Act and the Canada Business Corporations Act, C-421, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (adequate knowledge of French in Quebec), and C-266, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility), not be designated non-votable.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]) [Translation]

The Chair:

We're going to start with Bill C-331. [English]

Mr. David de Burgh Graham:

Do you want me to very briefly identify the concern that we have?

The issue on Bill C-331 is that the bill legislates exterior to Canada, and there have been some concerns raised that the law would have no force or effect and is therefore outside of the authority of Parliament. I want to get the analyst's opinion on that matter.

Mr. David Groves (Committee Researcher):

As always, my analysis is non-binding on you. You can disagree with me as much as you'd like. Ultimately, it's your decision.

With Bill C-331, I did not assess there to be an issue on the level of constitutionality, and that's for the reason that Parliament is capable of legislating extraterritorially, outside of its borders. The provincial legislatures are not, but the federal Parliament can legislate across the planet. If you look in the Criminal Code, you see there are actually several provisions that deem actions that take place outside Canada to be a crime within Canada. [Translation]

The Chair:

Does anyone have any comments? [English]

Mr. David de Burgh Graham:

Do you have any thoughts on that?

Ms. Rachel Blaney:

I think that makes sense. In that case it's nothing new, so I agree with you.

I move: That Bill C-331, An Act to amend the Federal Courts Act (international promotion and protection of human rights), not be designated non-votable.

Mr. David Groves:

All right. That's one. [Translation]

The Chair:

committee hansard smem 9707 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on November 22, 2018

2018-11-21 17:45 House intervention / intervention en chambre

Aboriginal peoples, Air transportation, Bureaucracy, Education tax credit, Educational institutions, Flight training, Foreign students, Labour shortage, Male dominated occupations

Bruit et pollution par le bruit, Bureaucratie, Conditions et horaires de travail, Droits de scolarité, Emplois à prédominance masculine, Enseignants, Étudiants étrangers, Formation au pilotage,

Mr. Speaker, or perhaps I should say House traffic control, thank you for granting me a clearance to speak to Motion No. 177, the challenges facing flight schools, from my colleague both in the House and in the sky, the member for Kelowna—Lake Country.

The aviation industry as a whole is an important one, and the biggest challenges facing flight schools stem from wider problems in the industry, namely a shortage of qualified pilots. As many of us here know, this is not a problem unique to aviation. The worker shortage across my region is significantly affecting all sectors. Restaurants are having trouble staying open, not for a lack of clients, but for a lack of kitchen staff. The 24-hour Tim Hortons are not. Even garages have significant ad campaigns on local radio stations to hire mechanics, and the story is repeated in just about every industry across the region.

According to the International Civil Aviation Organization, the aviation industry will be short some 620,000 pilots over the next 18 years. We are in a period of feast, and there will no doubt be challenges that come along that affect this prediction over the course of that time, but the need will still be significant.

When I started flying in 2005, the industry was in a state of famine. My first flying school, which closed not long after I earned my licence, had an abundance of flight instructors, each paid by the flight instruction hour, on contract, rather than on a salary. Many, if not most, had second jobs to get by, as well as significant five-figure loans. If someone got a job offer off the instructor circuit, it was a huge victory worth celebrating.

Times were tough in aviation, and while I dreamed of being a career pilot like my grandfather, Jack Ross Graham, before me, who flew from the early 1930s until his death by pulmonary embolism in 1959, a direct consequence of his time in flight, there was no way I was giving up a good career as a news editor in the free software world for the high-risk gamble of following that passion.

The industry since that time has faced a complete reversal. Around the world, aviation is on an upswing, and rather than going overseas looking for students to keep idle fleets of training aircraft occupied, schools are struggling to find instructors to meet the demand of largely overseas students coming on their own.

That leads to another point. I cannot think of very many industries where it is the novices, rather than the seasoned veterans, who teach the beginners. For the majority of new commercial pilots, their first job is either as a bush pilot or as what is called a class 4 flight instructor. Veteran career instructors exist, but are extremely rare and are largely a dying breed.

For most new pilots, flight instruction is a job held for the minimum amount of time possible, until what they call “a real job” becomes available. Today, these instructors often serve as little as four months' time, meaning new pilots, if they are lucky enough to find an instructor, risk changing instructors several times through their training, which can slow down the process.

There are some instructors who for various reasons choose to remain instructors, and I am privileged to have one of this type as my own instructor, but that has not always been the case for me. When I started as a student at a flying school called Aviation International at Guelph Airpark, then the busiest uncontrolled airport in the country, I had someone I felt to be an exceptional instructor in Rob Moss, then both a civilian and a military instructor. Over the course of my training, Rob got an interesting job flying in northern Ontario. Then I was bounced through Andrew Gottschlich, Scott Peters, Marcia Pluim and Alex Ruiz before finally getting my licence in the summer of 2007. I had to check my logbook to make sure I did not miss anyone. While each of them was both a good pilot and a good instructor, there is no doubt that the constant change in instructors slowed down my training. That was one of the pitfalls of not training full-time.

Another of these pitfalls was that during this time when I filed my flight training receipts with my taxes as a tuition expense in view of training toward a new career, Canada Revenue Agency rejected these significant deductions because I had not yet achieved a commercial licence and therefore it did not count, though I was told by many in the industry that if I made a federal case out of it I could get that fixed.

It is little roadblocks like this that tend to cascade into larger problems for those trying to get into the industry. Some of these affect the schools themselves, which have onerous and difficult processes to be recognized as schools by provincial education departments, complicating matters further.

It is certainly a particular personal pleasure for me to talk about aviation here in the House. One day, early on in my flying career, I was learning the basics of how to land a plane. Every landing, though successful, was sloppy. Off the centre line, a bit of a bounce, a bit more of a bounce, a little long on our short runway, maybe an incorrect radio call or two, and I was getting frustrated. I was very focused, doing exactly what I had been taught in ground school and shown by the aforementioned Rob. Then, a few circuits in, Rob and I got into a long and interesting conversation about politics. At the time, it was the dying months of the Martin administration, and there was a good deal for us to talk about. We kept talking about federal politics until I had pulled off runway 32 at the far end and started taxiing back for the next circuit. It was only at that point that we realized that I had made my first perfect landing. Politics, it seems, was the solution. Indeed, we never missed opportunities to talk about politics while I was learning to fly. Now, fast forward 13 and a half years and a couple of hundred flying hours in a dozen different aircraft, and it is a complete reversal to at last be able to speak about aviation on the floor of the House.

I have, on a few occasions, travelled to events in my riding by plane rather than by car. I have landed at all five registered land aerodromes in the riding, including La Macaza/Mont-Tremblant International Airport, where I rent a Cessna 172M.

There are another five registered heliports, five registered seaplane bases, numerous unregistered runways and the occasional temporary airfield plowed into a frozen lake, several of which I have also landed at, and helipads, as well as float plane docks on many of the approximately 10,000 lakes that decorate Laurentides—Labelle. A search last year of Transport Canada's airplane registration database found about 300 aircraft that are registered to postal codes in my riding.

Aviation is, then, an important part of the Laurentians. I am a member of the Association des aviateurs de la région du Mont-Tremblant, Association des pilotes de brousse du Québec, and the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association.

The first puts up an event we call Jeunes en Vol every year at the Wheelair field in Mont-Tremblant, itself the site of Canada's first commercial airline. There have also been such events in Sainte-Anne-du-Lac and La Minerve over the past couple of years. At five of these, I have participated as a volunteer pilot, offering rides to three kids at a time aged eight to 17 in what we call “aerial baptism”. All the organizations I mentioned put on this type of event all across Canada.

At its core, it is a way for the aviation industry to tackle the problem of self-renewal. In offering 200 kids at a time the opportunity to experience flight in a small plane, for the first time in almost all cases, we are inviting interest in pursuing a career in the industry. I have taken a total of approximately 50 kids up so far in this manner, as well as my own four-year-old daughter Ozara, who now insists, depending on the day, that she will either be a member of Parliament, a pilot, or most recently, a flight attendant.

Almost every time I take a new person up in the air, I see their eyes light up. Only once has one of the kids also lit up a plastic bag, but we do try to avoid that. The interest is there. People want to fly. The challenges of learning to fly are numerous. It is expensive. A new pilot will typically incur $75,000 or more in debt before obtaining their commercial licence, and while prices have climbed steadily over the 13 years that I have been flying, schools are reticent to further raise prices. Of course, this leads to the vicious circle of instructors being few and far between.

Aviation medical examiners are rarer than they need to be, and if people do complete the courses, there are not enough flight test examiners to meet current demand. Now, I am lucky to have an extraordinarily competent instructor in Caroline Farly, the owner of Aéro Loisirs at La Macaza. For her, finding and retaining additional instructors for the three Cessna 172s used for land training at her school, and many others like hers, is a huge challenge.

A newly commercial-rated pilot with 200 hours, the minimum necessary to get a commercial license, can easily pick up a job for mines in Central Africa, for example, or obscure routes across the Far East, making decent money, and it does not take a whole lot of hours to pick up a flying job back at home.

Sticking around to be a class 4 instructor, the class that an instructor remains until they have successfully trained at least three students, at which point they become a class 3 instructor, is hardly a lucrative way to live. Generally on contract and paid by the instruction hour rather than by the duty hour, they are severely constrained by weather and aircraft availability, among numerous other factors, and there is no way to clear their $75,000 in debt in anything resembling a rational timeline.

While schools themselves face challenges with things like noise complaints from neighbours who get annoyed by the constant buzz of planes climbing out and circling over their houses and then landing, the biggest challenges are in incentivizing commercial pilots to pass on their skills.

There is, for example, zero incentive for an experienced pilot to pass their thousands, or tens of thousands, of hours of knowledge back to the next generation. It is left to the new pilots to train the newer pilots. More than that, there is little incentive for those new pilots to even take on that challenge, because their immediate concern is getting themselves out of the mountain of debt they incurred to become a pilot in the first place, a debt that many succumb to before even finishing their license, resulting in high drop-out rates, further stressing the system.

There are obvious places to look for solutions. Only about 7% of Canada's pilots are women, and indigenous communities are severely under-represented, yet are generally more reliant on aviation than most of the rest of society—though many reserves do not even have an airstrip. Ensuring that reserves have a landing strip, a plane, and a flight and mechanical instructor could kill several birds with one stone, but not before we address the financial challenges of getting into the business, for which solutions have been proposed, such as granting student loan forgiveness for instructors who serve a certain amount of time and/or in a remote location.

There are myriad other ideas, and this study would help us identify and evaluate them. The problem, of course, is wider than just pilots, and also speaks to the related problem of the death of the apprenticeship economy. Aviation mechanics, the Royal Canadian Air Force, and pretty much anyone hiring in the aviation industry has stiff competition for competent, trained workers, and so a deeper study of these challenges and how we can address them is not only warranted, but urgent.

Monsieur le Président — ou devrais-je dire « contrôleur du trafic à la Chambre » —, je vous remercie de me permettre de parler de la motion M-177 sur les difficultés que rencontrent les écoles de pilotage, présentée par mon collègue à la Chambre et dans le ciel, le député de Kelowna—Lake Country.

L'industrie de l'aviation en général est importante, et les plus grandes difficultés que les écoles de pilotage rencontrent s'expliquent par des problèmes plus vastes dans l'industrie, à savoir le manque de pilotes qualifiés. Comme beaucoup d'entre nous le savent, il ne s'agit pas d'un problème propre à l'aviation. Dans ma région, la pénurie de main-d'oeuvre touche tous les secteurs de manière non négligeable. Les restaurants ont du mal à rester ouverts, non pas par manque de clients, mais par manque de personnel de cuisine. Les Tim Hortons ouverts 24 heures sur 24 ne le sont pas. Même les garages mènent de vigoureuses campagnes publicitaires sur les chaînes de radio locales pour embaucher des mécaniciens, et l'histoire se répète dans presque toutes les industries de la région.

D'après l'Organisation de l'aviation civile internationale, l'industrie de l'aviation aura besoin de quelque 620 000 pilotes au cours des 18 prochaines années. Nous sommes dans une période faste, et il ne fait aucun doute que des difficultés apparaîtront qui influeront sur cette prédiction pendant cette période, mais les besoins resteront criants.

Quand j'ai commencé à piloter en 2005, la situation était très difficile pour les pilotes. Ma première école de pilotage, qui a fermé ses portes peu de temps après que j'aie obtenu ma licence, était loin de manquer d'instructeurs. Ces derniers travaillaient à contrat et étaient payés pour les heures d'instruction données plutôt qu'à salaire. Bon nombre d'entre eux, peut-être même la majorité, avaient un deuxième emploi pour pouvoir arriver, de même qu'un prêt à rembourser dans les cinq chiffres. Quand l'un d'entre eux se voyait offrir un emploi qui lui permettait de quitter son poste d'instructeur, c'était un exploit à célébrer.

Les temps étaient durs dans le domaine de l'aviation et, même si je rêvais de faire une carrière de pilote comme mon grand-père, Jack Ross Graham, qui a été pilote du début des années 1930 jusqu'à sa mort en 1959 d'une embolie pulmonaire, une conséquence directe du temps qu'il avait passé en avion, je n'allais absolument pas abandonner un bon emploi de rédacteur-réviseur de nouvelles dans le domaine des logiciels en libre accès et faire le pari risqué de poursuivre cette passion.

Aujourd'hui, c'est tout le contraire dans l'industrie. Partout dans le monde, l'aviation est en forte progression et, plutôt que de devoir aller recruter des élèves à l'étranger pour éviter que leurs avions-écoles restent au sol, les écoles ont de la difficulté à trouver des instructeurs pour répondre à la demande créée en grande partie par des élèves de l'étranger qui viennent s'inscrire d'eux-mêmes.

Cela m'amène à un autre facteur. À ma connaissance, il n'y a pas beaucoup d'industries où ce sont des débutants, plutôt que des vétérans, qui enseignent aux élèves. Le premier emploi de la majorité des nouveaux pilotes professionnels est un emploi soit de pilote de brousse, soit de ce qu'on appelle un instructeur de vol de classe 4. Il y a des instructeurs de carrière, des gens d'expérience, mais il y en a peu, c'est presque une espèce en voie de disparition.

La plupart des nouveaux pilotes qui donnent des cours de pilotage veulent le faire le moins longtemps possible en attendant de décrocher ce qu'ils appellent un « vrai emploi ». Aujourd'hui, ces instructeurs servent à peine quatre mois, ce qui signifie que les nouveaux pilotes, pour peu qu'ils aient la chance de trouver un instructeur, risquent d'en changer plusieurs fois tout au long de leur formation, qui peut s'en trouver ralenti.

Certains instructeurs, pour diverses raisons, choisissent de rester instructeurs et j'ai le privilège d'avoir une de ces personnes comme instructeur, mais il n'en a pas toujours été ainsi pour moi. Lorsque j'ai commencé comme étudiant à une école de pilotage qui s'appelle Aviation International, à l'aéroparc de Guelph, qui était alors l'aéroport non contrôlé le plus achalandé au pays, j'ai eu ce que j'estime être un instructeur exceptionnel en la personne de Rob Moss, qui était alors à la fois instructeur civil et instructeur militaire. Au cours de ma formation, Rob a décroché un emploi intéressant comme pilote dans le Nord de l'Ontario. Puis, on a confié mon instruction successivement à Andrew Gottschlich, Scott Peters, Marcia Pluim et Alex Ruiz avant que j'obtienne finalement ma licence, à l'été 2007. J'ai dû vérifier dans mon carnet de bord pour être certain de n'oublier personne. Même si chacun était à la fois un bon pilote et un bon instructeur, il ne fait aucun doute que le fait de changer constamment d'instructeur a ralenti ma formation. C'est l'un des inconvénients quand on ne suit pas une formation à plein temps.

Il y a un autre inconvénient à cela. Durant cette période, j'ai soumis mes reçus de paiement pour mon entraînement au vol avec ma déclaration de revenus, les déclarant comme frais de scolarité dans le cadre d'un changement de carrière, mais l'Agence du revenu du Canada a refusé de m'accorder les déductions pour ces frais, qui sont importantes, parce que je n'avais pas encore obtenu de licence de pilote professionnel. Ma formation ne comptait donc pas, quoique bien des gens du milieu m'ont dit que si j'en faisais toute une affaire, je pourrais obtenir gain de cause.

Ce sont de petites embûches comme celles-là qui tendent à prendre de l'ampleur pour ceux qui veulent intégrer ce secteur. Certaines touchent les écoles, qui doivent faire des démarches complexes et onéreuses pour être reconnues par les ministères de l'Éducation des provinces, ce qui complique encore plus les choses.

Je prends certainement un plaisir particulier à parler d'aviation à la Chambre. Une fois, lorsque je suivais des leçons de pilotage, j'apprenais comment poser un avion sur le sol. Tous mes atterrissages, bien que réussis, étaient boiteux: je n'étais pas au centre de la piste, l'appareil rebondissait un peu, il rebondissait un peu plus, il parcourait une distance un peu trop grande sur notre courte piste d'atterrissage, et j'ai peut-être fait un ou deux appels radio inexacts. Je commençais à perdre patience. Je me concentrais énormément et je faisais exactement ce qu'on m'avait enseigné à l'école de formation au sol et ce que Rob, l'instructeur dont je viens de parler, m'avait montré. Alors, après quelques atterrissages, Rob et moi avons entamé une longue conversation intéressante sur la politique. À l'époque, le gouvernement Martin en était à ses derniers mois de vie et il y avait beaucoup de sujets dont nous pouvions parler. Nous avons continué à parler de la politique fédérale jusqu'à ce que je prenne la sortie à l'extrémité de la piste 32 et que je commence à faire le tour pour pouvoir décoller de nouveau. C'est seulement à ce moment que nous avons réalisé que j'avais fait mon premier atterrissage parfait. Il semble que la politique était la solution. En effet, nous n'avons jamais raté une occasion de parler de politique pendant que j'apprenais à piloter. Maintenant, 13 ans et demi plus tard et avec 200 heures de vol dans une douzaine d'appareils différents à mon actif, la situation est complètement inversée. Je peux enfin parler d'aviation à la Chambre.

À quelques reprises, j'ai voyagé en avion plutôt qu'en voiture à des événements dans ma circonscription, Laurentides—Labelle. J'ai atterri à chacun des cinq aérodromes enregistrés, y compris à l'aéroport international de Mont-Tremblant, situé à La Macaza, où je loue un Cessna 172M.

Il se trouve également dans ma circonscription cinq hydrobases et cinq héliports enregistrés, de nombreuses pistes non enregistrées et, à l'occasion, quelques pistes temporaires, déneigées sur un lac gelé — où j'ai atterri à quelques reprises — et des aires d'atterrissage d'hélicoptère, ainsi que des quais flottants pour hydravions sur bon nombre des 10 000 lacs qui enjolivent Laurentides—Labelle. Une recherche effectuée l'an dernier dans le registre des aéronefs civils canadiens de Transports Canada a révélé qu'environ 300 aéronefs sont enregistrés à des codes postaux de ma circonscription.

Donc, l'aviation est un élément important des Laurentides. Je suis membre de l'Association des aviateurs de la région du Mont-Tremblant, de l'Association des pilotes de brousse du Québec, et de l'Association canadienne des pilotes et propriétaires d'aéronefs.

L'Association des aviateurs de la région du Mont-Tremblant organise chaque année l'événement Jeunes en Vol au terrain d'aviation Wheelair à Mont-Tremblant, qui a accueilli la première compagnie aérienne commerciale du Canada. Au cours des dernières années, on a aussi organisé des événements semblables à Sainte-Anne-du-Lac et à La Minerve. J'ai participé à cinq de ces événements comme pilote bénévole, offrant à des enfants entre 8 et 17 ans de monter en avion, trois à la fois, pour vivre ce qu'on appelle un « baptême de l'air ». Toutes les associations dont j'ai parlé organisent ce genre d'événements partout au Canada.

