2018-10-16 SMEM 16

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

(1310)

[Translation]

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

Good afternoon. Welcome, everyone.

This is the first time I am chairing the committee.

We are discussing Bill S-234.

A voice: I don't see any issues.

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

We don't see any issues, either. I propose that we pass this bill as is, without opposition.

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie (Calgary Midnapore, CPC):

I agree. [English]

Mr. David de Burgh Graham:

Do you want me to move this motion? [Translation]

The Chair:

Yes.

Mr. David de Burgh Graham:

Okay. I propose the following motion: That the Subcommittee present a report listing the item that it has determined should not be designated non-votable and recommending that it be considered by the House.

The Chair:

Does everyone agree?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair:

Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.

Sous-comité des affaires émanant des députés du Comité permanent de la procédure et des affaires de la Chambre

(1310)

[Français]

La présidente (Mme Linda Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, Lib.)):

Bonjour. Bienvenue à tous.

C'est la première fois que je siège à titre de présidente.

Nous traitons du projet de loi S-234.

Une voix: Je ne constate aucun problème.

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

Nous ne constatons aucun problème non plus. Je propose que nous adoptions tel tel ce projet de loi, sans opposition.

Mme Stephanie Kusie (Calgary Midnapore, PCC):

Je suis d'accord. [Traduction]

M. David de Burgh Graham:

Voulez-vous que je propose la motion? [Français]

La présidente:

Oui.

M. David de Burgh Graham:

D'accord. Je propose la motion suivante: Que le Sous-comité présente un rapport énumérant l'affaire qui, selon lui, ne devrait pas être désignée non votable et recommandant à la Chambre de l'examiner.

La présidente:

Êtes-vous tous d'accord?

(La motion est adoptée.)

La présidente:

Merci.

La séance est levée.

Hansard

Hansard

committee hansard smem 314 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on October 16, 2018

2018-10-16 PROC 124

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

(0905)

[English]

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

Good morning, and welcome to the 124th meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.[Translation]

I would like to welcome Peter Fragiskatos.

I would also like to thank Luc Thériault for being with us again.[English]

Once again, we are pleased to be joined by Manon Paquet and Jean-François Morin from the Privy Council Office as we pick up where we left off with 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 will resume with consideration of clause 61 and CPC-22.

Stephanie did a good job of presenting the new amendments in order, and Philippe stayed up late last night to put them in order. When we get to a new amendment, I'll be referring to the number as the reference number, which is on the top left. If you keep them in the order you got them in, they'll come up in that order, and I'll tell you when we get to those particular amendments.

Mr. Nater, go ahead.

Mr. John Nater (Perth—Wellington, CPC):

Thank you, Chair.

I want to inform the committee that, because CPC-2 was defeated yesterday, the Conservative Party will be withdrawing amendments CPC-93, CPC-116 and CPC-148. Without CPC-2, the other ones wouldn't logically flow, so we'll be withdrawing those three.

The Chair:

What are they, again?

Mr. John Nater:

They are CPC-93, CPC-116 and CPC-148.

(On clause 61)

The Chair:

Thank you very much. That's helpful.

We're going to start at CPC-22. This one just adds the word “knowingly”, so you can't publish results of an election that are inaccurate. This suggestion is to add the word “knowingly” to that.

Mr. Nater, do you want to say anything?

Mr. John Nater:

Thank you, Chair.

I think you explained it exactly. It's maintaining the “knowingly” element, that there has to be knowledge that what you're doing is not appropriate. We'd like to add the word. I think that would be appropriate.

The Chair:

Is there any discussion?

Mr. Bittle, go ahead.

Mr. Chris Bittle (St. Catharines, Lib.):

Excuse me, I believe intent is already required in the offence, so I was wondering if I could ask the officials if this is a redundant section to include.

Mr. Jean-François Morin (Senior Policy Advisor, Privy Council Office):

Thank you for your question, Mr. Bittle.

This motion would amend section 91 of the act. Section 91 is a prohibition. We're not yet at the offence stage. The offences are in part 19 of the act, so this is the prohibition associated with it.

Although you will see “knowingly” many times in prohibitions in the act, it's often considered bad practice in criminal law to include an intent provision such as “knowingly” in the prohibition itself, especially where there's already an element of intent that is expressed. In this case, we already have two: the intent to affect the election as well as the false nature of the statement.