Au fond, c'est une façon de s'attaquer au problème de la relève dans l'industrie de l'aviation. En offrant à un groupe de 200 jeunes l'occasion de voler à bord d'un petit avion, pour la première fois dans bien des cas, nous les invitons à songer à une carrière dans l'industrie. Jusqu'à présent, environ 50 jeunes sont montés à bord avec moi, y compris ma fille de quatre ans Ozara, qui soutient qu'elle sera soit une députée, une pilote ou, plus récemment, une agente de bord — son choix varie d'une journée à une autre.

Presque chaque fois qu'une personne monte à bord pour son premier vol, je vois ses yeux pétiller. Seulement un de mes jeunes passagers a dû se servir d'un sac en plastique, mais nous essayons d'éviter cela. L'intérêt est là. Les gens veulent voler. Apprendre à piloter un avion comporte de nombreux obstacles. C'est cher. Un pilote s'endette en général de 75 000 $ ou plus avant d'obtenir une licence de pilote professionnel. Les prix ont connu une augmentation constante au cours des 13 dernières années, mais les écoles hésitent à augmenter davantage les frais d'inscription. Bien entendu, cela contribue au cercle vicieux de la rareté des instructeurs.

Les médecins examinateurs d'aviation se font plus rares qu'auparavant. Même si les gens continuent de suivre les formations, il n'y a pas suffisamment d'examinateurs d'épreuve en vol pour répondre à la demande actuelle. J'ai la chance de pouvoir compter sur une instructrice extrêmement compétente, Caroline Farly, qui est propriétaire de l'école Aéro Loisirs, à La Macaza. Il est extrêmement difficile pour elle de trouver et de maintenir en poste des instructeurs supplémentaires pour les trois appareils Cessna 172 dont son école et d'autres comme la sienne se servent pour l'instruction au sol.

Pour une personne qui vient de cumuler le minimum de 200 heures de vol nécessaire pour l'obtention de sa licence de pilote professionnel, il est facile, par exemple, de décrocher un emploi dans le secteur minier en Afrique centrale ou de faire des trajets dans des régions peu desservies de l'Extrême-Orient, et de gagner ainsi un assez bon salaire. Par ailleurs, il ne faut pas énormément d'heures de vol pour réussir à se trouver un emploi comme pilote au Canada.

Demeurer instructeur de classe 4 jusqu'à ce qu'on ait formé au moins trois apprentis pilotes, ce qui permet de devenir instructeur de classe 3, est loin d'être un mode de vie lucratif. Ces instructeurs travaillent généralement à contrat, leur salaire est fonction du nombre d'heures d'instruction qu'ils donnent et non du nombre d'heures qu'ils sont en service, et ils doivent composer avec des contraintes importantes comme les conditions météorologiques et la disponibilité des appareils, parmi de nombreux autres facteurs. Il leur est donc impossible de régler leur dette de 75 000 dollars dans un délai un tant soit peu raisonnable.

Même si les écoles doivent composer avec d'autres problèmes, notamment les plaintes de voisins agacés par le bourdonnement constant des avions qui décollent et qui tournent au-dessus de leur maison avant d'atterrir, le plus grand défi consiste à trouver des mesures incitatives pour encourager les pilotes professionnels à transmettre leur savoir-faire.

Par exemple, il n'y a rien pour encourager les pilotes chevronnés à transférer à la prochaine génération les connaissances qu'ils ont acquises lors de leurs milliers, de leurs dizaines de milliers d'heures de vol. Il revient aux nouveaux pilotes de former les nouvelles recrues. De plus, il existe peu d'incitatifs pour encourager les nouveaux pilotes à assumer cette responsabilité, car leur préoccupation immédiate est de se sortir de la montagne de dettes qu'ils ont accumulée pour devenir pilotes — une dette qui en étrangle plusieurs avant même qu'ils obtiennent leur licence, ce qui entraîne un taux élevé d'abandon et accentue le problème du système.

Il existe des pistes de solution manifestes. Environ 7 % seulement des pilotes du Canada sont des femmes. De plus, les communautés autochtones sont gravement sous-représentées. Pourtant, leurs membres dépendent généralement plus de l'aviation que la plupart des autres membres de la société, bien que de nombreuses réserves n'ont même pas de piste d'atterrissage. S'assurer que les réserves disposent d'une piste d'atterrissage, d'un avion, d'un instructeur de vol et d'un instructeur électromécanicien pourrait faire d'une pierre deux coups. Cependant, nous devons d'abord examiner les problèmes financiers qui se posent à ceux qui souhaitent se lancer dans cette industrie. Des solutions ont été proposées, telles que la radiation de la dette étudiante pour les instructeurs qui offrent leurs services pendant un certain temps ou dans une région éloignée.

Il existe une myriade d'autres idées, et cette étude nous aiderait à les trouver et à les évaluer. Le problème, bien sûr, ne se limite pas aux pilotes, mais concerne aussi le problème connexe de la fin de l'économie de l'apprentissage. Les mécaniciens d'avion, l'Aviation royale du Canada, et à peu près tous ceux qui embauchent dans l'industrie aéronautique doivent affronter une concurrence féroce pour obtenir des employés compétents et qualifiés. Une étude plus approfondie de ces défis et de la façon dont nous pouvons les surmonter est donc non seulement justifiée, mais urgente.

Watch | Hansard

Ecoutez | Hansard

foss hansard parlchmbr tv 4348 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 20:26 on November 21, 2018

2018-11-20 PROC 132

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

(1130)

[English]

The Chair (Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.)):

Good morning.

Welcome to the 132nd meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Our first order of business today is the supplementary estimates (A), for 2018-2019: vote 1a under House of Commons and vote 1a under Parliamentary Protective Service.

We are pleased to have with us the Honourable Geoff Regan, Speaker of the House of Commons. Joining him are Charles Robert, Clerk of the House; Michel Patrice, Deputy Clerk, Administration; and Daniel Paquette, Chief Financial Officer. From the Parliamentary Protective Service, we are joined by Chief Superintendent Jane MacLatchy, Director; and Robert Graham, Administration and Personnel Officer.

In the second hour, we will have witnesses on a question of privilege, which Mr. Robert will stay for, along with the Treasury Board.

This afternoon, for those who want to, we have the informal meeting with the Mongolian delegation. There are no parliamentarians, as I said earlier, but you're still welcome to attend.

I'll open the floor for opening remarks.

Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Geoff Regan (Speaker of the House of Commons):

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, members of the committee.

It's a pleasure to be back before your committee in my role as Speaker of the House of Commons to present our supplementary estimates (A) for the 2018-19 fiscal year.[Translation]

This appearance is an opportunity for the House of Commons to present the approved additional funding for previous planned initiatives, which are designed to maintain and enhance the administration's support to members of Parliament and to the institution itself.[English]

I will also present the supplementary estimates (A) for the Parliamentary Protective Service, or PPS.

You've introduced the people with me this morning, so I won't go through those. I'm happy to have these folks with me this morning.

I'll begin my presentation by highlighting key elements of the 2018 supplementary estimates (A) for the House of Commons. These total $15.9 million in additional funding. The amount allocated for members and House officers is $6.9 million. The remaining $9 million was distributed to House administration service areas to fund in-year strategic priorities, bringing the House of Commons' estimates to $522.9 million for the fiscal year.

As you'll note, the line item falls under the broad category of voted appropriations.[Translation]

To begin, our line item confirms that temporary funding in the amount of $15.9 million has been sought for what is technically known as the operation budget carry forward.

I would like to highlight that no additional funding is sought as part of the supplementary estimates other than the carry forward, contrary to what has been done in previous years.[English]

The Board of Internal Economy's carry-forward policy allows members, House officers and House administration to carry forward unspent funds from one fiscal year to the next, up to a maximum of 5% of their operating budgets in the main estimates. Members will know that this is to avoid what's known as “March madness”. This practice follows that of the Government of Canada and gives members, House officers and House administration more flexibility in planning and carrying out their work.

The House of Commons' carry-forward has been approved by the Board of Internal Economy and, further to a Treasury Board directive, is reflected in our supplementary estimates.

I would now like to turn to the Parliamentary Protective Service.

Since the beginning of the 2018-19 fiscal year, the Parliamentary Protective Service, or PPS, has continued to deliver its mandate to ensure the physical security within the parliamentary precinct and on Parliament Hill.

In support of the PPS' progress to date, and to ensure its continued ability to deliver its protection mandate, I'm here to present to you PPS's supplementary estimates (A) requests.

I'll begin with an overview of PPS's supplementary estimates (A) request for 2018-19, which totals $7.6 million. This includes a voted budget component of $7.1 million and a $502,000 statutory budget requirement for the employee benefits program.

The voted authorities to date for the PPS total $76.7 million from the 2018-19 main estimates. Adding the 2018-19 supplementary estimates (A) voted amount of $7.1 million will bring the PPS voted appropriations to a total of $83.8 million for the 2018-19 fiscal year. Including statutory requirements, the total estimates to date for the PPS are $91.1 million.

It's important to note that the total estimates to date of $91.1 million for 2018-19 include $6.75 million for initiatives that will be completed by the end of the current fiscal year. These include the camera project for the West Block, a crash barrier replacement at the vehicle screening facility or VSF, the acquisition of vehicles and several IT projects. These are one-time things. Obviously, in due course, we will eventually have to replace some of these again, but for a while, they are one time.

(1135)

[Translation]

The vehicle screening facility (VSF) is the primary access control point for the vehicular traffic on Parliament Hill. Following an internal review, PPS is requesting two additional supervisory positions at the VSF to oversee the personnel for this twenty-four-hour, seven-day-a-week operation.[English]

PPS is requesting funding to acquire seven law-enforcement-rated vehicles to be used within the parliamentary precinct. These vehicles will be PPS assets and will blend in with the parliamentary precinct's vehicular fleet in support of PPS operations. Currently, PPS personnel use RCMP minivans that are nearing the end of their life cycle and do not meet PPS's operational requirements.

Protection agencies around the world are amending their training policies to ensure that the closest first responders are able to engage a threat as quickly as possible. Currently not all of PPS's protection personnel have such training. The PPS intends to apply proven tactics and training methods to empower all its protection personnel to neutralize threats. PPS would also like to build on the success of the lockdown drills with multidisciplinary, collaborative emergency management exercises. To that end, it is requesting six additional training personnel: four to certify protection officers and ensure these skills are maintained, and two to design and carry out ongoing emergency management exercises.[Translation]

Ensuring that our operational employees are properly equipped is a priority for PPS. PPS is now requesting $144,000 in funding to equip all recruits for the next constable training program.

Funding has also being requested to ensure all PPS employees have licenced copies of the emergency notification system which sends alerts to all parliamentarians and parliamentary employees when specific incidents take place that may affect their security.[English]

Over the last few years, the role of protection officers has evolved. As a result, a new role profile was revised and updated by management, operational employees and human resources professionals. After consultation with the associations, these profiles were evaluated by a third-party job evaluation consulting firm, which recommended that these positions be reclassified one level higher, leading to a salary increase. This reclassification represents an approximate 6.5% salary increase for all PPS protection officers, supervisors and managers, and requires a $2.8-million increase to the PPS's annual salary budget.

When the PPS was first created, it worked closely with the Senate and House administrations to leverage existing corporate systems and administrative tools. While these administrations continue to work closely with PPS, some areas, such as finance and procurement, require additional resources to meet the specific requirements of the PPS. As such, the PPS is requesting an additional two full-time equivalents, FTEs, for the procurement team to manage competitive processes and complex negotiations with suppliers.

PPS is also requesting an additional resource to develop and manage its financial policies in consultation with its parliamentary partners. These initiatives support the sound financial stewardship of funds and resources.

You'll be glad to hear that this concludes my presentation. Thank you for your attention. My team and I are happy to answer questions you may have, or to try to at least.

(1140)

The Chair:

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Before we start, I'd like to congratulate Michaela, our Library of Parliament researcher, for the format of your report, having last year's report beside this year's report. That is very helpful.

Mr. Graham.

Mr. David de Burgh Graham (Laurentides—Labelle, Lib.):

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, it won't surprise you that I want to focus on PPS, as I have the last several times that you've been here.

I and many of my colleagues are frustrated that the labour dispute on the Hill continues. I have a number of questions related to that. They do tie back into the estimates, and I'll get to that.

In October, the PPS released a new organizational chart, and for the first time the commissioner appeared on the organizational chart. Can you enlighten us as to what he's doing there?

Chief Superintendent Jane MacLatchy (Director, Parliamentary Protective Service):

It's “she”.

Mr. David de Burgh Graham:

committee hansard proc 28201 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on November 20, 2018

2018-11-19 INDU 138

Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

(1530)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Dan Ruimy (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, Lib.)):

Good afternoon, everybody. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. Today, pursuant to Standing Order 81(5), we will be reviewing the supplementary estimates.

With us today for the first hour we have, from the Department of Industry, John Knubley, deputy minister; Philippe Thompson, assistant deputy minister, corporate management sector; Lisa Setlakwe, senior assistant deputy minister, strategy and innovation policy sector; Paul Halucha, senior assistant deputy minister, industry sector; Mitch Davies, senior assistant deputy minister, Innovation Canada; and Éric Dagenais, assistant deputy minister, industry sector.

I believe you have seven minutes, Mr. Knubley.

Mr. John Knubley (Deputy Minister, Department of Industry):

Very quickly, I have four or five points. [Translation]

I would first like to present supplementary estimates (A) for 2018-2019.[English]

There's an additional $286 million in total for the budget overall, and $160 million of that is for the department. The main component is related to steel and aluminum. There is $126 million for the portfolio overall. The largest component is $45 million for Churchill.

I have a few more points.

Who are we? We are the executives of the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development. ISED, as it's known, has a budget of over $3.4 billion and has almost 5,000 FTEs. In terms of the portfolio, which includes organizations like the National Research Council, the granting councils, Statistics Canada, Business Development Bank of Canada, the Canadian Space Agency, all the regional development agencies, Destination Canada and the Standards Council of Canada, this is an organization that spends close to $10 billion a year and employs almost 19,000 FTE employees.

As Minister Bains would say of me when I sit beside him next, my colleagues will take all the difficult questions and I will do the easy ones. Again, this is just to say we are the representatives of ISED. What we've done as a team working in support of Minister Bains is really focus squarely on implementing Canada's innovation and skills plan.[Translation]

We have made significant progress to date in implementing a range of targeted, aligned and collaborative programs.[English]

These include the innovation superclusters initiative, the strategic innovation fund, or SIF for short, and innovative solutions Canada. We'll have an opportunity to talk about those programs, I assume, in the questions.

The third point I wanted to make is that, as we've focused on implementation of these programs, which were largely introduced in budget 2017, there have been two new initiatives under way under the innovation and skills plan.

First, we conducted national digital and data consultations from June to October, and we pursued consultations with respect to three areas: innovation, workforce or workplace as related to digital, as well as trust in terms of how we create a trusted framework for working on digital and data strategies.

The other initiative—and this is my last point—is really a result of budget 2018. We had launched six economic strategy tables. They included agri-food, advanced manufacturing, digital industries, clean technologies, health and biosciences, and resources of the future. These tables reported a month ago in one report. Each got an individual chapter, and there was an overall chapter identifying six signature items that were crosscutting in terms of the activities. Much of their focus, of course, was on competitiveness issues and regulatory issues, among others.

Mr. Chair, I'll stop there as a way of introduction, but again, we're the department of ISED, and my colleagues will take all the tough questions.

(1535)

The Chair:

Excellent. We'll try to hold everybody to that.

Mr. John Knubley:

Okay, that would be great.

The Chair:

As I said, the first hour is for those here, and in the second hour we'll have Minister Bains with us. Please mind your times, because I will be holding tight and I want to make sure everybody gets in all the questions they can.

We're going to start right away with Mr. Longfield.

You have seven minutes, please.

Mr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.):

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thanks, Mr. Knubley and staff, for being here.

As you know, we're in the midst of the copyright review, the statutory act review.

In the estimates, the Copyright Board has been asking for $3 million over the last couple of years. This year, again, it's $3 million for program expenditures, more specifically to ensure balanced decision-making to provide proper incentive for the creation and use of copyrighted works. We've been hearing testimony that it's taking two to three years for some of the decisions to come through that board.

The question is around the supplementary estimates; there's no funding being requested there. Could you comment on how these decisions get made, whether it's the Copyright Board or whether it's the department that is reviewing the resources that are needed to do the job at the Copyright Board?

Mr. John Knubley:

Well, I think it's both the department as well as working with the minister in terms of how we move forward. As you know, in the budget implementation act there were two fundamental focuses: notice and notice, as well as changes to the Copyright Board.

Mr. Lloyd Longfield:

Right.

Mr. John Knubley:

Lisa, can you speak to the specific issues around funding?

Ms. Lisa Setlakwe (Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategy and Innovation Policy Sector, Department of Industry):

The funding was in fact acknowledging that there were delays in getting to decisions. Part of the legislative changes also allow, beyond the actual financial resources needed, the acceleration to make those decisions, but also how those decisions are made so there's flexibility for decisions and settlements to be made before you go through a long, arduous process.

It was in consultation. The decision ultimately is the government's to provide the additional funding, but it was certainly made in discussing with the Copyright Board the realities of today and their ability to turn around these decisions in a timely manner.

Mr. Lloyd Longfield:

Right. We are midstream in our study, but maybe that's a future opportunity, so I can just flag it. Maybe this isn't the right venue to do that in.

On innovation, thank you for the additional funding for Bioenterprise in Guelph. We announced about $2 million last week to work with Innovation Guelph, an organization I was working on before politics.

I found out at the meeting with them, though, that IRAP is no longer supporting not-for-profits as part of its mandate. This is moving over to FedDev. I'm wondering whether you're aware of whether there's a transfer there, or whether FedDev is getting the resources that used to go to IRAP to support projects like the ones at Innovation Guelph.

Mr. John Knubley:

I think what has happened is that the National Research Council has received $540 million in budget 2018, and in budget 2017 there was $700 million specifically for IRAP.

I think people are looking at the delivery of IRAP broadly, partly in the context of a review that was conducted with Treasury Board around innovation programming. I'm not fully aware of what the situation is with not-for-profits, however.

Mitch, do you happen to know?

(1540)

Mr. Mitch Davies (Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Innovation Canada, Department of Industry):

committee hansard indu 40402 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on November 19, 2018

2018-11-08 BILI 6

EVIDENCE Thursday, November 8, 2018 [Recorded by Electronic Apparatus] (1205) [Translation]

The Joint Chair (Hon. Lucie Moncion (Ontario, ISG)): Good afternoon and welcome to this meeting of the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament. Today, we are pleased to have with us Philippe Dufresne, law clerk and parliamentary counsel, as well as Pierre Rodrigue, senior principal clerk at the parliamentary information directorate. Before we get started, I'd like to ask the people around the table to introduce themselves. My name is Lucie Moncion. I am a senator from Ontario and the joint chair of this committee. [English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gagan Sikand (Mississauga—Streetsville, Lib.)): I'm the co-chair, Gagan Sikand, member of Parliament for Mississauga—Streetsville.

Mr. Dave Van Kesteren (Chatham-Kent—Leamington, CPC): Good morning. I'm Dave Van Kesteren, member of Parliament for Chatham-Kent—Leamington. I'm a vice-chair. [Translation]

Mr. Guy Lauzon (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC): My name is Guy Lauzon, and I'm the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.

Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Salaberry—Suroît, NDP): My name is Anne Minh-Thu Quach, and I am the member for Salaberry—Suroît. [English]

Mr. David de Burgh Graham (Laurentides—Labelle, Lib.): I'm David Graham, member for Laurentides—Labelle in Quebec.

Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.): I'm Borys Wrzesnewskyj, member for Etobicoke Centre.

Mrs. Bernadette Jordan (South Shore—St. Margarets, Lib.): I'm Bernadette Jordan, member for South Shore—St. Margarets in Nova Scotia.

Hon. Michael Duffy (Senator, Prince Edward Island (Cavendish), ISG): I'm Mike Duffy, senator from Prince Edward Island.

Mr. Jim Eglinski (Yellowhead, CPC): I'm Jim Eglinski, member of Parliament for Yellowhead, in central Alberta.

Mr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.): I'm Chandra Arya, member of Parliament for Nepean. [Translation]

The Joint Chair (Hon. Lucie Moncion): As I mentioned, joining us today are Mr. Dufresne and Mr. Rodrigue. They will be making statements, after which, we will move into questions and answers. Please go ahead, gentlemen.

Mr. Pierre Rodrigue (Senior Principal Clerk): Good afternoon. Thank you, Senator. Mr. Joint Chair, honourable senators and members of Parliament, we appreciate the invitation to address the committee today on the digitization of responses to written questions and the work already under way to make documents tabled in the House of Commons more readily available to parliamentarians and the public. [English] To set a bit of context, there are more than 2,300 sessional papers tabled in the House of Commons each year. These documents include annual reports from various departments and agencies and departmental performance reports, as well as government responses to committee reports, petitions and questions on the order paper, to name a few. Every document tabled in the House of Commons is filed in the secretariat at the Journals branch. An identical copy is provided to the Library of Parliament for parliamentarians and their staff to consult at any time. There has been a long-standing interest in improving access to sessional papers. Many sessional papers are made available online in the hours or days following the tabling, though there is not a central repository of all such documents. The type of document and the content owner determine how it is made available online. For example, some departments and agencies prepare electronic versions of each of their documents and systematically publish them to a specific website. Estimates documents, budget documents and order in council appointments all fall into this category. Documents produced by the House of Commons, such as committee reports and reports from interparliamentary delegations, are made available on the House of Commons and parliamentary websites as soon as possible following the tabling, often within a few minutes. [Translation] In the last Parliament, the 33rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs recommending the establishment of an electronic petition system was concurred in by the House and the solution was launched in December 2015. Since then, government responses to electronic petitions are posted on the e-petitions website. The next logical step was to expand on this offering and to add paper petitions and their corresponding responses. Following very productive discussions with our colleagues from the Privy Council Office responsible for coordinating the government's responses to petitions, an initiative is currently under way. We are confident that paper petitions will be included in the electronic petition system at the start of the next Parliament. [English] As the Clerk of the House indicated in his preliminary remarks to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on May 8 of this year, the initiative will “be a useful pilot project toward greater use of electronic tabling and dissemination of sessional papers, including answers to written questions”. This brings us to the most challenging category of documents, namely, government responses to written questions made orders for return, This category is of great interest to this committee and rightfully so. These responses account for approximately 21% of all sessional papers tabled in the House of Commons, compared to 25% for responses to petitions. The Library of Parliament does systematically publish these in an electronic format to an internal website available to parliamentarians and staff, usually within 24 to 48 hours of tabling. Library staff scan the paper copies tabled in the House to create a PDF document. [Translation] As the Parliamentary Librarian, Ms. L'Heureux, indicated—and I believe Ms. Lank mentioned it as well—at a previous meeting, one of the challenges with the electronic version produced by the Library of Parliament is that it is simply an image of the paper copy and it is not fully accessible to persons with visual disabilities. Issues surrounding accessibility are among the biggest challenges when it comes to the digitization and publishing process. Responses to written questions are often more complex documents than responses to petitions. The latter are produced by a single department and are usually just a few paragraphs of plain text. Responses to written questions vary in length and format. Some are as simple as a response to a petition, but many come from multiple departments and include dozens or even hundreds of pages of text. These pages can contain lengthy tables, graphics or images, which are much more challenging to publish in an accessible format. [English] The House could, however, take inspiration from the success of the petitions model in tackling these challenges. Close collaboration with the Privy Council Office would of course be required in order to proceed, as well as with the Treasury Board Secretariat, which plays a leadership role in the area of information management, information technology initiatives and accessibility. As the House of Commons does not create or own the content of the responses, the engagement of our partners in this process would be paramount to ensure its success, especially in relation to ensuring that the electronic versions are fully accessible to persons with visual disabilities. The House administration continues to strive to provide parliamentarians, their staff and the public with timely access to parliamentary information of all kinds. We are proud of the progress we have made and the successful collaboration with the Privy Council Office to date, and we look forward to further improving the services we offer to parliamentarians and, indeed, to all Canadians. Thank you for your interest in this topic and for the opportunity to speak about this subject. I understand that Mr. Dufresne would like to say a few words. (1210) [Translation]

The Joint Chair (Hon. Lucie Moncion): Mr. Dufresne, please go ahead.

Mr. Philippe Dufresne (Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons): Thank you. Madam Joint Chair, members of the joint committee, I am pleased to be here, not just as a law clerk and parliamentary counsel for the House of Commons, but also as the inclusion and diversity champion at the House Administration. I look forward to answering your questions about the legal dimension of accessibility for persons with disabilities, a fundamental issue. [English] Indeed, accessibility for persons with disabilities with respect to documents and information is protected currently under the Canadian Human Rights Act and in proposed Bill C-81 on ensuring a barrier-free Canada, currently under study before the committee. I will be happy to take any questions you may have on this important matter as it relates to the issues at hand.

The Joint Chair (Hon. Lucie Moncion): Thank you, Mr. Dufresne. The first person to ask a question will be Mr. Graham. [Translation]

Mr. David de Burgh Graham: This is an issue I care deeply about. I was actually the staffer who drafted the original motion calling for this. We were the third party at the time, and we wanted to see the responses to Order Paper questions made orders for returns. Essentially, we were trying to obtain scanned documents such as Excel tables. The issue was whether Parliament was equipped to receive electronic documents or only paper copies.

Mr. Pierre Rodrigue: Currently, written questions are all submitted in hard copy, and the process is pretty straightforward. Using the Order Paper and Notice Paper, the Privy Council usually forwards written questions to the appropriate departments or agencies, which come back to us with paper documents, sent by courier, that are eventually tabled in the House. As for a system with the capacity to do that electronically, we already have the electronic petitions system, which could be used. Unfortunately, the current system needs some work because there are still a few obstacles, even when an electronic copy is sent by email, as is currently the case with electronic petitions. The email comes in with a PDF document attached and it's posted on the website. There's an accessibility issue because it's not fully accessible. We need our various systems to communicate with one another so we can send the data and create a fully accessible document. That's what we hope to do as part of the electronic petitions project, while including paper-based petitions. At some point, we'll have to find a solution for questions.

Mr. David de Burgh Graham: Let's say someone shows up at your office with a USB stick containing original responses in an Excel or Word document. Are you able to accept those answers under the current rules?

Mr. Pierre Rodrigue: It's funny you should ask because, just this morning, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs tabled a report on that very subject. It hasn't been concurred in yet, but, in the report, the committee recommends that it be possible to file documents electronically. I imagine the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons would simply say that a document was deemed tabled and would eventually be posted online.

Mr. David de Burgh Graham: Have you already discussed it with government officials to see if it's something they would be interested in?

Mr. Pierre Rodrigue: I am meeting with my colleagues from the U.K. in two weeks to discuss the matter, so we shall see.

The Joint Chair (Hon. Lucie Moncion): We will now move on to Ms. Quach. (1215)

Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach: Thank you, Madam Joint Chair. My questions are along the same lines as Mr. Graham's. The problem, as I understand it, is that documents are converted to PDF files, so they can't be manipulated in the same way that Word or Excel files can. You just said that you would be looking into the issue. There is supposed to be a pilot project involving electronic petitions. Could that also apply to ministerial responses? Is the project going well?

Mr. Pierre Rodrigue: When the clerk appeared before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the pilot project, he mentioned incorporating paper-based petitions into the electronic system. That's precisely what the Privy Council plans to do. Now we need to find an accessibility solution for written questions before we can go any farther. That's where we are now. There is indeed a pilot project, and we will try to use it.

Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach: You're meeting with your colleagues from the U.K. Are you aware of other parliaments that make their publications available to everyone? If so, do you know how they go about it?

Mr. Pierre Rodrigue: No. I must confess that the discussions around accessibility are still quite preliminary. It's really a technology challenge. We have to see whether a solution is out there to help us make the publications available. If not, we'll have to figure out what to do in the meantime as we look for a solution. We'll be talking with the people at the Treasury Board Secretariat, to be sure, because I think they can help us with the process.

Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach: The biggest problem is converting all the documents. Is that right? I don't know much about it, and it mustn't be easy if it's not already done, but could the documents be sent in their original format and converted to PDF by the Library of Parliament?

Mr. Pierre Rodrigue: As I mentioned, written questions can be very lengthy. They can be hundreds of pages long and include graphics, images and tables. That's the problem. Unfortunately, documents often come in the same day they are tabled, so it's impossible for us to make the necessary adjustments to make them accessible. I think what the bill and the Privy Council are proposing is a system that would make documents accessible from the moment they are created. Doing the work to make them accessible prior to their being posted is almost akin to rebuilding the whole document, which we aren't able to do, unfortunately.

Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach: The rule requiring that documents be received the day they are tabled is a long-standing one. Is it something that could easily be changed? Is confidentiality a factor? In terms of the date on which documents must be received, what issues come into play?

bili committee hansard 23398 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 16:49 on November 08, 2018

2018-11-08 REGS 43

Proceedings of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations
Issue 43 - Evidence - November 8, 2018

Délibérations du Comité mixte permanent d'Examen de la réglementatio
Fascicule No. 43 - Témoignages du 8 novembre 2018

The Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations met this day at 8:30 a.m. for review of Statutory Instruments.

Senator Joseph A. Day and Mr. Harold Albrecht (Joint Chairs) in the chair.

[English]

APPEARANCE OF WITNESSES FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

MARGINAL NOTES (SF2016-3)

(For text of documents, see Appendix A, p. 43A:1.)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albrecht): We have witnesses with us this morning from the Department of Justice: Mr. Jean-Charles Bélanger and Daniel Blasioli. I’m going to ask them to begin with an opening statement. I’m not sure which one of you will take the lead. You can make your opening statement, and then we will have opportunity for committee members to ask their questions. Welcome.

Do you have any written material for us?

[Translation]

Jean-Charles Bélanger, Acting Deputy Assistant Deputy Minister, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice: I think our speaking notes were given to the interpreters.

Good morning. Thank you very much for having invited us to discuss the progress the Department of Justice has made on examining this matter of concern for the committee. My name is Jean-Charles Bélanger and I am Acting Deputy Assistant Deputy Minister of the Public Law and Legislative Services Sector at the Department of Justice. I am joined by my colleague Daniel Blasioli, Senior Counsel in the Legislative Services Branch of the Department of Justice.

We are pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the issues raised in Report No. 91 concerning the placement of marginal notes in the new legislative format for statutes and regulations. Our comments today seek to follow up on a letter sent by Ms. Nathalie Drouin, Deputy Minister of Justice, to the Honourable Senator Day and Mr. Albrecht on September 25, 2018.

More specifically, I would like to take this opportunity today to explain the work that the department has done in exploring the committee’s suggestions and to assure you, chairpersons and committee members, that we have heard your concerns and take them seriously.

I wish to also assure you that steps were taken to diligently explore how this committee’s suggestions, and the commitment in the government’s response to examine options to clarify the status of marginal notes might be implemented.

[English]

During our work, it became increasingly clear that no option provided a complete solution with respect to improved clarity. In fact, some options would have had the opposite effect; hence the decision to retain the current format that was communicated to the committee by Deputy Minister Drouin in September.

They would, however, all involve costs and resources to implement to a varying degree. Depending on the option, these costs and resources would not only be incurred by the Department of Justice but also by the House of Commons, the Senate and the Canada Gazette because of the programming changes involved as well as the consultations that would be required.

Chairpersons, since January 1, 2016, when the new legislative format was adopted, there have been no reported cases where the legislative format change has been discussed as the cause of legal uncertainty or lack of clarity. No judgment has examined whether a marginal note should be treated as a heading as opposed to a section note that merely provides a convenient reference.

In short, any incremental benefits that might be gained by implementing any of the options we examined would be outweighed by the costs and resources that would be required to do so. I can confidently state to the committee that following our examination of the various options, the legislative format implemented in 2016 was and remains the best option for improving accessibility for all users of the law.

[Translation]

If I may, I would like to explain how the Department of Justice reached this conclusion. Officials in the Department of Justice began examining various options to respond to the committee’s concerns following receipt of the initial correspondence on this matter in early 2016.

The legislation format committee was established to explore options and to narrow them down to those that were the most promising. These corresponded largely with the suggestions made by this committee in its Report No. 91 — Marginal Notes. The three options that were explored more fully over the course of the last six months were the following: a non-legislative option that would consist in making marginal notes with a distinctive feature or symbol to expressly indicate that they are not part of the act and that they continue to perform the same function as they previously did. The second was a legislative option that would amend the Interpretation Act to make section notes and marginal notes part of the enactments. And the third was a legislative option that would amend the Interpretation Act to describe these notes differently.

[English]

While these options may, on their face, appear to resolve many of the committee’s concerns, after further examination, we discovered that they would adversely affect clarity, rather than improve it, due to unintended consequences. We hope to explain this further in answering your questions today and to impress upon the committee that real efforts were made to find something that would help address your concerns without compromising the government’s fundamental objective of improved accessibility to the law for all Canadians. Very briefly, our findings were the following.

The first option would result in an inconsistent treatment between pre-2016 and post-2016 notes. Creating two formats for a legislative element that has the same role and function would reduce clarity and introduce uncertainty.

The second option would change the legal status of the notes for all legislation and for the countless other instruments to which the Interpretation Act applies and would constitute a substantive departure from Canada’s jurisprudence on their minimal interpretive value.

The last option would with engage parliamentarians’ time and government resources to amend the Interpretation Act to expressly and accurately reference the new notes without unduly extending the operation of section 14 of the act to those countless other instruments to which the Interpretation Act applies but which use similar text for other purposes.

[Translation]

We will certainly take the lessons learned from this initiative to guide us in our work. The committee has led us to further consider this issue, and we thank you. The observations and the questions you have raised are useful and important elements to consider in the development of legislative policy matters; we wanted to assure you of that.

Thank you again. My colleague and I would be pleased to answer your questions.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albrecht): I would ask you to repeat the third option. I’m not sure if it was the interpretation, but I missed the nuance of what you were saying in your first approach to the third option. Could you repeat that one for me? That would be helpful.

[Translation]

Mr. Bélanger: Certainly. The third option was a legislative option to amend the Interpretation Act in order to describe the notes differently.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albrecht): We’ve heard the opening remarks from our witnesses. Who wants to be first? Mr. El-Khoury?

Mr. El-Khoury: Good morning, Mr. Blasioli and Mr. Bélanger. Thanks for coming.

[Translation]

My question is the following: Do you recognize that the current location of the marginal notes in the layout leads a reader to believe that they are a part of the text and of its legal scope? Whether your answer is affirmative or negative, I would have another question to ask you. I’m listening.

[English]

Daniel Blasioli, Senior Counsel, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice: We have to reiterate the government’s position that the mere movement of these notes into the text does not change their function or nature.

We can also assure the committee that they are in fact distinguishable from headings. In reviewing the materials before appearing today, I noted in the committee’s report that there was the understanding that they were indistinguishable from headings. I can assure you that marginal notes appear in a bold face type immediately above the heading to which they refer, whereas headings are not in bold — they never are — and they are in a larger font.

So, to answer your question, we don’t believe there’s been a change substantively, and we believe that the Canadian public can tell the difference easily between a marginal note and headings.

[Translation]

Mr. El-Khoury: Could you explain to us how you believe readers can distinguish between the headings and the marginal notes?

[English]

Mr. Blasioli: Pardon me for repeating myself, but the notes themselves are bolded. They are the only elements that are bolded and are found immediately above the provision to which they relate, whereas headings never appear in bold text. They are always in a larger font as well.

[Translation]

Mr. Bélanger: If I may add something, it is that the notes precede not only the sections, but also the paragraphs. So there are many more of those than headings, which are placed above a group of sections. That is an indication that they are indeed different elements.

Mr. El-Khoury: According to my notes, there are contradictory statements in your letter of September 25. First you tell us that you will not be changing the legislative layout. You then acknowledge that the options we submitted to you to remedy the situation would improve the clarity of the acts in certain regards. Are we to conclude that the clarity of the legislation is not a priority for you?

Mr. Bélanger: First, let me assure you, members of the committee, that the clarity of the legislation is a constant concern, and I would even say a daily concern in the course of our work, be it in the drafting of laws or of regulations. We want the texts that are submitted to you as parliamentarians to be as clear as possible, and that goes for all Canadians as well. As for the clarity of texts, we certainly do not want to see that compromised, not at all.

[English]

Mr. Blasioli: Let me expand on Mr. Bélanger’s response: Absolutely, clarity for the vulnerable population that we had in mind in making these changes, as well as all Canadians. The text was last changed in 1969. It was cluttered. It didn’t benefit from the software formatting technology, et cetera, that you have now, as well as the research for the absorption, retention and readability of text.

As parliamentarians, I think you can appreciate that very many issues, if not all issues, present challenges and competing considerations. This was very much one of those issues. There was no clear solution that would provide absolute clarity, and not detrimentally affect other aspects of the law.

When we looked into this, and I can assure you we looked into this very carefully, I made the mistake of promising I’d find a solution to my boss. I had to report back that I couldn’t. Any change we considered branched out like the roots of a tree in consequences that we would either not know or that we knew would be unfavourable or adversely affect the interpretive weight of statutes.

I hope that answers your question.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Albrecht): As a non-lawyer, when I look at this, you refer to marginal notes in the Interpretation Act and yet you removed marginal notes and they’re now part of the text. So, at the very least, doesn’t it make sense that we would no longer talk about marginal notes if they aren’t in fact in the margin? It may seem too obvious.

[Translation]

regs 23674 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 04:35 on November 08, 2018

2018-11-07 14:16 House intervention / intervention en chambre

Germany, Judaism and Jews, Official apology, Refugees, Ship passengers, Statements by Members,

Allemagne, Antisémitisme, Déclarations de députés, Excuses officielles, Judaïsme et juifs, Passagers de navires, Réfugiés

Mr. Speaker, today, the Prime Minister will apologize on behalf of all Canadians for what happened to the passengers of the MS St. Louis in 1939, when 907 refugees, most of them Jewish, knocked at our door after being turned away by Cuba and the United States. Our response was famously recorded in the book by Irving Abella, None is Too Many. No one wanted to help them and this unfortunately helped validate the racism and anti-Semitism of that era. Following their unexpected return to European soil, more than one quarter of those refugees lost their lives in Nazi concentration camps. They died for two reasons: they were Jewish and they were turned away. The survivors and families of several survivors are here today for this historic moment. I sincerely hope that this lesson stays with us for a long, long time.

Monsieur le Président, aujourd'hui, le premier ministre présentera ses excuses au nom de tous les Canadiens pour ce qui est arrivé en 1939 aux passagers du MS Saint Louis, alors que 907 réfugiés, en grande majorité Juifs, ont cogné à notre porte, après avoir été rejetés par Cuba et par les États-Unis. À ce moment, notre réponse a été fameusement captée dans le livre d'Irving Abella, None is too many, ou « Aucun, c'est encore trop ». Puisque personne ne voulait les aider, cela a malheureusement contribué à valider le racisme et l'antisémitisme de cette époque. À la suite de leur retour imprévu en sol européen, plus du quart de ces réfugiés ont perdu la vie dans les camps de concentration nazis. Ils sont morts pour deux raisons: ils étaient Juifs et on leur a fermé la porte. Les survivants et les familles de plusieurs survivants seront présents aujourd'hui pour ce moment historique. Je garde l'espoir sincère que nous avons appris de cette leçon à long terme.

Watch | Hansard

Ecoutez | Hansard

hansard parlchmbr statements tv 338 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 20:26 on November 07, 2018

2018-11-07 INDU 137

Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

(1620)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Dan Ruimy (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, Lib.)):

Welcome, everybody.

Before we get to our guests for the day, I want to do a couple of quick housekeeping matters.

Because of the fall economic update, there will be no meeting on the 21st. We had actually scheduled either the 19th or the 21st for supplementaries, so that gives us no choice but to do the supplementaries on the 19th. We've extended an invitation to the minister.

We have our constituency week next week, so on the 19th we'll have the minister. We're still trying to finalize on whether it will be the first hour or second hour; I'm not sure. There will be no meeting on the 21st, and then the 26th will be fun and exciting; we will have Google, YouTube, Facebook and Spotify.

Mr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.):

That will be fun.

The Chair:

That will be an exciting day.

Mr. Lloyd Longfield:

That's the 26th?

The Chair:

Yes, the 26th.

Are there any questions on that? No? Good.

Let's focus here. Today we have a briefing with the chief statistician of Canada, Anil Arora; André Loranger, assistant chief statistician, economic statistics; and Linda Howatson-Leo, director, office of privacy management and information coordination.

Normally, I'm pretty easy with the time, but I just want to make sure that you are paying attention, because I will follow the time sharply. I don't want to have to cut people off, but I want to make sure that everybody gets the chance to ask whatever questions they would like to ask.

Having said that, Mr. Arora, you have seven minutes to enthrall us.

Mr. Anil Arora (Chief Statistician of Canada, Statistics Canada):

Thank you very much.[Translation]

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Mr. Deputy Chair and committee members.

Thank you for this opportunity to share with you information on Statistics Canada's pilot project on using financial transaction records to provide timely and quality data on our economy and society.[English]

Before I begin my remarks, I would like to immediately dispel three major inaccuracies of the pilot project to enhance the statistical system using payments data. First, no data has been collected by Statistics Canada as it pertains to this pilot project. I repeat, nothing has been collected. Second, trust is the foundation of how Statistics Canada operates, and we will continue to earn the trust of Canadians. Third, I can assure you that this project will not proceed until we have addressed the privacy concerns of Canadians and the Privacy Commissioner has done his work.

As you may be aware, Statistics Canada, like many national statistical organizations around the world, is undertaking a comprehensive modernization effort. This modernization effort will redefine how we gather and deliver data by using leading-edge methods, by leveraging existing administrative sources, by excelling at our core competencies of data integration, e-collection and big data processing. Continuous evolution and innovation has made the agency a world leader in the field of statistics.

In all of this, of course, I want to underline that Statistics Canada respects the rightful privacy of Canadians and has always devoted itself to doing so. We understand and respect the concerns being expressed by Canadians about accessing their personal information.

The modernization of Statistics Canada began in earnest in the summer of 2017, when the vision for modernizing the organization was publicly announced. This was followed by a budget 2018 announcement of funding in the amount of $51.3 million to support Statistics Canada's modernization.

I want to stress that the issue in front of us today is not simply an academic one. Statistics have far-reaching implications for all Canadians. Diminished quality will have direct impacts on Canadians.

For example, estimates of household spending are used in part to drive the consumer price index. The CPI is in turn used to index pensions and old age security, directly impacting the income of seniors. It is also used to help establish wage rates and labour contracts, employment insurance and policies designed to address things like poverty. Provinces and territories also depend on quality data to apportion HST revenue that funds necessary public sector services such as health care and infrastructure.

The allocation of these funds is in large part determined by the level of household spending on taxable goods in each province and territory. The Bank of Canada uses our statistics to set interest rates and monitor inflation.

The methods by which Statistics Canada traditionally collects data from Canadians are falling short of what Canadians demand of us today. Home phones have been replaced by smart phones, taxis compete with ride-sharing apps and withdrawal and deposit slips that used to be filled out at banks have been replaced with online financial transactions.

The pace at which Canadians are adopting digital services has accelerated rapidly. Today we email money, and we get our food delivered through the use of an app. Eighty per cent of all financial transactions are done electronically, some 21 billion of them in 2016 alone.

As a matter of fact, following the global financial crisis in 2008-09, there has been an increased demand for more timely and detailed data to better understand how income, wealth and consumption are distributed in Canada, which segments are more vulnerable, and how resilient these groups are to changing economic conditions.

The Governor of the Bank of Canada, Stephen Poloz, said recently: We know that cross-border supply chains have complicated the task of gathering accurate data on trade. Digital technologies are making it even easier to fragment production globally. And digital ordering, payments and service delivery are making it easier for transactions to occur that fall below customs reporting thresholds or are missed altogether.

In today's digital world, Canadians can order goods at any time from anywhere, so a simple question such as, “What did you spend on clothing?” becomes very complex to answer.

As household purchases become increasingly complex and the volume of transactions multiplies, the burden on citizens to explain, track and report these activities and transactions via surveys is becoming unsustainable.

Over the last year, we've been actively engaging Canadians about the type of data they need from Statistics Canada. We've consulted Canadians at 176 different sessions over the past year, and they told us there's an overwhelming need and demand for the work Statistics Canada undertakes. In fact, we recently completed a week-long national consultation in every corner of this country, with a full range of stakeholders.

(1625)

Users of Statistics Canada were very clear. Canadians want more data from us, not less. They're seeking data at the city and neighbourhood levels. They expect Statistics Canada to be able to tell them whether single parents, senior citizens and low-income households in their cities have the necessary resources to meet their basic needs for shelter at a time of increasing interest rates. Businesses need better data on consumer spending patterns to grow and serve their customers.

While our traditional methods are becoming more challenging, fortunately the information we require to develop precise income and spending measures exists in administrative records.

In that context, I'd like to move on to the second part of my remarks, to briefly describe the pilot project and outline our discussions with the Canadian Bankers Association and financial institutions over the course of this last year. Let me be clear. This is a pilot. It was still under discussion. It has not been implemented yet and no data has been received by Statistics Canada.

Early in 2018, Statistics Canada initiated a pilot project to determine if the financial information held by financial institutions could be used to help address data quality concerns and data gaps. An important part of this work was to determine if the digital information captured by the payment system had statistical value, and if it could be used to address these emerging data gaps while protecting privacy and confidentiality. [Translation]

Statistics Canada met and corresponded with the Canadian Bankers Association and financial institutions on multiple occasions—12 times since April 2018—to outline a high-level pilot project and determine the conditions under which the required data could be obtained.[English]

Statistics Canada, the CBA and the financial institutions have been committed to a process that would protect the privacy of Canadians right from the onset.

The project is designed to follow rigorous methodological principles and privacy by design elements. Selected households would be assigned an anonymized statistical number developed by Statistics Canada. The bank would then be asked to go through its payment information and extract records from a statistical sample of selected dwellings or addresses.

The current design proposes that the institution create two files. One file contains the anonymized statistical number and the personal information, and a second file would contain the anonymized statistical number and the financial information without the personal information. The current design proposes that these two separate files would be transferred to Statistics Canada.

Statistics Canada would process the two files separately. Once the demographic information, such as type of household or age of the head of the household, is added, the personal information received from the banks would be deleted. We would take the second file containing the financial transaction data and code them to expenditure categories. We would then join the household demographic information with the coded financial transaction data using the anonymized statistical number I talked about.

Let me be clear. It would be impossible to associate the financial records and transactions with a given individual or household from this joined file. We have been clear on the need to be fully transparent with Canadians that information was to be provided to Statistics Canada, and we've explained the reason for doing so. We asked that the banks inform their customers that Statistics Canada was requesting this information in August of this year.

While the notion of data for 500,000 addresses may seem large, there are over 14 million households in Canada. The chance that a given address is selected as part of our sample is one in 28. The chance that the dwelling is used in the actual sample is one in 40. The long-form census by comparison has a one in four sample. We will rotate this sample from year to year so that a history of information for any one household is not possible.

The sophisticated design has been guided by the very helpful input of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.

To put this in perspective, in 2016, as I said, the Canadian payment system processed over 21 billion transactions. Our pilot project sample proposes to access less than 2% of these transactions, each of which has been anonymized and stripped of any personal identifiers.

committee hansard indu 22870 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on November 07, 2018

2018-11-06 SMEM 17

Subcommittee on Private Members' Business of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

(1220)

[Translation]

The Chair (Ms. Linda Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, Lib.)):

Good afternoon. I want to welcome you all.

Today we're holding our 17th meeting. As part of the determination of non-votable items pursuant to standing order 91.1(1), we'll be reviewing three bills.

Does anyone have any comments?

Good afternoon, Ms. May. [English]

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP):

I'm not a member of this committee. [Translation]

However, I'm here as a result of Bill S-203.

I'm responsible for this bill in the House of Commons of Canada.

I'm here in case there are any questions. I'm here only to make sure that there aren't any issues.

I'm interested in the other bills, but I'm not involved in them.

The Chair:

Thank you, Ms. May.

Mr. Graham, would you like to make a comment?

Mr. David de Burgh Graham (Laurentides—Labelle, Lib.):

I know that there are questions concerning Bill S-203.

The Chair:

Yes.

Mr. David de Burgh Graham:

In that case, I move: That Bills S-215, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing for violent offences against Aboriginal women) and S-240, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking in human organs), not be designated non-votable.

If we pass this motion without opposition, we can continue the discussion on Bill S-203.

The Chair:

Do you agree with Mr. Graham's motion?

Some hon. members: Yes.

(Motion agreed to) [English]

Mr. David de Burgh Graham:

Does that sound good?[Translation]

May I continue?[English]

On Friday, when I starting learning about Bill S-203, I called David to let him know that I would like a very full explanation of Bill S-203 because I've been having, from both sides, on my side, a debate about where this should go. I honestly don't know, and I'd like to hear the full analysis from the analyst on how to deal with Bill S-203. I appreciate that Elizabeth is here to talk about it as well.

Mr. David Groves (Committee Researcher):

I'm happy to discuss any of the bills that the committee has before it, but as Mr. Graham has mentioned, I'm going to focus my comments on one bill in particular, which is Bill S-203. It is my assessment that all three of these bills could be declared non-votable, but Bill S-203 I feel requires a bit more elaboration.

Bill S-203, an act to amend the Criminal Code and other acts, ending the captivity of whales and dolphins, is a Senate public bill that seeks to accomplish three goals: one, to prohibit the keeping of a cetacean—which I have learned is a whale or a dolphin or other animals in that family—in captivity; two, to prohibit the catching of a cetacean so as to keep it in captivity; and three, to prohibit the import and export of a live cetacean.

In so doing, the bill would make amendments to the Criminal Code, to the Fisheries Act and to the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act. Of note for the committee, it would amend the Fisheries Act by adding section 28.1, of which subsection 28.1(1) would read as follows: Subject to subsection (2), no one shall move a live cetacean, including a whale, dolphin or porpoise, from its immediate vicinity with the intent to take it into captivity.

Proposed subsection 28.1(2) reads: A person may move a live cetacean from its immediate vicinity when the cetacean is injured or in distress and is in need of assistance.

I have flagged this proposed section in particular because there is another bill before Parliament that would make a similar amendment to the Fisheries Act. This is Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence. It's a government bill.

Bill C-68, which was passed by the House and is currently at second reading in the Senate, has a number of stated goals, one of which, as described in its summary, is to: prohibit the fishing of a cetacean with the intent to take it into captivity, unless authorized by the Minister, including when the cetacean is injured, in distress or in need of care

To achieve this goal, Bill C-68 would add section 23.1 to the Fisheries Act, which would read as follows: 23.1(1) Subject to subsection (2), no one shall fish for a cetacean with the intent to take it into captivity. (2) The Minister may, subject to any conditions that he or she may specify, authorize a person to fish for a cetacean with the intent to take it into captivity if he or she is of the opinion that the circumstances so require, including when the cetacean is injured or in distress or is in need of care.

To summarize, Bill C-68 would prohibit the fishing of a cetacean with the intent to take it into captivity. Bill S-203 would prohibit the moving of a live cetacean with the intent to take it into captivity. Both would achieve these goals by making amendments to the Fisheries Act.

Normally, this subcommittee evaluates public members' bills on four criteria that were established in a report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which you're all familiar with. Standing Order 92(1)(a), however, states that when considering Senate public bills, such as Bill S-203, the only criterion is whether the bill “is similar to a bill voted on by the House in the same Parliament”.

As echoed in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, “the only ground on which such a bill can be designated non-votable is its similarity to a bill voted on by the House in the same Parliament.”

This is simply to say that while there may be some similarities between the issue before the committee today and issues that have arisen around private members' bills over the last year, Bill S-203 has not been assessed on the basis of those criteria that the committee was applying in those circumstances. This is a different test.

Per the standing order, the only question is whether Bill C-68 and Bill S-203 are similar enough that Bill S-203 should be declared non-votable.

As I mentioned earlier, there is a clear similarity between the bills. Both of them would amend the Fisheries Act to prohibit the capturing of a cetacean for the purposes of keeping it in captivity. It could, therefore, be argued that they are similar and thus that Bill S-203 should be declared non-votable.

However, there are differences. Preventing the capture of cetaceans is only one of three goals in Bill S-203, which also seeks to prohibit the keeping of cetaceans and the importing and exporting of cetaceans. These are unique to Bill S-203. Bill C-68 is only interested in the act of capturing a cetacean. Bill C-68 also makes a number of other changes to the Fisheries Act that have nothing to do with cetaceans, which are the sole focus of Bill S-203.

As such, it is my assessment that these bills are partially, rather than completely, similar. The bills overlap in one aspect, but not in all aspects.

In the past, assessments of how votable a bill is have been conducted with the purpose of this committee in mind, which I understand to be to provide members with the fullest opportunity possible to use their private members' time effectively, so that if a bill or a motion would have little or no effect because of similarity, members should be given the opportunity to replace it with something that would be meaningful.

In this case, it is my assessment that there is enough difference between these two bills that were Bill S-203 to advance and become law, it would have a distinct effect. Both bills prohibit capturing, and in this respect Bill S-203 would be redundant. However, Bill S-203 would go further in prohibiting the keeping of cetaceans and the importing or exporting as well. As such, the committee could decide that this bill should be declared not non-votable.

committee hansard smem 4362 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on November 06, 2018

2018-11-05 INDU 136

Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

(1530)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Dan Ruimy (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, Lib.)):

Welcome, everybody, to meeting 136, as we continue our statutory review of the Copyright Act. Is there a hockey player with the number 136? No, there are no hockey players with the number 136—too bad.

Today we have with us, from the Business Coalition for Balanced Copyright, Gerald Kerr-Wilson, partner, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP. We have, from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Scott Smith, senior director, intellectual property and innovation policy.

It's good to see you again, sir.

We have, from the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, David Fewer, director. Finally, from the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, we have John Lawford, executive director and general counsel.

We will start. You'll each have up to seven minutes. We'll do a round of questions, and I believe we'll be leaving some time at the end for debating a motion that will be on the floor. That should leave us about half an hour to debate the motion, and we'll go from there.

Why don't we start with you, Mr. Wilson? You have up to seven minutes.

Mr. Gerald Kerr-Wilson (Partner, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, Business Coalition for Balanced Copyright):

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon, members of the committee.

My name is Jay Kerr-Wilson. I'm a partner with Fasken Martineau and am appearing today on behalf of the Business Coalition for Balanced Copyright, or BCBC.

The members of BCBC include Bell Canada, Rogers, Shaw, Telus, Cogeco, Vidéotron and the Canadian Communication Systems Alliance. BCBC's members support a copyright regime that rewards and protects creators, facilitates access to creative content, encourages investment in technology and supports education and research.

The exceptions that were added to the Copyright Act in 2012 were necessary to eliminate uncertainty that would restrict or inhibit the development of innovative new products and services. Reducing or eliminating these exceptions will put at risk hundreds of millions of dollars in investments. It will cause disruptions in the rollout of legitimate new services that would otherwise provide copyright owners more opportunity to earn revenue by giving Canadians more access to more content.

The coalition does not believe that new copyright levies should be imposed on ISPs or other intermediaries in an attempt to create new sources of revenue for Canadian creators and artists.

First, requiring ISPs to make content-specific payments is a clear violation of the principle of network neutrality.

Second, and more important, the Copyright Act is not the appropriate statute for promoting Canadian cultural industries. Canada's obligations under international treaties require that any benefit that is granted to Canadian copyright owners must also be provided to non-Canadians when their works are used in Canada. As a result, most of the money collected from Canadians would go to the U.S.

Third, copyright owners are already paid for lawful online activities through commercial licence agreements, and in the case of SOCAN, tariffs approved by the Copyright Board. Forcing Canadians to pay another fee for receiving these same lawful services is a form of double-dipping, a practice that was rejected by the Supreme Court in ESA v. SOCAN.

The government has other, far more appropriate policy tools at its disposal to promote Canadian cultural content and Canadian creators. Using these tools enables measures to be specifically targeted to Canadian creators in a way that the Copyright Act cannot.

The BCBC supports the addition of a new exception for information analytics. A human being can access and read a document without having to make a new copy or reproduction. Automated processes need to make technical copies in order to read and analyze the content of documents. Just as Parliament recognized the need in 2012 to create exceptions to apply to the reproductions that are required to operate the Internet, the BCBC believes that a new exception is required to eliminate any uncertainty regarding the making of reproductions for automated information analysis.

The BCBC recommends an additional improvement to the existing “notice and notice” regime. In Bill C-86, the budget implementation act, the government introduced amendments to prohibit the inclusion of settlement demands and infringement notices. The BCBC strongly supports this proposal but believes additional amendments are necessary to protect consumers and to give ISPs the tools they need to stop these settlement notices.

Bill C-86 makes clear that ISPs are not required to forward settlement demands to subscribers; however, it contains no useful deterrent to dissuade rights holders or other claimants from including settlement demands in copyright notices. We believe the onus for excluding settlement demands from copyright notices must rest solely with the rights owner, not the ISPs, who currently face liability for failing to forward compliant notices.

The other needed change is to adopt regulations establishing a common standard for infringement notices. Canadian ISPs and the motion picture industry co-operated on the development of a standard format known as the Automated Copyright Notice System, or ACNS, which is freely available at no charge and reflects Canadian requirements. The government should enact regulations establishing the form and content of notices based on ACNS.

The BCBC is aware that the ministers have written to this committee and the heritage committee with respect to the changes to the Copyright Board and collective management of copyright. The BCBC supports many of the changes that have been introduced to improve the efficiency of Copyright Board proceedings.

The coalition is concerned that some of the changes will eliminate important protections for licensees and could result in monopoly copyright licensing practices that are no longer transparent or subject to regulatory oversight.

(1535)

The coalition strongly supports amendments that will make it easier for copyright owners to effectively enforce their rights. The act should allow for injunctive relief against all of the intermediaries that form part of the online infrastructure distributing infringing content. For example, it should be explicit that courts can issue a blocking order requiring an ISP to disable access to infringing content available on preloaded set-top boxes or an order prohibiting credit card companies from processing payments for infringing services.

The BCBC recommends that the Copyright Act be amended to eliminate a potential conflict between a court order for ISPs to block access to infringing services and the CRTC, using its authority under section 36 of the Telecommunications Act, to prohibit that blocking.

The BCBC finds it unacceptable that an Internet service provider could be ordered by a court to block access to an infringing Internet service and prohibited by the CRTC from complying with that court order. This conflict must be resolved in favour of the court order.