Mr. Chris Bittle:

It's redundant.

The Chair:

Mr. Nater, did you hear that? He suggested it may not be a good practice to....

Mr. Cullen, go ahead.

Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP):

For my own edification, can you clarify that a little bit, Jean-François? If we have other sections of the act that include “knowingly” in terms of a contravention, are you suggesting it's bad legal practice to include this?

Mr. Jean-François Morin:

Yes, that's why I was saying.... Don't get me wrong. We know that there are other places, other prohibitions in the act where we say “knowingly”, but it's bad practice.

Mr. Nathan Cullen:

What's the problem with the practice? A Canadian reading this would say that the infringement is included in that, and that the person knowingly sought to, in this case, mislead on the results of an election.

Mr. Jean-François Morin:

The “knowingly” is a mens rea element that is associated with the offence. When we try to craft legislation, we want to make sure that every offence that Parliament wants a mental element associated with has at least one of those mental elements—so it's those dual procedure offences versus strict liability offences, which don't have a huge intent criterion.

What I am saying is that in many prohibitions we already have an intent criterion. For example, in section 91 we already have the intent to affect the results of the election, and of course the person making the publication would need to know that the information that is published is false.

We already have two intent requirements here.

(0910)

The Chair:

Mr. Nater, go ahead.

Mr. John Nater:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

committee hansard proc 54140 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on October 16, 2018

2018-10-15 PROC 123

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

(1535)

[English]

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

I call the meeting to order.

Good afternoon. Welcome to the 123rd meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

For members' information, today's meeting is being televised as we continue our study 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 the Honourable Karina Gould, Minister of Democratic Institutions. She is accompanied by officials from the Privy Council Office: Manon Paquet, Senior Policy Advisor, and Jean-François Morin, Senior Policy Advisor.

Thank you, Minister Gould, for coming back. I will turn the floor over to you for some opening remarks.

Hon. Karina Gould (Minister of Democratic Institutions):

Thank you very much, Chair, and the committee, for inviting me here again. I am delighted to be back with my officials to look into BillC-76 before you start your clause-by-clause study of the legislation.

I'd like to thank you for your commitment to study Bill C-76, the elections modernization act. I truly appreciate the hard work you have already put into studying this pivotal piece of legislation, one that will, I believe, help strengthen our electoral laws and safeguard our future elections at the federal level here in Canada.[Translation]

Our government is committed to strengthening Canada's democratic institutions and restoring Canadians' trust and participation in our democratic process.[English]

I firmly believe that the strength of our democracy depends on the participation of as many Canadians as possible. I also firmly believe that the elections modernization act is the right piece of legislation to make our electoral process more accessible for all Canadians.[Translation]

This bill will reduce the barriers to participation that Canadians currently face when voting or participating in the democratic process in general.

No Canadian should face barriers to voting, whether they live abroad, are in the Canadian Forces, are studying at university or are without a fixed address. [English]

Reinstating the voter identification card as a proof of residency means making voting easier for more Canadians. Restoring the option of vouching for another eligible Canadian means making voting easier for more Canadians. Voting is a right, and it is our responsibility to make voting accessible to as many Canadians as possible.[Translation]

Through Bill C-76, we are extending accommodation measures to include all people with disabilities, not just those with physical disabilities.

The bill will increase support and assistance to voters with disabilities at polling stations, regardless of their type of disability, and will provide them with the opportunity to vote at home.[English]

Canadians with disabilities may also find it more difficult to participate in political campaigns because campaign materials in offices are not accessible. Bill C-76 will encourage political parties and candidates to accommodate electors with disabilities by creating a financial incentive through reimbursement of expenses related to accommodating measures. For example, this would include sign language interpretation during an event and making the format of material more accessible.[Translation]

This bill also amends election expenses so that candidates with disabilities and candidates caring for a young family member who is ill or disabled find it easier to run for election.