Finally, the BCBC warns the committee against unfounded claims of a value gap between the music industry and Internet services. The claims made by the music industry and the amendment they're demanding ignore how rights are cleared through commercial transactions. If adopted, these measures would disrupt well-established commercial relationships and would ultimately result in substantial net outflow of money from Canadians to U.S. record companies. For example, the music industry wants the definition of “sound recording” revised so that record companies and performers get paid public performance royalties when sound recordings are used in soundtracks in film and television programs.

The music industry appears to suggest performers and record labels aren't paid for the use of recorded performances in soundtracks. This is simply false.

Record companies are free to negotiate the terms of using recorded music and soundtracks with the movie producer. Performers have to agree to the use of their performances in soundtracks and are entitled to demand payment through their agreements with the record labels. Furthermore, the Copyright Act already provides detailed provisions protecting the rights of performers to be paid for the use of their performances. Revising the definition of “sound recording” as suggested would result in record labels and performers getting paid twice for the same use.

If the committee is concerned about improving the financial fortune of performers, it could recommend that the division of royalties between record companies and performers in subsection 19(3) be adjusted. The simple change would immediately put more money in the pocket of every performer who's performance is played on the radio, streamed online, or played in bars and restaurants.

Thank you. Those are my comments. I look forward to your questions.

(1540)

The Chair:

Thank you very much.

We're going to move right to the Chamber of Commerce. Scott Smith, you have up to seven minutes.

Mr. Scott Smith (Senior Director, Intellectual Property and Innovation Policy, Canadian Chamber of Commerce):

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee, for the opportunity to address you today.

I'm actually here for the Canadian intellectual property council, which is a special council within the Canadian Chamber of Commerce—the national voice of business, representing over 200,000 businesses across Canada.

The CIPC is dedicated to improving the intellectual property rights regime in Canada and has broad-based participation from a variety of industries, including manufacturers, the entertainment industry, information and communications technologies companies, telecommunications and logistics firms, legal professions, retailers, importers and exporters, pharmaceutical and life science companies, and business associations.

The leaders of the CIPC are senior executives from corporations and associations who have a strong understanding of their industries' challenges and recognize the need for the protection of IPR in Canada. The mandate of the council is to promote an improved environment in Canada for businesses interested in innovation and intellectual property, by raising the profile of IPR among key policy-makers in the government and the general public.

I'd like to start by thanking the government for efforts to recognize the link between innovation and intellectual property rights in its intellectual property strategy.

Our counterparts at the Global Innovation Policy Center, GIPC, undertake a systematic evaluation of the strength of the IPR regimes in 45 economies. This year, Canada ranked 18, but the score has improved from previous years. Measures such as digital rights management and the enablement provisions introduced in the last update of the Copyright Act are important tools to help protect the significant investments made by creators in Canada. We would like to see those measures preserved going forward.

I'd also note that we are pleased to see that many of the suggestions put forward by the CIPC regarding changes to the Copyright Board have been reflected in Bill C-86, announced last week.

We believe it's important to have a consistent, timely and predictable board, and one that supports and encourages new and existing businesses operating in Canada's cultural industries, through a more efficient and productive tariff-setting process; through provisions to enact reforms by way of regulation, particularly as it pertains to delays; through the provision to support independently negotiated tariffs; and through the adoption of clear decision-making criteria.

We look forward to seeing these provisions come into force in the spring of 2019.

I'd like to focus the balance of my comments today on two issues: addressing online piracy, and keeping the door open to research and innovation for artificial intelligence.

I'll start with a pervasive problem: the significant threat of online piracy that now includes new forms that were not dominant the last time the Copyright Act was reviewed. This includes the commercial operation of illegal online streaming platforms and set-top boxes preloaded with illegal add-ons that provide users with unauthorized access to entertainment content.

committee hansard indu 36204 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on November 05, 2018

2018-11-01 PROC 129

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

(1125)

[English]

The Chair (Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.)):

Good morning.

Welcome to the 129th meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs as we continue to study the question of privilege related to the matter of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police publications respecting Bill C-71, An Act to amend certain Acts and Regulations in relation to firearms.

We are pleased to be joined by the Honourable Ralph Goodale, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. He is accompanied by officials from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, namely, Jennifer Strachan, Deputy Commissioner, Specialized Policing Services; and Rob O'Reilly, Director, Firearms Regulatory Services, Canadian Firearms Program.

Thank you all for coming today.

Just before we start, we have some short committee business from Mr. Christopherson.

Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP):

Thank you so much, Chair.

I had an opportunity to talk to colleagues in both other caucuses and the government members. Mr. Bittle in particular was good enough to take the message the last time about asking the minister to come to talk about the new debate commission. My understanding is that Mr. Bittle has been successful in getting a message to the minister, and now back to us, that she is willing to meet with us at her earliest possibility.

Maybe, Chair, you could assume that there's unanimous support for us to organize that, and the clerk can work with the minister's office to arrange that at the earliest possible time. I thank both Mr. Nater and Mr. Bittle for letting us get past the issue of whether the minister should come or not—it's a side issue—and now we can focus on the substantive matters at hand. I thank Mr. Bittle for his efforts on his behalf.

Thank you, Chair.

The Chair:

Thank you.

It's time for your opening statement, Mr. Goodale.

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness):

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear on this subject matter today, the question of privilege raised by Mr. Motz.

As you pointed out, Mr. Chair, I'm accompanied by Deputy Commissioner Strachan and Mr. Rob O'Reilly, Director of Firearms Regulatory Services within the Canadian Firearms Program.

I'm sorry our time is a bit constrained this morning because of the vote in the House, but the House is the House.

For me as Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, my key priority is ensuring the safety of all Canadians, and their confidence in the integrity of the government agencies that fall under my authority as minister. This includes the accurate use of departmental platforms to communicate information about all legislation, but in particular for the purposes of today, about Bill C-71. The subject matter is something that's important to me, Mr. Chair, because, as you will recall, in my previous roles, I have been a House leader in both the opposition and the government side, so procedure matters.

As outlined in the document entitled “Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector”, government agencies have a fundamental role in serving Canadians, their communities and the public interest under the direction of the elected government and in accordance with the law.

Government agencies are to operate with the knowledge that legislation comes from Parliament and no other authority in Canada. That being the case, it is essential that these organizations continue to accede to the legislative process. All government agencies, including the Canadian firearms program and the RCMP, are expected to demonstrate respect for Parliament's privileges and to act with integrity. Integrity alongside transparency and accountability are the cornerstones of good governance and democracy.

I would like to take this opportunity to reaffirm categorically that the Canadian firearms program and the RCMP fully respect the authority of Parliament and the legislative process.

The mission of the Canadian firearms program is to enhance public safety by reducing the risk of harm from the misuse of firearms. To support these objectives, the Canadian firearms program uses online bulletins and website updates to communicate any changes in requirements to stakeholders as well as the general public.

Web updates are posted to inform about topics such as changes to the firearms licensing regime, modifications to the transfer process, revisions to classifications, changes to requirements for business and much more. These online updates are important to increase awareness among legal firearms owners and to increase compliance with the Firearms Act and the associated regulations.

On May 8, 2018, updates were made to the CFP website to inform individual owners and businesses in possession of certain Swiss arms or Ceská Zbrojovka model 858 firearms that classification changes had been proposed under Bill C-71.

As only certain Swiss arms and CZ858 firearms would be impacted by the proposed classification changes, the Canadian firearms program included information on the website to assist clients in determining whether their firearm would be impacted by the bill as introduced in the House, presuming that the legislation was finally enacted by Parliament.

The focus of the information was to provide an explanation of actions that would need to be taken by individuals by June 30, 2018, in order to be eligible for the proposed grandfathering provisions that were outlined in the draft bill. Information was also posted for Canadian businesses, as the regime proposed by Bill C-71 would have an impact on businesses that had firearms in their business inventory after June 30, 2018.

The objective was to allow these individuals and these businesses to be prepared and to avoid anyone inadvertently finding themselves in contravention of the law once it was passed. The updates related to Bill C-71 were done in good faith, and they were intended to encourage awareness and to educate stakeholders.

Following the publication of the information, concerns were flagged to the Canadian firearms program by the media and by other concerned citizens pertaining to the language that had been used in the web content to describe the status of Bill C-71. To immediately address those concerns, the Canadian firearms program consulted with relevant stakeholders and made revisions to the web content on May 30, 2018.

Following the question that was raised by the member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner in the House, a further review of the website was undertaken and a complete set of edits was posted on July 3, 2018.

The language of the initial web content on Bill C-71 was not intended to assume the passage of the legislation, contravene the legislative process, or undermine the authorities of Parliament. The revised web content removed potentially misleading language and clarified the status of Bill C-71.

Mr. Chair, I believe the RCMP made good faith efforts to inform Canadians about the impacts of the legislation should Parliament pass it in its current form. Those impacts needed to be outlined for Canadians before the legislation was actually passed, as decisions would have to be made by those Canadians before the bill received royal assent. However, the website's original postings did not sufficiently convey the fact that Parliament was still considering Bill C-71 and that changes could be made to it.

We can see from the first update that the answers to the Q & A were changed to reflect what would happen if Bill C-71 were to be passed in its current form. In the second update, you can see that the questions in the Q & A were also revised and corrected.

Just as an example of this, Mr. Chair, in the original posting, the website asks how Bill C-71 affected individuals, and it answered that Bill C-71 would affect your CZ model 858 firearms in one of three ways. The second iteration of that same point contained a question from an individual trying to determine if his Swiss Arms or CZ model 858 would be affected by Bill C-71. In answer, the website stated that the information there was intended to provide guidance to firearms owners should Bill C-71 become law.

The final version, Mr. Chair, read as follows: How would Bill C-71 affect individual owners of Ceská Zbrojovka (CZ) and Swiss Arms (SA) firearms? Bill C-71 proposes changes that would impact some firearm owners in Canada. The information outlined below is intended to provide guidance to CZ/SA firearm owners should Bill C-71, as introduced in the House of Commons on March 20, 2018, become law.

You can see through those quotations the evolution of the language.

In endeavouring to keep Canadians as up to date as possible about the implications of legislation before Parliament, the RCMP did not sufficiently advise them that Parliament had yet to pass those changes. I believe, Mr. Chair, that it was an honest error and one that the RCMP corrected through the two updates to the site that I have referenced.

We apologize for the mistake and for any misunderstanding that resulted. We continue to be committed to providing Canadians with important information related to the requirements for firearms ownership in Canada. We commit to ensuring that this information will use clear language and accurately reflect the legislative process.

(1130)

Finally, I would like to acknowledge the members present here today who brought this issue to the attention of the House and who spoke to the issue as parliamentarians. You have defended the legislative process and emphasized the continuing importance of transparency and accountability in government agencies. I thank you very much for that.

(1135)

The Chair:

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

We'll go on to the first round with Mr. Simms.

Mr. Scott Simms (Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, Lib.):

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister and your officials, for coming.

The other day when we had Mr. Motz here for his testimony—it's his motion as you know—I started my line of questioning by offering an opinion. Shocking, I know.

My opinion was essentially about the fact that I'm very interested in measuring one's intent as opposed to one's actions. I'll preface that by saying that we deal a lot with Elections Canada here. If Elections Canada did not go through the motions of what was pending, then we would be in quite a bind if, preceding that election, working our way up to it.... There's a lot of groundwork to be done.

committee hansard proc 25585 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on November 01, 2018

2018-10-31 INDU 135

Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

(1535)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Dan Ruimy (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, Lib.)):

Good afternoon, everybody.

Happy Halloween. I thought a ghost would pop up somewhere, but that wasn't the case.

Welcome to meeting 135 as we continue our study on the five-year statutory review of the Copyright Act.

Today we have with us as individuals, Tony Belcourt, arts and cultural knowledge keeper and Johnny Blackfield, certified blockchain professional, by video conference from North Carolina. We're looking forward to your presentations.

We're still waiting on one more, maybe she'll pop in, Lou-ann Neel. She's a Kwagiulth artist from Victoria, British Columbia. Hopefully she'll be able to join us.

Finally, from the Indigenous Culture and Media Innovations, we have Monique Manatch, executive director.

You'll all have seven minutes to present and then we'll go into our rounds of questions back and forth.

We're going to start with Mr. Belcourt. You have seven minutes.

Mr. Tony Belcourt (Arts and Cultural Knowledge Keeper, As an Individual):

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members.

My name is Tony Belcourt. I'm known as an indigenous advocate whose career includes being the founding president of the Native Council of Canada, 1971 to 1974, and the founding president of the Métis Nation of Ontario, 1994 to 2008. I was a member of the board of governors of the Métis National Council and served as the Métis nation ambassador to the United Nations and the Organization of American States. I took part in the negotiations on the draft UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I am also a writer, producer and director of documentary films. I am semi-retired, and I'm now regarded by many as a Métis elder and indigenous arts and cultural professional.

I was involved in the arts very early in my career. In 1969 and 1970 I was vice-president and managing director of Team Products in Alberta and Mackenzie. Team Products was a co-operative of over 500 Métis and first nations artists and craftspeople from throughout Alberta and the Mackenzie Valley of the NWT.

The production and sale of arts and crafts in the 1960s and 1970s was an essential source of income for our people. It supplemented living off the land and seasonal employment. Today the sale of art and crafts is a mainstay of the indigenous economy in many communities and households. According to 2011 Canadian census data, there were over 136,000 artists in Canada who spent more time at their art than any other occupation. Of those, 3,700 are indigenous artists, representing about 2.7% of all the artists.

Indigenous artists today are achieving great success in the art world. Until a short while ago only regarded as “craft” by such institutions as the National Gallery of Canada, indigenous art can now be found in galleries throughout the world. Art that once sold for less than $100 is now sold in auction houses for tens of thousands of dollars. Indigenous artists now command commissions in the tens of thousands of dollars.

While there has been considerable positive change for indigenous artists who today find markets that were unheard of 50 years ago, problems of ownership and authenticity are manifest. Renowned Canadian aboriginal artist Norval Morrisseau sold some of his paintings on the street for literally pocket change. In 2014 his painting Figures in a garden sold at auction for $50,874 U.S. Norval's story is not unique. Many aboriginal artists struggle in poverty as the resellers, forgers and imposters get rich. A trial in Ontario recently revealed an alleged wellspring of hundreds of fake paintings purported to be the work of the famed Anishinabe artist, and is threatening Norval Morrisseau's legacy.

Noted indigenous artist Simon Brascoupé asked me to bring this message to the committee: “The Copyright Act does not cover 'cultural rights', the intellectual property rights associated with a cultural group, in this case indigenous peoples cultural property held in common, such as distinctive art, design, dance, etc., practised today or in the past. Indigenous peoples may have 'laws' which are practised within a group that may include passing on of intellectual property orally from one generation to another or from one individual to another.”

Cultural rights are recognized by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and should be recognized under copyright law. Article 11, sections 1 and 2, read as follows: 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to practise and revitalize their cultural traditions and customs. This includes the right to maintain, protect and develop the past, present and future manifestations of their cultures, such as archaeological and historical sites, artefacts, designs, ceremonies, technologies and visual and performing arts and literature. 2. States shall provide redress through effective mechanisms, which may include restitution, developed in conjunction with indigenous peoples, with respect to their cultural, intellectual, religious and spiritual property taken without their free, prior and informed consent....

Canada is a signatory to the United Nations declaration, and the Prime Minister has pledged to implement its provisions with Canadian law. As an act of reconciliation with indigenous peoples, the Copyright Act must be amended accordingly.

Master carver Derek Manik Edenshaw asked me to bring to your attention this message concerning fraudulent indigenous art: “I come from a family of artists of many mediums. A lot of my cousins, like myself, were fed by native art growing up. Each village on Haida Gwaii depends on the economic benefits of a thriving native art market. People see the success of northwest coast masters and assume that making native art makes us all rich. That's quite simply untrue. There is an automatic industry standard 100% markup on native art. After the overhead costs of tools, materials and workshop space, west coast artists get a very small hourly wage if you broke it down.”

He continues, “There has always been knock-offs and fake first nations art, and why wouldn't there be. It's the best. We have been continuously investigating various methods people use to create and get their fake art to market. These fraudulent pieces are directly taking food out of the mouth of first nations families that have limited options beyond resource extracting jobs, which tear at the core of what makes us indigenous.”

Finally, there is the issue that Canada has yet to amend the Copyright Act to provide for an artist's resale right. Others, including CARFAC and Access Copyright, have appeared before this committee and have made excellent presentations about this matter. However, I would respectfully like to suggest that the recommendation that the artist's resale right be limited to sales through public auction or through galleries would have a serious negative impact on indigenous artists. Most depend on direct sales rather than sale by auction or through galleries.

Recently I've been working with G52, a private company, on a small ad hoc indigenous artist collective to pursue development of an indigenous art registry using blockchain technology. Our goal is a platform that will safely and securely allow indigenous artists to authenticate their work in a user-friendly online environment that foments artist collaboration, display, sale and purchase of art. Indigenous artists would govern the database.

This project is bringing indigenous artists, curators and academics together for a formative meeting in Toronto next month. It is our intention to undertake consultation with artists and members of the indigenous community to create a registry and user platform that will address many of the issues raised before the standing committee. We believe such an indigenous art registry could assist in tracking the sale and resale of indigenous art and, therefore, make possible the extension of the artist's resale right to those artists through this new technological process.

In any amendment to the Copyright Act to provide for an artist's resale right we urge this committee to recommend that the process through which the artist's resale right would apply be worded in such a way as to allow that right to be open to the form of direct sale.

Again, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee, and we embrace the opportunity to work with all of you, and the Government of Canada, in assuring the rights and protections of indigenous artists and their works, which are so clearly an indelible part of our history, culture and our future.

Thank you.

(1540)

The Chair:

Thank you very much.

We're going to move to Indigenous Culture and Media Innovations, Monique Manatch.

Ms. Monique Manatch (Executive Director, Indigenous Culture and Media Innovations):

Are there no questions?

The Chair:

No, we're going to do all the presentations first, and then we'll go on to the questions.

Mr. Tony Belcourt:

What about Johnny?

The Chair:

All right, we'll give you some time.

We're going to go to Mr. Blackfield, a certified blockchain professional.

You have seven minutes.

Mr. Johnny Blackfield (Certified Blockchain Professional, As an Individual):

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My name is Johnny Blackfield. I'm appearing here today as a certified blockchain professional. My goal is to reiterate what Mr. Belcourt just mentioned about using blockchain for an indigenous art registry. My goal today is to tell you a bit about blockchain and then tell you how it's effective in creating an indigenous art registry.

I want to start by telling you what a distributed ledger is. A ledger forms the foundation of accounting, a system to store accounting information and transaction information. A distributed ledger is a database that can be shared across multiple sites, geographies or institutions where all the users within the system can have access to the ledger either via copy or by connecting directly to the larger database. Any changes made on any one of the ledgers will be reflected on all the ledgers that currently exist.

Blockchain is fundamentally an online digital ledger system to record transactions and events. It's built on a distributed network of nodes all interacting with each other and holding an exact copy of the ledger. In its purest form, it is also a decentralized network of nodes that verifies every transaction recorded in the ledger. No central authority is required to authenticate or validate transactions.

The essential properties of blockchain that make it so useful include that it is immutable or irreversible. Once transactions are recorded in a blockchain, they are cryptographically sealed and made irreversible. This prevents double spending, fraud, abuse or manipulation of transactions, which plagues most databases.

The second property is that it requires no intermediaries. Blockchain technology, through the use of cryptographic proof, allows two parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party.

Finally, it is transparent. In a public blockchain, every transaction on the blockchain is recorded and is available for anyone to review. For example, for the most common blockchain available today, Bitcoin, you can trace every Bitcoin transaction back to the creation of that coin.

committee hansard indu 21963 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on October 31, 2018

2018-10-30 PROC 128

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

(1200)

[English]

The Chair (Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.)):

Welcome to the 128th meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

This meeting is being televised as we begin our study of the question of privilege related to the matter of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police publications respecting Bill C-71, an act to amend certain acts and regulations in relation to firearms.

We are pleased to be joined by Glen Motz, member of Parliament for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner. Members will recall that Mr. Motz raised the question of privilege.

Mr. Motz, thank you for making yourself available today. You may now proceed with your opening statement.

Mr. Glen Motz (Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, CPC):

Thank you, Mr. Chair and colleagues.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today about the conduct of the Liberal government and the RCMP, and their activities around the implementation of Bill C-71.

While I will attempt to present my remarks in a dispassionate way, it is challenging not to be angered at the arrogance shown by the Liberals in their presentation of this bill, and the systematic way the government ministers and MPs have tried to mislead Canadians. This is a contributing factor to the question of privilege I raised earlier this spring.

Here's the central issue: The RCMP began implementing a proposed law, Bill C-71, before Parliament had deliberated, debated and voted on the bill. The RCMP had posted on their website special bulletin number 93, a notice implementing portions of Bill C-71. At the time, the bill was before committee and under intense scrutiny. The bulletin made use of definitive language, giving Canadians the distinct impression that this bill was current law in Canada.

On May 29, I raised the issue that the RCMP was assuming Parliament would approve the bill, despite the significant reservations of millions of Canadians and many in Parliament. Within 24 hours of that question of privilege being raised, the RCMP modified their special bulletin number 93 to remove a presumption of Parliament's final decision. On that same day, May 30, I rose again to let the Speaker know of the recent change.

On June 19, the Speaker noted he was troubled by the careless manner in which the RCMP chose to ignore the fact that the bill was still before Parliament and not a law. This may seem like a technical issue, but this technical issue supports our very system of a parliamentary democracy. Prime ministers, ministers, departments and agencies are all subject to Parliament. Of all departments and agencies, a federal law enforcement one should not be so careless with Parliament and implementing laws.

Parliament is the voice for all Canadians, and it is beholden on us to scrutinize those laws, rules and regulations for Canadians. The message being sent to Parliament by the minister and by the RCMP is that they can act without Parliament. That contravenes the purpose of this House and those of you sitting around these tables today. It suggests that ministers and senior government officials are ultimately in full control, rather than the elected officials. As Speaker Regan said, “The work of members as legislators is fundamental and any hint or suggestion of this parliamentary role and authority being bypassed or usurped is not acceptable.”

Today, the members of this committee will have the first opportunity in Canada to set the standard for departments and agencies that assume the will of Parliament. We cannot allow the precedent to be and have a muted response.

A decision was made to implement legislation, despite the highly contentious nature of the bill and the serious and valid reservations from thousands of Canadians and parliamentarians. It falls on you, as this committee, to determine who made the decisions, who is responsible, and how we deter this from occurring again. The questions before you, as I see them, are many, but they could include this one: Did the RCMP set rules ahead of parliamentary decision independently, as opposed to being instructed to do so? There are only two potential answers: yes or no. If the answer is yes, then the RCMP made a decision to prioritize their objectives ahead of the voice of our elected representatives. The police in this country do not create the rules and the law; they enforce them. This is a fundamental function of the separation of powers in a democracy.

If the answer is no, then who directed the RCMP to proceed, and, conspicuous by his absence, where has the Minister of Public Safety been on this issue? The RCMP reports to Parliament through the minister, and the minister is responsible for its actions. I contend that if the minister did not actively instruct the RCMP, then he is guilty of failing to do his job of overseeing the RCMP. He has made no comments or statements to address the issue, other than through his parliamentary secretary, the member from Ajax, now the Liberal whip, and that member sought to have the issue dismissed.

(1205)

I know the investigation the committee is now charged to undertake is not about this one instance. It is about the broader principle of ensuring that the House can hold prime ministers, ministers, departments, crown corporations and agencies to account for taking action that conflicts with, undermines or otherwise ignores directions and deliberations of Parliament.

Public servants should always be mindful of the House and our democracy. As parliamentarians, we can disagree, but the function of this House is dependent on the House reviewing and approving the actions of government. Members of Parliament are not here to serve the will of the prime minister and cabinet. We are here to serve our constituents. Ministers and prime ministers are subject to the direction and will of Parliament, not the other way around.

I urge all to look at the facts of the case and see the overall picture. It's hard to argue that the minister has approached this particular legislation with full integrity and transparency. When there is a systematic and consistent attempt to deceive, it becomes harder and harder to believe the individual in question.

So far, the government leadership has made factually inaccurate statements. It could be suggested that they were made to mislead the public on the true nature of this legislation. For example, the Prime Minister suggested that currently no one needs to prove that they have a firearms licence to purchase a firearm. The truth is that selling or buying a firearm in this country without a proper licence is a criminal offence and carries a maximum penalty of five years in jail.

The minister appeared before committee and used several misleading statements as well. He indicated that, based on Toronto Police Service stats, half of crime guns were from domestic sources. Even after those numbers were proven to be completely false, the minister continued to use them. He indicated that there was a sudden spike in violent gun crime, when in fact violent gun crime and homicide by firearm are not at record levels. He used selective dates and stats to create the appearance of a crisis where none existed. Finally, he reported a massive increase in break and enter to steal a firearm, when in fact this charge was first introduced in 2008 and the sudden increase was primarily the result of the application of a new Criminal Code charge where none existed previously.

I could go on with many more examples, but I believe the point has been made. The testimony of the minister and of this government to date has been flawed and misleading. The added fact that the RCMP, upon the issue being raised in the House, immediately revised their bulletin is nothing short of an admission of guilt.

The Minister of Public Safety replied to a letter from me and my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles on an issue within the bill. In his reply, dated October 15 of this year, he acknowledged that there was a flaw in the legislation and he would grant the three-year amnesty, no doubt in part because of the overreach of the RCMP. However, there was no indication or responsibility of whether the bulletin from the RCMP was posted through ignorance or intent.

This falls to the investigation and the determination of this committee. It is therefore critical that a decisive and clear report show the prejudgment of Parliament to be a serious issue. This committee is responsible for upholding a key part of our Parliament and democracy, where ministers and agencies of the government must respect and abide by the House.

In closing, I would ask each of you to review the ruling of the Speaker. Putting aside political allegiances and party standing, Speaker Regan put the will of Canadians and their elected representatives ahead of the defence of party brands. He spoke truth to power and called on you to ensure that this Parliament and each one after it are empowered by the Canadians who voted for them, rather than obligated to follow a party hierarchy.

When ministers and parties use misinformation and positions of authority to obstruct the House in its duties, we put our democracy in jeopardy. Look beyond our disagreements and towards the values that bring Canadians together. These values must be reflected and upheld in our Parliament and in the ability of members of Parliament to hold each other and the government to the will of the people.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to speak today.

(1210)

The Chair:

Thank you, Mr. Motz.

Now we'll go to seven-minute rounds of questioning. We'll start with Mr. Simms.

Mr. Scott Simms (Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, Lib.):

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Motz. I think you might be on the right path here. Misleading members of the House is contemptuous indeed. I don't disagree with that. I looked at the website. It certainly did use language that gave the sense that this was either happening or going to happen and people should be prepared.

The only place where we diverge, I think, is on intent. I won't write this off as an innocent mistake, but I don't want to describe or characterize it as being particularly malicious, either. I've seen this before. I can give you a couple of examples where this has happened. For example, you can say that there are many bureaucrats, many people in agencies, people who work for the government—in essence, they work for the people of this country—who prepare themselves for what is around the corner. To me, there's a lot of due diligence there. For example, we just went through a lot of work on the Canada Elections Act. If the people of Elections Canada had not prepared themselves for what might be coming, then the situation would be exacerbated even further—more difficulties way down the line. For them, I think it's an issue of due diligence.

Now, did the police, in this case, do due diligence? To a certain degree I think they did. They wanted to let the public know what is changing and whatnot. Do you think they should have said—using that language—“This is what's going to happen. This is the new rule. This is how you have to register yourself if you have a firearm”, and then at the end added, “pending parliamentary approval”? Would that have sufficed?

Mr. Glen Motz:

I think it's fair to say that your assessment of trying to get ahead of the ball, if you will, or get ahead of the curve on being proactive, is probably an accurate depiction of what they were trying to do. However, I would suggest that rather than leaving language like that to the back end, you do it at the front end. You say, “This is the proposed legislation that is before Parliament. It is being discussed in the House. It's being debated at committee.”

(1215)

Mr. Scott Simms:

I don't mean to cut you off. I totally agree with you, because I was particularly appalled a few years ago, in 2014, when the headline was “Harper gov't spending funds on ads for measures still 'subject to parliamentary approval'”. Their ads were basically saying that these tax breaks were coming, but right at the bottom they said, “subject to parliamentary approval”. I didn't like that, and I'm sure you didn't either, when it was happening.

In this particular case, when the police made the correction, I guess you'd call it an admission of guilt, that they did something wrong. We're going to have the minister here to get his explanation behind it, but to a great extent, yes, I do agree with you. Not to get into the weeds about the issue, but I think in this particular case.... I don't want to discourage people who work in the public service from practising due diligence and being prepared. As I was angry with Stephen Harper for the ads that he did, because they were misleading, in this case it is misleading too.

But again, it's the intent that bothers me. If the intention, as it was in 2014, was to say, “This is going to happen. We have the majority, so what are you worried about?”, then that's not right. But if this is due diligence that the public service is doing, then good on them. Just don't pretend, as in this case, that it's going to happen.

We'll ask the minister when he gets here.

Mr. Glen Motz:

That's fair enough. I think the minister has a lot to answer for with respect to this. It's important to recognize as well that when you are making a statement or putting out a publication that impacts thousands of Canadians and that can make them believe that they could become criminals overnight—their understanding was that if they didn't comply, they would be criminalized—then it's important that there be some understanding at the front end of that.

Mr. Scott Simms:

Sorry, this is a sincere question. Is that the language they used?

Mr. Glen Motz:

committee hansard proc 19147 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on October 30, 2018

2018-10-30 TRAN 117

Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

(0845)

[English]

The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)):

Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities of the 42nd Parliament. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) we are doing a study on the impact of aircraft noise in the vicinity of major Canadian airports.

Welcome to the committee members and to our witnesses.

From the Department of Transport, we have Sara Wiebe, director general, air policy; Dave Dawson, director, airports and air navigation services policy; Nicholas Robinson, director, policy and regulatory services; by video conference, Joseph Szwalek, regional director, civil aviation, Ontario; and also by video conference, Clifford Frank, associate director, operations, west.

From Nav Canada, we have Neil Wilson, president and chief executive officer; Jonathan Bagg, senior manager, public affairs; and Blake Cushnie, national manager, performance-based operations.

Thank you very much to all of our witnesses for finding the time to share their knowledge with us today. I would ask that you keep it to five minutes so the committee has sufficient time for their questions.

Ms. Wiebe, go ahead.

Ms. Sara Wiebe (Director General, Air Policy, Department of Transport):

Thank you very much for inviting Transport Canada to appear before this committee. I want to take some time with you today to give you Transport Canada's perspective on this important issue. As you mentioned, Madam Chair, I am joined today by colleagues from our national headquarters, and also two colleagues from our regional office in Toronto by video conference.

As you're probably aware, Transport Canada's primary goal is ensuring that Canadians have a safe, secure, economical and environmentally responsible transport system. [Translation]

To that end, in the 1990s, the government made a series of decisions in order to improve the air transportation system. One decision was to withdraw from the day-to-day operations and business choices of the air navigation systems and airports. As a result, NAV CANADA and airport authorities such as the Greater Toronto Airport Authority, or GTAA, are all now private and not-for-profit share capital corporations. This decision has proved to be a success.

NAV CANADA and the airport authorities that run our largest airports are recognized worldwide for the quality of their services and facilities, and more importantly, for the ongoing improvement of safety levels. These entities have proved to be more agile, innovative, effective and responsive to the needs of stakeholders. They also demonstrate these strengths when it comes to the management of their affairs.

With regard to Toronto and its surrounding area, Transport Canada has observed that, over the past five years, the level of transparency, accountability and inclusion has increased significantly. NAV Canada and the GTAA have been working closely with other stakeholders to find possible ways to reduce the impact of aircraft noise in the area. The stakeholders, including the different levels of governments, the industry and citizens, must participate in these discussions, since we all have a role to play in noise abatement.

However, we think that the specific noise issues are better understood and managed by local stakeholders. NAV CANADA and the airport authorities have been working with local politicians, interest groups and citizens. They'll develop the best solutions, while taking into account trade-offs in terms of flight access, economic development and environmental impact, including aircraft noise.

(0850)

[English]

For instance, Toronto Pearson has been much discussed in the noise conversation to date. It provides direct daily service to more than 67% of the world's economies. The airport also generates or facilitates approximately 332,000 jobs in Ontario, which accounts for $42 billion or 6.3% of Ontario's GDP. By 2030, it is estimated that Toronto Pearson could generate and facilitate 542,000 jobs.

That being said, we recognize that transportation affects the daily lives of Canadians, and we understand that. While transportation serves as a backbone to Canada's economy, transportation activities must take into account the needs of communities while respecting Canadians and the natural environment. That is why our officials have been closely monitoring aviation noise issues while participating in appropriate forums and encouraging progressive action.

Overall, there are many moving parts, and ongoing collaboration among various actors is required. Transport Canada officials will always work to monitor industry, keep abreast of developments, and consider approvals and oversight as needed.

To finish, I would briefly like to review the deck that we've provided to you. I can do that in just a couple of minutes, and then we will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

As you can see on slide 2, what we wanted to do with this document was outline how aircraft noise management operates in Canada in a general sense, look at the different actors involved, and highlight Canada's balanced approach to aircraft noise management.

On slide 3, you can see that there are a variety of actors involved in noise management, with varying roles and responsibilities. Successful aircraft noise management involves collaboration among all of these entities. Industry is responsible for day-to-day operations, business decisions and communicating with local stakeholders, while Transport Canada provides regulations, oversight and guidance.

Moving to slides 4 and 5, it is important to recognize the international guidance that's provided on this important issue. We look to the International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO, which is housed in Montreal. ICAO guidance is centred around its balanced approach to aircraft noise management, and there are four elements that are mutually reinforcing.

The Chair:

Ms. Wiebe, could you bring your comments to a close, please?

Ms. Sara Wiebe:

Certainly.

Slide 6 emphasizes that a balanced approach can't succeed without community engagement, so this is why we turn to airport operators that operate in the community for that. Transport Canada continues to participate in noise management committees, for example.

I also want to point out that in 2015, with Transport Canada's encouragement, industry developed a clear set of standards for the development of an airspace change communications and consultation protocol.

The Chair:

Thank you very much. We will give you time to get your other comments in.

Mr. Wilson, you have five minutes, please.

Mr. Neil Wilson (President and Chief Executive Officer, NAV CANADA):

Thank you, Madam Chair.[Translation]

Good morning, everyone.[English]

As the chair indicated, I'm Neil Wilson. I'm the president and chief executive officer of Nav Canada. I'm joined today by Jonathan Bagg, senior manager, public affairs, and by Blake Cushnie, national manager of performance-based operations.

I'd like to start by thanking the chair, the vice-chairs and the members of this committee for this opportunity to appear.

It's regrettable, but it's nonetheless a fact that noise from aircraft in this day and age is an unavoidable consequence of the operation of aircraft. That said, significant efforts are being made across the entire aviation industry to reduce the impact of aircraft operations on communities. We at Nav Canada are committed to this goal and to collaboration with our partners: airports, airlines, Transport Canada, and the International Civil Aviation Organization—as well as, importantly, communities—on this important issue.

As the country's private, not-for-profit provider of air navigation services, Nav Canada is responsible for the safe and efficient movement of aircraft in all Canadian-controlled airspace. This means that we are responsible for more than 18 million square kilometres of airspace from coast to coast to coast, reaching halfway across the north Atlantic, the busiest oceanic airspace in the world. We handle more than 3.3 million flights per year, and these flights are made by approximately 40,000 customers, including airlines, cargo operators, and business and general aviation.

Our mandate is achieved primarily through the delivery of air traffic control and flight information services; the maintenance, update, and publishing of aeronautical information products; the reliable provision of communications, navigation and surveillance infrastructure; and the 24-7 availability of advanced air traffic management systems, many of which we at Nav Canada develop right here in Canada and have exported around the world.

Thanks to the work of our 5,100 employees, operating out of more than 100 operational facilities throughout the country, Canada boasts one of the best air traffic management safety records in the world. We also achieve this success with a service charges model that has some of the lowest service charges and is among the most cost-effective in the world.

At its heart, simply put, our service is essential to an industry that employees hundreds of thousands of Canadians, allows millions of us to connect to each other and to the world, and propels the Canadian economy forward. That is why we have invested more than $2 billion since 1996, when we assumed responsibility for the air navigation system, to make air travel safer and more efficient.

At the same time, we are also committed to helping reduce the industry's footprint, both in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and aircraft noise, and we are also investing in that. Through technological innovation and procedural improvements, Nav Canada has helped reduce the industry's fuel consumption and associated greenhouse gas emissions. We estimate that our efforts resulted in greenhouse gas savings of 1.5 million tonnes in 2017 alone.

In addition, our role as air navigation service provider requires us to ensure that our air traffic control procedures adhere to noise operating restrictions and noise abatement procedures throughout Canada. Nav Canada engages regularly in airspace modernization projects. In deploying advanced procedures, Nav Canada seeks opportunities to place approach and departure paths over non-residential areas, targeting industrial, commercial and agricultural land. In several cases, we have been able to move flight paths or portions of flight paths farther away from residential areas. Newer technologies are also increasing the use of quieter continuous descent operations, which see aircraft descending in a cleaner configuration and at a lower thrust setting.

When I became CEO in 2016, one of the first things I did was to meet certain community leaders concerned with aircraft noise in Toronto to discuss those concerns. As a result, we commissioned, and recently completed, an independent third party airspace review, which looked at noise mitigation at airports around the world, sought input from communities in the Toronto area, and resulted in a series of recommendations that I believe are both meaningful and achievable.

Some of these recommendations were the subject of a significant public consultation process undertaken jointly with the Greater Toronto Airports Authority, which took place this past spring. As a result of this effort, we will be implementing new nighttime approach and departure procedures this November. These mitigations result in as many as 221,000 fewer people being impacted by noise related to a night flight, depending on the runway and procedure being used. As we evaluate these mitigations and we gather community and stakeholder feedback, we will consider applications at other airports that can benefit from a similar approach.

When developing these airspace improvements, our accountabilities are outlined in the airspace change communications and consultation protocol, which provides guidance on when and how public consultation should occur, while promoting cross-industry collaboration.

(0855)

We remain committed to working transparently with industry stakeholders and with communities equally, to identify opportunities to reduce the impact of aircraft operations while meeting the airspace needs of this country now and in the future.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We welcome any questions you may have.

committee hansard tran 36722 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on October 30, 2018

2018-10-29 14:01 House intervention / intervention en chambre

Rail passenger transportation, Statements by Members,

Déclarations de députés, Services ferroviaires voyageurs,

Mr. Speaker, on October 29, 1978, VIA Rail launched its first transcontinental service from Montreal to Vancouver. Forty years on, I am privileged to rise in the House to celebrate this Canadian institution, and not just because I am a devoted train buff.

The last time a VIA train went through my riding, Laurentides—Labelle, was in 1981, the year of my birth. Service cuts are a problem in many regions across the country, but I cherish the dream of bringing train travel back for all Canadians.

Thanks to investments in upgrading VIA's fleet, more and more Canadians are choosing to travel by train. Rail passengers are living proof that the environment and economic development can go hand in hand.