The bill will allow candidates to use their own funds, in addition to campaign funds, to pay for disability-related expenses, child care costs or other relevant expenses related to home care or health care. These expenses will be reimbursed up to 90%.[English]

Our Canadian Armed Forces members make tremendous sacrifices in protecting and defending our democracy. The elections modernization act will make it easier for our soldiers, sailors and air personnel to participate in our democracy. It allows our CAF members the same flexibility as other Canadians in choosing where to cast their ballot, whether it be to vote at regular polls where they reside in Canada, to vote abroad, to vote at advanced polls, or to vote in special military polls as they currently do.[Translation]

Many of us have constituents in our ridings who have lived in Canada but who are currently living abroad. Whether they are there to work or study, Canadians living abroad should always have the opportunity to participate in our democratic process and to express themselves on issues that affect them.[English]

Bill C-76 will remove the requirement that non-resident electors must have been residing outside Canada for fewer than five years. It will also remove the requirement that non-resident electors intend to return to Canada to resume residence in the future. This will extend voting rights to over one million Canadians who are living abroad.[Translation]

As a federal government, it is our responsibility to make it easier and more convenient for Canadians to vote. This includes their experience during the voting process, whether it is at the advance polls or on election day.[English]

The elections modernization act provides Canadians with more flexibility by increasing the hours of advance polls to 12-hour days. We will also streamline the intake procedures during regular and advance polls.[Translation]

This bill will also expand the use of mobile polling stations on advance polling days and election day to better serve remote, isolated or low-density communities.

For Canadians to participate fully in their democratic right to vote, they must first know when, where and how to vote. Historically, Elections Canada has conducted various educational activities with Canadians as part of its election administration mandate.[English]

In 2014, the previous government limited the Chief Electoral Officer's education mandate, removing the CEO's abilities to offer education programs to new Canadians and historically disenfranchised groups.[Translation]

Our government believes that we should empower Canadians to vote and participate in our democracy. We believe that the Chief Electoral Officer should be able to communicate with all Canadians on how to exercise their democratic right.[English]

This is not about partisanship. This is about providing electors with information related to the logistics of voting, such as where, when and how to cast a vote. We want Canadians to be ready for election day, no matter what political party they vote for.

This also means preparing first-time voters. The creation of a register of future electors will allow Canadian citizens between the ages of 14 and 17 to register with Elections Canada. When they turn 18, they will be automatically be added to the voters list.[Translation]

While more young people voted in 2015 than in previous elections—57% of voters aged 18 to 24 voted—their rate of participation was still lower than that of older Canadians. In fact, 78% of voters aged 65 to 74 voted. This measure will encourage more young Canadians to participate in our democratic process.

(1540)

[English]

As the Minister of Democratic Institutions, it is my responsibility to ensure we maintain the trust of Canadians in our democratic process. The elections modernization act will make it more difficult for election lawbreakers to evade punishment by strengthening the powers of the commissioner of Canada elections and offering a wider range of tools for enforcement.[Translation]

By making the Commissioner of Canada Elections more independent and giving him new powers to enforce the Canada Elections Act and investigate violations, we will continue to work to ensure the strength and security of our democratic institutions.[English]

The commissioner of Canada elections will be independent from the government, moving back to Elections Canada and reporting to Parliament though the Chief Electoral Officer rather than a senior member of cabinet.[Translation]

He will also have new powers with the administrative option to impose monetary penalties for minor violations of the act related to election advertising, political financing, third-party expenses and minor voting violations. Most importantly, he will also have the power to lay charges without the prior approval of the director of public prosecutions and will be able to seek a court order to compel a witness to testify during an investigation of electoral offences.[English]

Through budget 2018, the government allocated $7.1 million over five years, beginning in 2019, to support the work of the office of the commissioner of Canada elections. This funding will help ensure the Canadian electoral process continues to uphold the highest standards of democracy.[Translation]

Many Canadians are concerned about the consequences and influence of money on our political process. With Bill C-76, we are ensuring that our electoral process is more transparent and fair. The bill creates a pre-election period beginning on June 30 of the year of the fixed-date election and ending with the issuance of the writ.[English]

During the pre-election period, third parties will have a spending limit of approximately $1 million, adjusted to inflation, with a maximum of $10,000 per electoral district. This spending limit will include all partisan advertising, partisan activities and election surveys. During the election period, there will be a spending limit of approximately $500,000, and a maximum of $4,000 per electoral district in 2019.

This legislation will require third parties that spend more than $500 on partisan advertising and activities during the pre-writ and writ period to register with Elections Canada. Third parties will also be required to open a dedicated Canadian bank account and use identifying tag lines on all partisan advertising. These measures will ensure greater transparency and provide Canadians with more information with respect to who is trying to influence their decision.[Translation]

The Government of Canada must ensure that our democratic institutions are modern, transparent and accessible to all Canadians. We are committed to maintaining and strengthening the confidence of Canadians in our democratic process.[English]

Building on the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer and the work of this committee, the elections modernization act will improve Canadians' trust and confidence in Canada's electoral system.

I look forward to your questions.

The Chair:

Thank you very much, Minister.

Welcome, Ms. Elizabeth May. I understand the Liberals are giving you a speaking slot later. Welcome to the committee.

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

That is so nice.

committee hansard proc 54338 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on October 15, 2018

2018-10-04 PROC 122

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

(1115)

[English]

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

Good morning and welcome to the 122nd meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

For members' information, this meeting is being held in public. It's great to have Bill Curry here.

Remember from Tuesday's meeting that we're carrying on discussion of scheduling for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-76.

Ruby, you wanted to speak.

Ms. Ruby Sahota (Brampton North, Lib.):

Mr. Chair, I want to propose that we try to seek unanimous consent for the following: That Mr. Reid's subamendment and Mr. Nater's amendment to my motion respecting the scheduling of the clause-by-clause of Bill C-76 be deemed withdrawn, and that my previous motion be amended so that it now reads—and I can read the motion, if you would like.

The Chair: It might be better to withdraw all of it and then just start over with a new motion.

Ms. Ruby Sahota: I don't know if they would want to hear the motion before withdrawing the amendment and subamendment. Perhaps you could advise how to proceed on that.

The Chair:

Does everyone have a copy of what she is going to say?

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie (Calgary Midnapore, CPC):

Yes.

The Chair:

Ruby, the clerk's suggesting it might be cleaner to just withdraw the motion and all amendments and then propose your new motion.

Ms. Ruby Sahota:

Okay. That's what we'll do. If we can get—

The Chair:

We would just withdraw the motion and amendments on the table, and then Ruby's proposing a new—

Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP):

Would you first clear the table and then introduce something new?

The Chair:

Yes.

Mr. Nathan Cullen:

Okay. Do you need to seek unanimous consent to do that first?

Ms. Ruby Sahota:

Yes. Can we get unanimous consent to withdraw all the subamendments and amendments and my original motion, so I can propose a new motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Subamendment withdrawn)

(Amendment withdrawn)

(Motion withdrawn)

Ms. Ruby Sahota: Thank you.

The new motion is: That the Hon. Karina Gould, Minister of Democratic Institutions, be invited to appear from 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Monday, October 15, 2018, in relation to the study of Bill C-76; That the Committee commence clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-76 on Monday, October 15, 2018 at 4:30 p.m.; That the Chair be empowered to hold meetings outside of normal hours to accommodate clause-by-clause consideration; That the Chair may limit debate on each clause to a maximum of five minutes per party, per clause; That if the Committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill by 1:00 p.m. on Friday, October 19, 2018, all remaining amendments submitted to the Committee shall be deemed moved, the Chair shall put the question, forthwith and successively, without further debate on all remaining clauses and proposed amendments, as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill, as well as questions necessary to report the Bill to the House and to order the Chair to report the Bill to the House as soon as possible; and, That Bill C-76, in Clause 232, be amended to—

Sorry, I have an error. Can we double-check? I had it written down incorrectly, so I just want to make sure the clause we're amending is not 232, but in fact is 262.

There's a minor correction: That Bill C-76, in Clause 262, be amended by replacing line 32 on page 153 with the following: “election period is $1,400,000.”

The Chair:

There's a little trouble in the sound booth. They're going to reboot the system. It's a technical issue.

Okay. Let's try it again.

Are you finished, Ms. Sahota?

Ms. Ruby Sahota:

Yes, I am finished.

Did it get through translation completely?

(1120)

The Chair:

The clerk will read it again so that it's on the record.