I would like to thank VIA's 3,000 employees for working so hard for so long to keep this environmentally friendly mode of transportation alive. Train travel is essential to our Canadian identity.

Happy anniversary, VIA, and keep up the good work.

Monsieur le Président, le 29 octobre 1978, VIA Rail a lancé son premier service transcontinental, de Montréal à Vancouver. Quarante ans plus tard, c'est un privilège de me lever à la Chambre pour célébrer cette institution canadienne, et pas juste comme ferrovipathe assidu.

La dernière fois qu'un train de VIA est passé dans ma circonscription, Laurentides—Labelle, était en 1981, l'année de ma naissance. Je garde l'espoir de ramener le service ferroviaire dans les régions de tout le pays, où les abandons de service demeurent un problème.

Les investissements dans le renouvellement de la flotte de VIA font que de plus en plus de Canadiens préfèrent ce moyen de transport. Lorsqu'ils montent à bord, ils démontrent que l'on peut combiner environnement et développement économique.

Je remercie les 3 000 employés de VIA de leur travail continu et acharné pour assurer la survie de ce mode de voyage écologique et essentiel à notre identité canadienne.

Bonne fête VIA Rail et bonne continuité!

Watch | Hansard

Ecoutez | Hansard

hansard parlchmbr statements tv 335 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 20:26 on October 29, 2018

2018-10-29 INDU 134

Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

(1630)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Dan Ruimy (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, Lib.)):

We're going to get started. Thank you, everybody, for being here. Again, our apologies, but that's the way the House works. Votes take precedence over anything else, especially when they're confidence votes.

Welcome to meeting 134 as we continue our five-year statutory review of copyright.

We have with us today from the Canadian Anti-Counterfeiting Network, Lorne Lipkus, chair; from the Consumer Technology Association, Michael Petricone, senior vice-president, government affairs; from Creative Commons Canada, Kelsey Merkley, representative; and from OpenMedia, Laura Tribe, executive director and Marie Aspiazu, digital rights specialist.

Normally opening statements are seven minutes. You can have up to seven minutes, but the more time we have to ask questions, the better.

We'll begin with Mr. Lipkus.

Mr. Lorne Lipkus (Chair, Canadian Anti-Counterfeiting Network):

Good afternoon.[Translation]

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you here today.[English]

The Canadian Anti-Counterfeiting Network is made up of intellectual property owners, service providers, certification bodies, legal firms, industry associations and others dedicated to help prevent counterfeiting fraud and copyright piracy in Canada.

Almost every one of the members of CACN have their own day jobs. My own background is as a partner in a law firm, based in Toronto, covering intellectual property brand protection issues for over 80 brands across Canada. I've been doing so since 1985, and I've lived through the changes in trademark and copyright law during that time. Most recently, I have been intricately involved in the border enforcement request for assistance program in Canada.

I spend my days—and as my wife is fond of saying, many other times as well—trying to protect brand owners from the proliferation of illegal, dangerous, counterfeit, as well as pirated products that find their way into Canada and online.

While we can all agree that there's no single solution to address copyright infringement or the sale of counterfeit product, I hope we can also agree that it is in all of our best interests to provide rights holders with the tools that have been proven to be the most effective at reducing copyright infringement around the world, in order to address infringement in Canada.

Unfortunately, Canada has rarely been a leader around the world in these areas. Fortunately, we can now look to and learn from the experience of others in these areas.

I want to make it clear that I'm here to comment and speak about the products, sites and services that contain and sell intellectual properties, copyrights and trademarks. Any and every legitimate, authorized, authentic product, either is or can be counterfeited or pirated, and a look at what we've seen in Canada proves the point.

You've heard from several knowledgeable people during these hearings about the harm to our creative industries through illegally making available music and motion pictures.

The CACN supports the position taken by Bell, Rogers, the Canadian Media Producers Association, the Motion Picture Association - Canada and others on the need to allow rights holders to obtain injunctions, including site blocking and de-indexing orders, and against intermediaries whose services are used to infringe copyright.

However, the focus of CACN and my purpose here today is on what can be done to protect against products, physical goods, merchandise, items that everyday Canadians are making, importing, exporting, buying online, buying on Canadian streets, or buying from stores. These products bear copyright protected works. They also sometimes bear registered Canadian trademarks. Sometimes they contain both copyrights and trademarks.

I have seen counterfeit products, sites and services that make available to Canadians medications, food, contact lenses, electrical products, including extension cords and circuit breakers, some of which have been found in Canadian hospitals, automotive parts, batteries, smart phone chargers and chords, cellular devices, shampoos, makeup, tools, fertilizer, furniture, luxury goods and apparel. You name it; if it's being made, it's being counterfeited or copied.

At CACN, we therefore support needed amendments to the Copyright Act. I've mentioned the injunctive relief and the safe harbour provisions, but the third thing that we've been asking for is a simplified procedure to deal with the products that I've just mentioned.

We would like the introduction of a simplified procedure, under section 44, which relates to CBSA's request for assistance program, so that it is clear that border officers are authorized and mandated to not only detain these products coming into Canada but to seize them. Right now, they detain them. We're asking that they be allowed to seize them, as is the case around the world, and destroy them, without the need for a judicial proceeding which is the hallmark of the existing program.

(1635)

Our organization also hopes that one day Canada will have a meaningful intellectual property rights coordination centre that can intake information obtained by law enforcement, by customs and related agencies, as well as members of the public and intellectual property rights holders under one roof to deal with the proper utilization of resources dedicated to dealing with this ever-increasing problem in Canada.[Translation]

Thank you for your kind attention. [English]

The Chair:

Thank you very much.

We're going to move to the Consumer Technology Association. From Washington, D.C., we have Mr. Petricone.

Mr. Michael Petricone (Senior Vice-President, Government Affairs, Consumer Technology Association):

Thank you very much.

On behalf of the Consumer Technology Association, I am pleased to participate in the committee's review of Canada's Copyright Act. I am also honoured to appear before you because as a child I lived in Oakville, Ontario, and I have many happy memories of growing up in your wonderful country.

CTA represents 321 billion Canadian and U.S. consumer technology industries, comprising more than 2,200 Canadian and U.S. companies, of which 80% are small businesses and start-ups. CTA also owns and produces CES, the international trade show for consumer technology.

In our written brief, CTA urged that this review's outcome should be one that makes Canadian and international works, services and technologies more accessible in Canada and abroad. We expressed concern over proposals to move in the opposite direction by imposing new constraints on technologies, devices and local and international service providers. These innovations have helped Canadians to lead the world economy. This review should enhance rather than limit Canada's contribution. Therefore, we have made the following recommendations:

One, maintain and enhance limitations on exceptions such as the doctrines of fair dealing and fair use. Two, avoid unique impositions on online service providers, or OSPs, that would hobble Canada's contribution to international discourse and result in a loss of service in Canada. Three, reject attempts to oversee the design of technology and devices or define classes of technology or devices to be subjected to some sort of levy.

Finally, with respect to copyright terms, we have argued against the extension of copyright terms, believing the focus should be on creating new works and directions. We see the USMCA's contrary results as unfortunate and hope the effect can be mitigated in your law through exceptions, limitations and more discretion with respect to fair dealing.

In terms of fair use, having accepted the U.S. provisions on copyright term and the U.S. policy on circumvention of technical measures, Canada should also balance these with appropriate limitations and exceptions of the sort that mitigate their impact on U.S. law. Canada took constructive steps in 2012 to recognize best practices and fair dealing. These practices promote research, study and criticism, and they recognize the value of satire, parody and user-generated content. While a full fair use regime would perhaps better serve the present dynamic environment, perhaps Canada's fair dealing regime could be made more flexible and more adaptable.

The strict application of a code-based regime such as fair dealing cannot account for new technologies and new uses. One step harmonious with U.S. law would be to add the words "such as", which appear in the U.S. code, section 107. This would allow Canada's courts to keep up with the reasonable and customary practices of businesses and users.

The fair use doctrine, developed by courts as an iteration of the U.S. First Amendment principles, has continued to adapt even after being codified. Its application by the Supreme Court in the 1984 Sony Betamax case opened the door to personal communications, commerce and the Internet. In our industry, we refer to this as the Magna Carta of the consumer technology industry. Fair use has also been the basis of informal codes and best practices, which I know exist in Canada as well in many areas.

Internationally, the ability to quote and criticize has been important for democracy and innovation. CTA believes the U.S., Canada and Europe should encourage these values both at home and abroad.

In terms of technical measures, Canada did follow the U.S. lead in making circumvention of technical measures illegal, but in this area as well has not provided corresponding limitations and exceptions. As the U.S. Register of Copyrights ruled last week in its DMCA section 1201 recommendations, lawful user exceptions are particularly necessary in the diagnosis, maintenance and repair of modern cars, farm equipment and other devices, because embedded software has replaced analog circuitry in mechanical parts. Under the new regulations, U.S. farmers will no longer have to worry about the legality of getting expert assistance to repair a tractor or harvester during a short northern growing season.

After exhaustive study and commentary from CTA and others, the registers found such exceptions can and should be implemented without putting creative expression at risk. This is a step forward that Canada should also consider. Even though fair use is not seen by U.S. courts as a defence to DMCA 1201, it is the metric used by the Register of Copyrights in evaluating exception petitions. Limitations based on such considerations would serve Canada well.

An issue on which Canada and the USMCA now lead together in a positive direction is the recognition of safe harbours for online service providers hosting user-generated content. As we noted in our brief, studies have shown that the impairment of safe harbour protections would have the greatest impact on small and local OSP entrants that don't have the resources to do mass filtering. We recognize, however, that no regime is perfect. In our brief, we urge the consideration of measures to address spamming activities under Canada's notice and notice regime. As in the case of technical measures, both the constraints and necessary relief from them are now moving targets that are best aimed in tandem.

(1640)

In terms of site blocking, this is a measure long opposed by CTA, which has been raised again by participants in your review. When drafted in the U.S. as part of the proposed SOPA/PIPA legislation six years ago, such proposals collapsed under expert scrutiny and public outrage. In the Canadian context, such measures would have the additional drawback of depriving entrepreneurs and users of access to sites available in other portions of North America and beyond.

CTA also opposes recent proposals for new levies and design constraints on products and services. Such measures become distortive of technologies and markets, and eventually are made irrelevant by technology change except for lingering lawsuits. In our experience, device levies do not satisfy rights holders' needs to respond to technical change, and, again, quickly become outmoded.

In terms of copyright term extension, CTA views the public domain as a valuable resource for cultural creativity and for future innovation. We see Canada's agreement in the USMCA to add 20 years to terms to match the situation in the United States as unfortunate, but we would hope that in your review, through the measures we have suggested, you can mitigate the consequences of contracting the public domain. It has been suggested in the U.S. that some formality should apply in the last 20 years of protection to avoid orphan work problems, and Canada may also consider such a solution.

In conclusion, the pace of innovation is often faster than anybody's ability to legislate responsibly. Even the pace of a five-year review cannot anticipate or keep up with the changes that have replaced mechanical devices with digital ones, and then replaced many of those devices with online services. CTA recommends that this committee put a premium on creativity and innovation and be skeptical of impositions on digital services, digital devices and online services.

On behalf of CTA, I thank you for this opportunity to participate.

The Chair:

Excellent. Thank you very much.

committee hansard indu 26315 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on October 29, 2018

2018-10-25 TRAN 116

Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

(0845)

[English]

The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)):

I'm calling to order the meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. We are doing a study on assessing the impact of aircraft noise in the vicinity of major airports.

Before I introduce the witnesses, my colleague has a point that he would like to make.

Mr. Ron Liepert (Calgary Signal Hill, CPC):

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This is not a transport committee issue, but it's a transport issue. I think that many of you were invited last night to the screening of First Man. There weren't many of us there, but a few of us went. The minister spoke and did a fine job of it, and so did our soon-to-be astronaut, David Saint-Jacques. We watched our current astronaut, Ryan Gosling, play Neil Armstrong in First Man. There we were, about 45 minutes into the movie, and they just blasted off to the moon. It was noisy and there were all kinds of crazy sounds, including this beep...beep...beep. All of a sudden, the screen went off, lights came on, and it was a fire alarm.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Ron Liepert: There were 500 people, the entire movie theatre audience, all standing out in the cold. Some of us didn't bother hanging around to see whether he made it to the moon or not. I don't know if he made it to the moon, but I'll tell you what I did get, Madam Chair: a pair of free socks.

The Chair:

Oh, wow! Look at those.

Mr. Ron Liepert:

I'm going to declare them with the Ethics Commissioner.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chair:

I wish we'd had a camera at that moment.

Mr. Ron Liepert:

I think there are another pair of free socks over in the corner there.

A voice: He made it.

Mr. Ron Liepert: He made it? Oh, you came back. How long was it?

A voice: Yes, we did. It was 50 minutes.

The Chair:

All right.

Thank you very much for bringing that to everybody's attention.

As witnesses this morning we have Peter Bayrachny, a representative from Neighbours Against the Airplane Noise, and as individuals, Richard Boehnke and Tom Driedger. Welcome to all of you.

Peter, would you start, please? You have five minutes.

Mr. Peter Bayrachny (Representative, Neighbours Against the Airplane Noise):

Madam Chair and honourable members of the committee, thank you for having me appear before you today. I'm very pleased that this committee has chosen to study this important topic, which applies to Canadians across the country living in close proximity to airports.

Airport noise is the first thing people notice, complain about or discuss on the subject of nearby airports. I'm a resident of Markland Wood, the residential area closest to Pearson international airport, which is currently managed by the Greater Toronto Airports Authority, the GTAA.

I must also note that all surrounding neighbourhoods are affected by GTAA noise and should not be excluded from this study; however, my experience is as a resident of an affected neighbourhood. I can speak only from this experience and will concentrate my remarks on the effects of Pearson airport and the management of the GTAA.

The GTAA has announced their intention to double air traffic by 2040. This means that there will be a proportionate increase in aircraft noise overall. Pearson and many large airports are landlocked and cannot expand to gain more space. Fitting more takeoffs and landings into an existing infrastructure is the only way to expand, thus exacerbating the noise issue, which is already critical.

I believe that if parliamentary committees such as this one were to concentrate only on noise as the fundamental issue, you would be doing Canadians who live around these airports a great disservice. Noise is only one of the issues residents have to contend with. Associated with it are the health effects that such repetitive high levels of noise have on human beings living in these areas, as well as the impact of interrupted sleep due to aircraft noise.

To date, there have been no studies done by Health Canada or independent consultants on the current noise level effects on humans within the last 10 years or to consider the higher noise levels in the future, as proposed by the GTAA and other airports. Talking about noise does not matter if you do not consider current and future effects on the population living near these airports.

One important point to mention is night flights, a topic of great concern for all residents near an airport, especially Pearson. Night flight bans should be instituted at major airports in Canada. A number of major airports worldwide have night flight bans, including Heathrow Airport, the third-largest airport by worldwide rankings, and Frankfurt Airport, the ninth-largest one. Both have night flight bans, meaning no flights past 11 p.m. This should be the norm, not the exception.

Taking the theme of noise and effects on human health further, there is the environmental effect of increased air traffic. There also should be coordinating studies on the effects of exhaust fuel pollution and the environmental effects of the increased traffic. We currently have no pertinent data on environmental effects of added aircraft traffic. Environment Canada, in coordination with Health Canada, should set up monitoring stations around major airports such as Pearson to gather data on both noise and pollution. This is critical to making future decisions on important subjects such as increased aircraft traffic and its effects.

Let's now look into the future. Why does the GTAA want increased air traffic? The answer is income. As stated by Hillary Marshall of the GTAA, the organization is approximately $5 billion in debt. We have a not-for-profit corporation that can only survive if it gets more revenue, which has translated into increased air traffic. With Toronto's population growth, current size and projections, we are already the fourth-largest metropolitan area in North America, recently overtaking Chicago.

Instead of trying to fit more air traffic into the same space at Pearson, why not add another airport? All of the top five cities in North America have at least two major airports, except for Toronto. The GTAA would not support this idea. They need to recoup their massive $5-billion debt. We have alternatives such as Pickering, with land which the federal government already owns, or an existing airport in Hamilton, which could augment and add capacity to the Toronto area for airport traffic for years to come.

In conclusion, I would like to state the facts.

The federal government has given up control and management of many large airports in Canada to private corporations. This is not a partisan issue; this problem has been present through many governments, both Liberal and Conservative. I believe that airport noise, health effects and environmental issues should be monitored and managed by the government, not corporations such as the GTAA, which have only one goal: increasing income.

I suggest that in this committee report, recommendations be made to legislate more control over entities such as the GTAA so that government has the ability to control noise, health effects and pollution and how they affect the citizens you have been elected to serve.

(0850)

Thank you.

The Chair:

Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. Boehnke, would you like to go next?

Mr. Richard Boehnke (As an Individual):

Yes.

Good morning.

My name is Richard Hermann Boehnke, and I'm from Etobicoke. I thank the standing committee for inviting me to share my view on aircraft noise.

My neighbours and I live south of the Lester B. Pearson International Airport, also known as Toronto Pearson or as “the little postage stamp” to the unkind. Well into my third decade of dealing with the airport administration—the Greater Toronto Airports Authority, the GTAA—with respect to its major waste product, aircraft noise, I have concluded that there are two mandatory actions that must be undertaken to improve the aircraft noise situation for Toronto residents.

In this 21st century, we must first have Health Canada establish and enforce human health-based standards for aircraft noise. Second, once these human health standards are established, they must be used to create a fixed and permanent allotment of night flights to replace the variable and ever-increasing formula used at present—a creation with a high-water mark calculation guaranteed never to reduce by design.

committee hansard tran 17055 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on October 25, 2018

2018-10-24 15:04 House intervention / intervention en chambre

Electoral reform, Oral questions,

Questions orales, Réforme électorale,

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, I am proud of the important work we have done on modernizing our election laws.

As part of our study of the Chief Electoral Officer's report following the 2015 election, we released a series of reports containing numerous recommendations. We are pleased to have completed our clause-by-clause study of Bill C-76 and to see that the bill will be sent back to the House of Commons this week.

Could the Prime Minister tell the House about the measures our government is taking to follow through on our commitment to strengthen the openness and fairness of Canada's democratic institutions?

Monsieur le Président, en tant que membre du Comité permanent de la procédure et des affaires de la Chambre, je suis fier de l'important travail accompli sur la question de la modernisation de notre loi électorale.

Dans le cadre de l'étude sur le rapport du directeur général des élections, à la suite des élections de 2015, nous avons publié plusieurs rapports contenant énormément de recommandations. Nous sommes heureux d'avoir terminé l'étude article par article du projet de loi C-76 et de voir que ce dernier sera renvoyé à la Chambre des communes cette semaine.

Le premier ministre peut-il informer la Chambre des mesures que prend notre gouvernement pour donner suite à notre engagement de renforcer l'ouverture et l'équité des institutions démocratiques du Canada?

Watch | Hansard

Ecoutez | Hansard

hansard parlchmbr qp tv 249 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 20:26 on October 24, 2018

2018-10-23 TRAN 115

Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

(0845)

[English]

The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)):

I am calling to order the meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) we are doing a study assessing the impact of aircraft noise in the vicinity of major Canadian airports.

This morning, in our first portion of the meeting, we have Colin Novak, associate professor, University of Windsor. From the Community Alliance for Air Safety, we have Mark Kuess, director; and Al Kaminskas, public relations. From the Mississauga Board of Trade, we have David Wojcik, president and chief executive officer.

Thank you all very much for being here this morning.

Mr. Novak.

Dr. Colin Novak (Associate Professor, University of Windsor, As an Individual):

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Colin Novak. I'm an associate professor at the University of Windsor, specializing in acoustics, environmental noise and psychoacoustics. I'm also a principal with the firm of Akoustic Engineering, and a licensed professional engineer with 25 years of practical experience in the field of noise engineering.

In my capacity as a professor, I am the principal investigator for a three-year collaborative research project on the mitigation of aircraft noise annoyance, and the related community impacts through the development of targeted annoyance metrics. This research is equally funded by the Greater Toronto Airports Authority and Mitacs, a federal funding agency. You'll learn more about this research in the next session from my Ph.D. student, Julia Jovanovic.

As a practising engineer, my experience working with airports and aircraft noises is comprehensive, having worked with Toronto's Pearson airport, Montreal's Pierre Elliott Trudeau airport, Calgary's international airport, and Toronto's Billy Bishop airport. I've also been engaged by Nav Canada in the past to perform environmental noise impact studies on communities affected by flight path changes in the Toronto area.

Last, I'm a technical adviser for Toronto Pearson's Community Environment and Noise Advisory Committee, or CENAC. In this capacity, I provide technical answers and advice to the committee on issues of noise and deliver educational seminars to the committee and public groups.

An important tool to monitor, understand and manage community noise impacts are the airport's noise monitoring terminals. Toronto Pearson airport has 25 noise monitoring terminals. In addition to measuring the noise levels from above aircraft, the measured and archived noise data is associated to specific aircraft and their operation. The real-time noise levels are also shared with the public through the airport's WebTrak web page. This information sharing has been shown across many industries to be an effective community engagement tool and can increase an operator's environmental capacity.

The data has the potential to be used in several ways, including: as a method to monitor impacts during special cases, for example, runway construction or maintenance; as a research tool, as in the university's investigation of social impacts from aircraft noise; as a means of comparing effectiveness of noise mitigation initiatives or impacts of procedural changes; and for community relations, urban planning and public education.

The point that I am trying to make is that airports have and use tools which go beyond the simple measuring and reporting of sound levels. The key is to understand how to interpret the data, and effectively use it in a meaningful way to manage impacts.

I'm sure many of you are aware of the recently released World Health Organization study on environmental noise guidelines for the European region. From both my practical and academic experience, I recognize and support the initiatives that this report has undertaken. The report has clearly identified the problem from not only a European perspective but also a global one. Most importantly, it has identified the potential impacts from airport noise, particularly with respect to health. At the same time, I question the strength and validity of some of the conclusions, and certainly the recommendations.

The report acknowledges that many of the conclusions are weakly supported by the current state of science. Similarly, the recommendations are vague, impractical, and not strongly supported by the research. The report also clearly missed identifying the most significant intermediate between the generation of noise, and the resulting potential health impacts, and that is the annoyance.

It is very clear to me that more understanding of annoyance due to aircraft operation is required. The most important take away from the report is that more research is needed. Studies relevant to Canada, our people, our culture, and our economics are needed.

In closing, looking back as far as the 1960s, the aircraft industry and the airports, through their operations, have done an effective job at mitigating aircraft noise. This has partly been done through improved engine and airframe designs. The Airbus A320 retrofit is an example.

Noise mitigation has also been done through careful in-air operations. Air traffic is strategically managed with safety being paramount, but noise mitigation is also given high importance. However, these efforts are at a point of diminishing returns, with little more noise attenuation expected.

(0850)

Moving forward, it is paramount that aircraft noise expectations and mechanisms for annoyance impacts and resulting health outcomes be more thoroughly studied and understood through good, relevant and properly funded research initiatives.

I thank you for listening. I welcome your questions later.

The Chair:

Okay.

We'll now go to the Community Alliance for Air Safety.

Mark, perhaps you would like to lead off.

Mr. Mark Kuess (Director, Community Alliance for Air Safety):

Thank you.

Madam Chair, distinguished committee, we're honoured to be invited by the chair of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities to appear before your committee today as a representative of the Community Alliance for Air Safety.

The Community Alliance for Air Safety represents more than 40 communities and more than 45,000 people. Our focus is to ensure the safe operations and responsible growth of Toronto's Pearson International Airport and other airports across Canada.

Since our formation about a year ago, we've engaged with most of the operational stakeholders, including pilots, airport unions, industry experts, the airlines, the GTAA and Nav Canada. In the past year we've also engaged with several key government stakeholders including the GTA caucus, Transport Canada and the Transportation Safety Board of Canada. After more than a year of effort, we are encouraged that Transport Canada has recently accepted our invitation to engage in a collaborative discussion on the concerns of the communities that we represent.

We completed our first face-to-face discussion with Transport Canada a few weeks ago and raised three areas of concern. We believe this summary highlights the core of our concerns and we're going to use these as the basis of our introduction today.

The first one is that Transport Canada has been challenged to do more with less in the last 15 to 20 years as a result of available funding. We ask Transport Canada how they're going to bridge this gap between their budget constraints and the objective oversight of the airports across Canada.

The second one, further to the point above, is that Transport Canada has now started to move the responsibility of operational compliance to their operators. This trend is called self-regulation. This is concerning as CAAS is not sure how clear, objective oversight can be achieved when the operator such as the airport, the airlines and Nav Canada are checking themselves. Recent press has highlighted the issue and has included statistics about the lack of effectiveness of this self-regulation model.

The third one is the transparency of Transport Canada's approval process and oversight. We have a few examples. CAAS has requested regular public disclosure of data regarding enforcement of penalties and rule violations. We've received some limited data but we still believe there are significant gaps with the violations that are happening today and what's being enforced. There continues to be no commitment from Transport Canada to publish and discuss this data on a regular basis in a public forum.

We have a few other examples that we've shared in the transcript.

A key point is that the significant growth is concerning us on a number of fronts. At today's volume, the airport experiences a significant number of safety issues annually. As previously stated, the self-regulation model is simply not effective in creating meaningful accountability to ensure these safety issues are reported and resolved.

Second, the current footprint of the GTAA is landlocked on all four sides, which means the growth in traffic is limited to the same size airport. There is simply no physical room to grow.

Third, Transport Canada stated in 1990 that the GTAA is at capacity. The operational density at the airport is at an all-time high. CAAS's view is that if the GTAA continues to grow as quickly as possible to 90 million passengers, we will have planes landing every 15 seconds. This will introduce a significant level of higher risk operationally. We believe that has not been appropriately evaluated. It's definitely not been addressed with the public. We've raised this issue on many occasions. Transport Canada is the only organization in Canada that has full responsibility and full authority to ensure that these critical issues are acknowledged.

In summary, we're honoured that CAAS has been invited to share these concerns with the committee. CAAS is committed to continuing regular discussions with all stakeholders to ensure that the safety and well-being of all those who work and live in close proximity to any airport in Canada are respected. In the end, we're here to ensure that all key stakeholders keep safety top of mind when all decisions are being made regarding the past or future Canadian transport policies or procedures.

We hope we can add to this discussion. We welcome any questions.

(0855)

The Chair:

Thank you very much.

Mr. Wojcik.

Mr. David Wojcik (President and Chief Executive Officer, Mississauga Board of Trade):

Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss this critical economic issue that is impacting international airports across Canada, in particular, Toronto Pearson International Airport, which is Canada's busiest airport and the fifth most connected airport on the planet.

Being a good neighbour is of paramount importance, and airports in general are sensitive to this. No other airport in Canada does more to accomplish and accommodate this good neighbour policy than Toronto Pearson. A major economic component to globalization is Canada's position on that stage, and it's dependent on our ability to move goods and people on a 24-7 basis.

Although technology has vastly improved the ability for people to connect virtually, humans still prefer to do business face to face. Technology has not created a way to move goods across continents. At times, human life hangs in the balance while waiting for organs and tissue. Our Prime Minister, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development and the Minister of International Trade continually talk about Canada on the international stage, about the importance of Canada to be recognized globally and about how we must adapt to globalization.

committee hansard tran 29383 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on October 23, 2018

2018-10-22 INDU 133

Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

(1530)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Dan Ruimy (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, Lib.)):

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to the industry committee as we continue our continuation of our five-year legislative review of copyright.

Today, we have with us from the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, Mr. Simpson, head, public affairs; and Mr. Greco, national manager, advocacy.

We also have from the Council of Canadians with Disabilities, John Rae, chair, social policy committee. Welcome.

From Toronto, where they're having some big elections today, we have from the Screen Composers Guild of Canada, Paul Novotny, screen composer; and Ari Posner, screen composer.

We're going to get started with the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. You have about seven minutes.

Mr. Thomas Simpson (Head, Public Affairs, Canadian National Institute for the Blind):

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Thomas Simpson. I'm the head of public affairs for CNIB. Joining with me today is my colleague Lui Greco, who is national manager of advocacy.

We've ensured that we have a brief in Braille that should be sent to each member of the committee. I'm sure some of you are wondering why disability organizations are present today to be discussing Canada's Copyright Act. I hope the next few minutes of our presentation can better help you understand how Canada's Copyright Act can be altered to remove barriers for persons with print disabilities.

To start, I'd like to provide an overview of CNIB. We were formed in 1918 by war-blinded veterans coming back from World War I, as well as a result of the Halifax explosion. CNIB has been providing post-vision loss rehabilitation as well as emotional and social services to Canadians who are blind or partially sighted. We deliver innovative programs and powerful advocacy that empowers people impacted by blindness to live their dreams and to tear down barriers to inclusion.

Mr. Lui Greco (National Manager, Advocacy, Canadian National Institute for the Blind):

When we talk about a print disability and the barrier that access to alternate format materials creates, you're experiencing it right now. It's very unlikely that you're able to read Braille, just as it is for people who are blind or partially sighted to be able to read print.

Unfortunately, the option of going to a bookstore and purchasing a book in an alternate format doesn't exist.

For Canadians with print disabilities, sight loss included, we rely on alternate format materials. This includes Braille, which is exactly what you have in front of you. Print Braille is, as it says, print and Braille. This is something that would be used by parents with blind kids or blind kids with sighted parents to be able for them to read together. We'll get you to listen to a sample of what digitized accessible speech sounds like.

[Audio presentation]

As you can tell, that's not exactly the most friendly sounding voice, but it's what many of us rely on because it's really all we have to choose from.

In Canada, we estimate that there are about three million people living with some kind of disability that creates a print disability. The material in accessible formats is rare. We're here talking to you today to try to bring that change around.

Worldwide, estimates of people living with some kind of disability are consistent with overall health estimates for sight loss.

The percentage of material that's available in alternate formats, as just explained to you, is somewhere between 5% to 7%—we're not really sure. What does this really mean?

A few years ago, I decided to take a course in project management. I registered through the university continuing education program, did reasonably well in the course. I got a B+. I paid my fees to the project management institute, studied, and when it came time to write the exam, I couldn't find a study exam that was accessible. I wrote to the author. The author said, “Go away”. I wrote to the project management institute, and they said, “Go away”. The end result was that I was the denied an opportunity to gain a professional designation that would have furthered my career.

Mr. Thomas Simpson:

According to the Association of Canadian Publishers, more than 10,000 books are published in Canada each year. However, under Canada's current copyright requirements, publishers are not required by law or regulation to make these books accessible. Even with incentive programs through Canadian Heritage, Canadian publishers are under no obligation to produce accessible works, despite receiving public dollars.

The CNIB believes all books should be accessible. Whether it's just to ensure that accessibility applications can be used simultaneously with e-books or that Canadians with sight loss can buy Braille or electronic Braille copies in-store, all books published in Canada must be accessible.

We recommend that publishers be legislated to make accessible copies of their books. To do so, we recommend creating an additional subsection within section 3 of the Copyright Act, subsection 3(2), which would read, “For the purpose of this Act, a copyright cannot be granted to a literary work unless the production of such a work is done in an alternate format for persons with a print disability.” You can follow along in your Braille copy, if you'd like to know the specifics.

We believe that this sensible amendment to the Copyright Act would ensure that all books will be born accessible in Canada. Given the abundance of means by which accessible books can be produced, why does the lack of accessible books continue to be an issue?

(1535)

Mr. Lui Greco:

Access to literature is important for a multitude of reasons for people with disabilities. It enables full participation in the economic and cultural fabric of our society. Inability to access published content makes it hard to succeed in education and work, as I illustrated earlier.

Future generations will need to compete in a faster paced world; thus, the need to have accessible books available at the same time—when the books are born—is going to be increasingly more competitive as the information age escalates.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you. We'd be glad to try to answer any questions.

The Chair:

Thank you very much.

We're going to move to the Council of Canadians with Disabilities.

Mr. Rae, you have up to seven minutes.

Mr. John Rae (Chair, Social Policy Committee, Council of Canadians with Disabilities):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Members of the committee, as you indicated my name is John Rae. I am a member of CCD's national council and chair of its social policy committee.

I'm here to talk to you about the dual issues of accessibility and usability. I assure you these two concepts are connected, but they are not synonymous.

In my time I'm hoping to cover five points.

Point number one is accessibility. As the previous speakers have indicated, many published works today are not accessible to folks like me or folks like them. That needs to change. Even when I receive reports from the Government of Canada that are sent to me electronically, I wonder whether when I open the attachment, my screen reader will say empty document, the bane of my existence. That tells me that I have received a PDF document that is not readable by my screen reader. Yes, this still happens in the year 2018, and it must stop.

I have done some work with your publishing people earlier this year. I'm hoping this problem is behind me, but I'm a skeptical guy. There is, of course, a simple way to solve the problem, and that is to stop publishing documents solely in the PDF format. It is, after all, the most problematic of formats. Or, if you continue to insist on using it, publish simultaneously a version in text or HTML. They are more likely to be accessible.

The act should bind Parliament insomuch and insofar as the publication of documents. All of your documents must be published in an accessible format.

Point number two is usability. I'm sure you've all heard the notion from some of your constituents that it often seems that government documents are written for lawyers and only for lawyers. I've seen some of you are lawyers and that's all right. I started up that road and didn't get there. I'm an advocate. I also need, as do other ordinary Canadians, access to the material you folks publish.

I'm talking about the need to write reports in plainer and more understandable language, and maybe even shorter in length. That would help too. As you know when a new document is released, the media is interested in responses the day it's released, perhaps the day after. If you're really lucky and it's really controversial, maybe two days later. People like us need to be able to participate in that discourse just like all other Canadians. That's the issue of usability. Documents need to be produced more in plain language.

Point number three is Braille. For blind people, Braille is our route to literacy. It is essential. Strange though it may sound, in the year 2018, while it is easier than ever before in human history to publish material in Braille, it seems like less and less of it is being produced. We can talk about why that's the case, but we'll save that for the time being.

There needs to be greater promotion of Braille. In the past, the Council of Canadians with Disabilities has recommended that the federal government establish a national program for disability supports. One of those areas could be the provision of refreshable Braille displays to those blind persons who need them and want them, to make access to Braille easier and to encourage more and more people to use Braille, because it really is our mode to literacy.

When the accessible Canada act was introduced, I immediately asked for it in Braille, because as you know every comma, every semicolon, can make a difference. I said that I might need it when I go to meetings to talk about it. Well, I had to justify as to why I wanted it. It wasn't just that I wanted it. I had to say why I needed it. I'm pleased that I did get it, and it has come in handy.

(1540)

committee foss hansard indu 29212 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on October 22, 2018

2018-10-18 PROC 127

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

(0905)

[English]

The Chair (Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.)):

Good morning. Welcome to meeting 127 of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs as we once again continue clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-76, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make certain consequential amendments.

We are pleased to be joined by Jean-François Morin and Manon Paquet from the Privy Council Office, and Trevor Knight and Robert Sampson from Elections Canada.

Thank you for being here again. You're great members of this committee.

(On clause 320)

The Chair: We will pick up where we left off last evening, clause 320.

Mr. Nater, could you present CPC-138.1, please?

Mr. John Nater (Perth—Wellington, CPC):

Absolutely, Chair.

This provision reverts to the status quo in giving the election officer the ability to have a person removed or arrested for causing a disruption at a polling station. Bill C-76 simply envisions the power to order a person to leave, it doesn't have the arrest provision in it. We're recommending it be reverted to that provision, the ability to have an arrest made.

The Chair:

Is there debate?

We'll hear Mr. Graham, and then Mr. Bittle.

Mr. David de Burgh Graham (Laurentides—Labelle, Lib.):

In response to recommendations from the CEO itself, this bill.... Just for the record I'll read the recommendation.

B39 recommended that: Section 479 of the Act provides the legislative framework for maintaining order at an RO office or at a polling place. This provision grants considerable powers, including forcible ejection or arrest of a person. But it is complex, calls for a difficult exercise of judgment, and requires election officers to perform duties for which they are not trained and likely cannot be adequately trained, given the extent of their current duties and skill sets. The potential risks arising from section 479 include violence and injury as well as violation of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Local law enforcement officials are better trained and equipped to perform these functions. While this section should continue to make it clear that the relevant election officer has the power to maintain order at the polls and may order a person to leave if the person is committing or reasonably believed to be committing an offence, the election officer's power of arrest without a warrant should be deleted. The subsections providing for the use of force and listing procedures in the event of an arrest should be repealed.

I think it's fairly important that we follow that recommendation. It's from the elections officer's report on the election, recommendation B39.

The Chair:

Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP):

It's the question of capacity. This is at an election station, a voter is becoming so disruptive that the election officials want to have him or her removed. What would the normal procedures be if this didn't exist? I'm going to imagine the opposite. If this amendment weren't here, what powers would they have? Simply call the police and wait?

Mr. Robert Sampson (Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Elections Canada):

The practice right now, notwithstanding the provision in the act, is that we instruct election officials to call the police. This provision is somewhat anachronistic in that it predates the institution of police forces, for example.

It's one of the oldest provisions in the act and reflects a time when election administration was quite dispersed and elections could be administered in very remote areas. This version was updated somewhat to reflect the advent of the charter, but it still provides for extraordinary powers that we do not—

Mr. Nathan Cullen:

You're including the advent of the charter in the charter of rights for the voter, even if they're being disruptive, or is it the charter rights of the election official?

Mr. Robert Sampson:

For example, it requires a charter caution, so before you arrest them without a warrant you need to advise them of their charter rights. This isn't a practice that we encourage. We direct our election officials to call the police. To facilitate that process, one of the preparatory steps is a liaison between the returning officer and the local police force to make sure there is easy access in case of need.

Mr. Nathan Cullen:

This is in advance of the election being conducting. Okay, that's great.

The Chair:

Mr. Reid.

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, CPC):

An obvious question is this: When was the last time, to your knowledge, that this provision was used and an arrest would have been...?

Mr. Nathan Cullen:

I would take them all out of the polls, Chair, just because they don't know how to vote properly.

Mr. Scott Reid:

I'm just curious, what was the...?

Mr. Robert Sampson:

I've been with Elections Canada on and off since 2013. To my knowledge, it hasn't been used.

Trevor is a bit more aged than me, so I will ask him if he is aware of its being used.

Mr. Trevor Knight (Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Elections Canada):

I've been at Elections Canada since 2002. I'm not aware of its being used, certainly in the time I've been there. I don't recall of any cases being noted.

Mr. Scott Reid:

You're saying it goes way back. Does it literally go back as far as the days when people were still pointing at the candidate they wanted as a way of indicating...? Are we talking that far back? I'm asking if that's when the provision came into effect. Did it go back that far, to the 19th century?

Mr. Robert Sampson:

Yes, it goes right back to a time when it would be difficult, for example, to access a judge in order to secure a warrant. Hence the provisions allowing for arrest without a warrant.

As to the precise date and whether it's in the initial Dominion Elections Act of 1874, I don't recall. It is quite far back.

Mr. Scott Reid:

That was an era when you didn't have a secret ballot and you pointed at the candidate you wanted while they stood in hustings. There were frequent fist fights and everybody was drunk. They were being paid for their votes with bottles of whiskey or rum, depending on the part of the country. Yes, it was a somewhat different era.

(0910)

The Chair:

committee hansard proc 54197 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on October 18, 2018