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Andrew Lauzon):

The motion is as follows: That the Hon. Karina Gould, Minister of Democratic Institutions, be invited to appear from 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Monday, October 15, 2018, in relation to the study of Bill C-76; That the Committee commence clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-76 on Monday, October 15, 2018, at 4:30 p.m.; That the Chair be empowered to hold meetings outside of the normal hours to accommodate clause-by-clause consideration; That the Chair may limit the debate on each clause to a maximum of five minutes per party, per clause; That if the committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill by 1:00 p.m. on Friday, October 19, 2018, all remaining amendments submitted to the Committee shall be deemed moved, the Chair shall put the question, forthwith and successively, without further debate on all remaining clauses and proposed amendments, as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill, as well as questions necessary to report the Bill to the House and to order the Chair to report to the House as soon as possible; and, That Bill C-76, in Clause 262, be amended by replacing line 32 on page 153 with the following: “election period is $1,400,000.”

The Chair:

committee hansard proc 10079 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on October 04, 2018

2018-10-04 TRAN 112

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 of the Canadian transportation and logistics strategy.

With us as witnesses today we have the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, with Ray Orb, president; and the Shipping Federation of Canada, with Michael Broad, president, and Karen Kancens, vice-president.

Welcome, and thank you very much for being here so early this morning.

We will open it up with five minutes exactly. When I raise my hand, we're going to cut you off. The members always have lots of questions, and we want to give them sufficient time.

Mr. Orb, would you like to start?

Mr. Ray Orb (President, Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities):

Yes, I will. Thank you.

First of all, I'd like to thank the committee for allowing me to appear this morning. My name is Ray Orb, and I am the president of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, which is known as SARM. We were incorporated in 1905 and have been the voice of agriculture and rural Saskatchewan for over 100 years. We work on behalf of our members to identify solutions and challenges in rural Saskatchewan.

As an association, we are mandated to work in agriculture, which is an important sector in our province. Saskatchewan is a key producer of Canada's wheat, oats, flaxseed and barley, and we are proud to be home to many farms, cattle ranches and dairy operations.

Our agriculture industry relies on the ability to move product efficiently and cost-effectively. An adequate and efficient transportation system is imperative for producers to move their product across the province and across the country.

Saskatchewan, Canada and North America rely on the rural municipal primary weight infrastructure in Saskatchewan to connect to the provincial network to move goods and services in a reliable, timely and safe manner. Our province boasts the largest provincial road network in Canada. Provincial highways contribute 26,000 kilometres, while rural municipal roadways contribute 162,000 kilometres.

The Saskatchewan Ministry of Highways provides funding to SARM to manage a primary weight network grant-funding program for rural municipalities to maintain rural roads at a primary weight. These primary weight corridors enable the seamless transportation of goods and services throughout the province and the country, while protecting the aging provincial system. The program has proven to be very successful, as there are currently 6,500 kilometres of “clearing the path” primary weight corridors in the province.

We also rely on the rail system to ship grain and agricultural products, and SARM has been really vocal about the rail level of service since 2009.

More recently, we provided comments on Bill C-49. We supported the bill, as it provides legislation for increased data reporting. More data means that producers in the supply chain can make better decisions that are based on good information. We also believe that the federal railways should be required to produce plans that detail how they'll deal with demands resulting from the upcoming crop year.

We're pleased to see reciprocal penalties and the provision for informal dispute resolution services included in Bill C-49. It's important that disputes be resolved quickly so that producers aren't faced with additional penalties or delays.

It is also important that the Transportation Modernization Act and related regulations ensure that the Canadian Transportation Agency and Transport Canada have adequate mechanisms to keep railways accountable. SARM believes that the federal government needs the ability to act if it deems a railway's grain plan to be insufficient. Without adequate enforcement options, Bill C-49 would not bring about meaningful change.

Although rail transportation has primarily been an issue for grain producers in western Canada, the increase of oil by rail causes additional concerns. Thousands of barrels of oil on the track not only cause capacity issues for grain but also pose a threat to the environment.

Pipelines are an environmentally favourable alternative to road and rail transportation and should be used where possible to reduce the risks associated with moving dangerous goods by rail. Pipeline development will also take oil cars off the rail tracks and free up cars for the movement of grain.

My last comment is related to the important role that ports play in our rural economies. Since the port of Churchill stopped operations in 2016, SARM has been closely monitoring the situation and advocating for a solution. The port provided an important export point for producers, and its restoration would help move the grain backlog in the Prairies.

Last year, SARM had the opportunity to meet with officials from the port of Vancouver. We have seen first-hand some of the logistical issues and how the port authority hopes to bring about further efficiencies.

The rural landscape has changed over the course of the last century. Demands on infrastructure have increased and will continue to increase. The report “How to Feed the World in 2050” indicates that by that time the world's population will reach 9.1 billion. Food production must increase by 70%. Annual cereal production will need to reach three billion tonnes, and annual meat production will need to increase by over 200 million tonnes. It is imperative that we have a transportation system that enables producers in rural Saskatchewan to do their part in feeding the world.

(0850)

On behalf of Saskatchewan's rural municipalities, I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to lend our voice to this important conversation.

The Chair:

Thank you very much.

Mr. Broad, go ahead.

Mr. Michael Broad (President, Shipping Federation of Canada):

Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members, for seeing us today.

Karen and I are here on behalf of the Shipping Federation of Canada, which was established by an act of Parliament in 1903. We are the trade association representing the owners, operators and agents of the ocean ships that carry Canada's imports and exports to and from world markets, including some of Ray's grain.

The ships represented by our members load and discharge cargo at ports across the country and are literally the carriers of Canada's world trade. We were following the meetings the committee held last week in St. Catharines and Vancouver, and we're very interested in hearing the views of our trade chain partners on how to modernize Canada's trade corridors from a regional point of view.

For our part, we'd like to address this issue from a national perspective and focus on a handful of key actions and priorities that we believe will increase the efficiency of vessel operations in Canadian waters for the ultimate benefit of the transportation system as a whole.

One of our priorities for optimizing vessel operations is to invest in modernizing Canada's marine communications and traffic services, or MCTS, which is the Coast Guard-led system that monitors vessel traffic movements in Canadian waters.

We believe that a real opportunity exists to transform this system from what is currently a conduit of information that acts much like a telephone operator into a truly dynamic tool that is able to gather, analyze and broadcast real-time navigational information, not only to the bridge management team on the ship, but also to the shoreside infrastructure, such as ports and terminals. Modernizing the MCTS system would lead to a more holistic approach to managing marine transportation in Canadian waters, with the benefits extending to all our trade corridors on a national basis.

Another element of the marine transportation system that is critical to several of Canada's key corridors is the availability of icebreaking capacity to support safe and efficient transportation during our long and challenging winters, particularly on the northeast coast of Newfoundland, in the St. Lawrence River and the Great Lakes, and, of course, the Canadian Arctic.

Despite its importance, the icebreaking fleet has shrunk significantly over the years and is currently made up of over-age vessels, which are very thinly spread over a vast expanse of water. Although the government has announced some measures to address this situation, including the acquisition of three used icebreakers, we need a concrete plan for renewing the fleet in the long term, which is essential if Canada is to have sufficient icebreaking capacity to meet future demand for safe and efficient marine transportation.

No discussion on optimizing the efficiency of vessel operations in Canadian waters would be complete without talking about pilotage and the ongoing review of Canada's pilotage system. Although there is no question that the Pilotage Act has served as an excellent tool for ensuring safe navigation in Canadian waters, it is our view that the pilotage system is unable to control costs or consistently provide users with the level of service they require in a highly competitive marine transportation environment.

We believe that the recommendations arising from the pilotage review provide a much-needed opportunity to amend and modernize the act, and we urge the members of this committee to communicate the need for such renewal to their fellow parliamentarians.

Finally, we'd like to draw the committee's attention to the marine single window initiative, in which all the information required by Canadian authorities, and CBSA in particular, related to the arrival and the departure of ships in Canadian waters could be submitted electronically through a single portal without duplication. This concept offers tremendous potential to expedite the flow of trade by managing the marine border in a way that eliminates paper processes, minimizes redundancy and reduces the possibility of error and delay with respect to cargo and vessel reporting. A number of countries, including those in the EU, are already in various stages of implementing this concept on a national basis, and we strongly urge Canada to take the necessary steps to ensure that our processes are aligned with those of our international partners.

Although we've tried to be as focused and concrete as possible in our presentation to committee, I'd like to take this opportunity to provide a few comments from a broader policy perspective.

Given that a key role of our transportation and logistics system is to serve the needs of Canada's importers and exporters, it is essential that the government have a vision or a strategy for developing Canada's trade corridors that is national in perspective and closely tied to the broader trade agenda. Such a strategy needs to support the transportation system's ability to efficiently serve all the new markets that have been or will be negotiated as part of Canada's trade diversification agenda, whether through the revised CPTPP, the recent CETA, or the ongoing Mercosur negotiations. Such a strategy also needs to align all the departments and agencies that interact with the carriage of international trade so that supply chain efficiency becomes an integral element of how they operate.

(0855)

Thank you to the committee for your attention. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

The Chair:

Thank you very much.

We'll go on to Ms. Block.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I apologize for arriving a couple of minutes late.

Mr. Orb, you have presented to this committee on a number of occasions. I appreciated the opportunity to meet with you and some of your colleagues who are here representing SARM. I'm going to direct my questions to you. It should come as no surprise, since I am from Saskatchewan.

committee hansard tran 19967 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on October 04, 2018

2018-10-03 INDU 130

Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

(1625)

[English]

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

I call the meeting to order.

As with most things in the House of Commons, sometimes it's unavoidable and we have things that are happening, and today we had votes, so we're just going to go straight into our meeting.

We have with us today, as we continue our statutory review of the Copyright Act, from the Entertainment Software Association of Canada, Jayson Hilchie, president and chief executive officer. From Element AI, we have Paul Gagnon, legal adviser. From BSA The Software Alliance, we have Christian Troncoso, director of policy. From the Information Technology Association of Canada, we have Nevin French, vice-president of policy.

You will all have seven minutes to give your presentation. If you can make it quicker than seven minutes, then we can get everybody on record.

We're going to get started right away with Jayson Hilchie, from the Entertainment Software Association of Canada.

Mr. Jayson Hilchie (President and Chief Executive Officer, Entertainment Software Association of Canada):

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the committee for the opportunity to participate in this study today.

Again, as stated, my name is Jayson Hilchie, and I'm the president and CEO of the Entertainment Software Association of Canada. The ESAC represents a number of leading video game companies with operations in this country, from multinational publishers and console makers, to local distributors and Canadian-owned independent studios.

Canada's video game industry is one of the most dynamic and prolific in the world. We employ close to 22,000 full-time direct employees, while supporting another 19,000 indirect jobs. Our industry's contribution to Canadian GDP is close to $4 billion, and this is not revenue. These are salaries of our employees, those who our industry supports, along with their collective economic impact, and our impact is considerable. With only 10% of the U.S. population, Canada's video game development industry is roughly half the size of the U.S. industry, which is the world's largest, so I cannot stress enough how important Canada is within a global context with respect to the production and the creation of video games.

Many of the most successful games globally are created right here in Canada. Like many other IP-based industries, piracy is still an issue for us and we have to innovate constantly to battle it. One of the ways we have combatted piracy is to move to a model where most of the games we produce have some sort of online component. This involves creating an account that enables content to be downloaded from a central server or, more commonly, including a multi-player mode within the game. This is very effective in limiting the ability of counterfeiters to flourish as pirated games will not be able to access the online functions that are offered. The only content the player accessing the pirated game will be able to use, in most cases, will be the single-player mode, which within our industry is becoming less and less common.

In addition to making games that have this online functionality I just spoke about, our industry uses technological protection measures to combat piracy, both in the form of software encryption technologies and physical hardware found in video game consoles. These technological protection measures essentially do two things: They work to encrypt the data on a game which thwarts copying it, and they make copied games unreadable on the hardware console. While in many cases these measures do eventually fall victim to committed pirates who work to crack the game, they provide a window for the company to sell legitimate copies during the period of most demand, which is often the first 90 days.

As encryption technology improves, it's taking longer and longer for the pirates to crack the game, which improves and lengthens the window a company has to recoup their investment in their product. In some cases, those who sell what we refer to as “modchips” offer their services online with the promise to allow your console to circumvent the protections found within it and play copied games. These circumvention devices were made illegal in Canada in 2012 as part of Canada's Copyright Modernization Act.

In fact, just last year, Nintendo used Canada's copyright law to successfully sue a Waterloo, Ontario, company that was selling circumvention devices online. After a lengthy process, Nintendo was awarded over $12 million in damages, and multiple media outlets reported the ruling in Federal Court affirmed Canada's copyright law as one of the strongest in the world.

The Copyright Modernization Act has proven effective by providing protections to content creators in the games industry. As our economy moves increasingly to one that involves digital goods and services, it's critical that these protections remain in place. However, we can also do more to ensure that consumers understand the impacts of piracy.

The notice and notice regime in its purest form has intentions to do this, but notices are not consistently forwarded from ISPs as is required, and consumers who receive those notices often do not understand them or ignore them. We believe there's an opportunity for the Government of Canada to work with ISPs to ensure that the notice and notice regime is properly enforced and utilized. Ensuring that these notices of infringement are regularly and consistently forwarded by ISPs is the most effective way to increase accountability and promote awareness and education opportunities for those who are infringing content, intentionally or otherwise. By better educating people about the harms of piracy, we can work to improve conditions for creators of all types.

Thank you very much.

The Chair:

Excellent. Thank you very much.

We're going to move to Paul Gagnon from Element AI, please. You have up to seven minutes.

Mr. Paul Gagnon (Legal Advisor, Element AI):

I have up to seven minutes.[Translation]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to all the members of the committee.

My name is Paul Gagnon. I am a legal advisor with Element AI. I deal with matters of intellectual property and data. [English]

I'll give the testimony on behalf of Element AI in English, although I welcome questions in French in the later stages of today's hearing.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak today. Element AI is a Montreal- and Toronto-based artificial intelligence product company. We're celebrating two years of activity shortly and making headlines all across the world with offices in London, Singapore and Seoul.

It's a great privilege to come before you today, especially as an IP geek. It's a great occasion to come in and comment on copyright reform.

Element AI is bringing fundamental research as quickly as possible into actionable products and solutions for companies. Our momentum is favourable. We're quite proud of our achievements, but the best is yet to come, which is why we're here. We want to discuss how Canada's place as a world leader in AI is not guaranteed. We'd like to invite limited and targeted reform within the Copyright Act, in order to clarify a specific use case around informational analysis, also known as text and data mining.

This lack of certainty around the act impacts a very important activity for the development of artificial intelligence. This informational analysis, within the context of fair dealing, would be beneficial for all Canadians and more specifically as well, those who are active in the sector of AI.

This targeted exemption would help us secure a predictable environment for AI, in order for it to maintain its unprecedented growth. Competition in AI is global. Other countries are actively building policy tools to draw in investment and talent. We urge Canada to do the same.

When we speak to informational analysis, what are we referring to? We're talking about analysis that can be made of data and copyrighted works, in order to draw inferences, patterns and insights. This is informational analysis, not the use of the works themselves, to draw from them and use and extract information from these works. It's distinct from using the works themselves. It's about abstraction. It's not about commercializing the works themselves and undercutting Canadian rights holders.

As a quick example, if we were to look at the paintings in this building when we walked in, it's not about taking pictures of these paintings and making T-shirts. It's about looking at the paintings themselves and drawing patterns, measuring distances and measuring the colours and tones that are used by artists.

To use another example which is more relevant to your day-to-day work in Parliament, if you were to look at the Hansard debates and use them for informational analysis, we wouldn't be binding books and selling the debates. Perhaps we'd be using translated words to build more functional algorithms to translate works. We see that here there's an abstraction. It's not the work itself; it's the information that we can derive that's used.

Data is truly the fuel that powers the engine of AI. Algorithms in AI-based products need diverse, representative and quality data. That is the supply chain around AI to provide actionable insights and data, in order to provide better products and services.

A good old expression in computer science is garbage in, garbage out. This truly applies to artificial intelligence and informational analysis. Our AI will only be as good as the data we provide to it. Therefore, the targeted exemption we want to speak about today aims to broaden this scope, in order for our AI to be quality, representative and in turn, made accessible for Canadians everywhere.

We think that with a clearer right and resolving the legal uncertainty around informational analysis, we can drive fairness, accessibility and inclusion of AI-based solutions. Really, better data means better AI.

Under the current Copyright Act, how is informational analysis understood? How is it apprehended? The Copyright Act protects copyrighted works, but it also protects compilations of copyrighted works and also compilations of data. There are three fronts that are protected.

As you've seen in the works of the standing committee, the Copyright Act is about balancing different interests, users' rights and access, but also rights holders, which is why we suggest that informational analysis be made part of the fair dealing exemptions.

Fair dealing exemptions are limited in purpose. The act clearly states the purposes around what kind of intention we can bring to analysis we can draw, for example, research use, private study or news reporting. Where there's an overarching public interest, the act has clarified that there's a clear purpose that's permitted within fair dealing.

(1630)

Informational analysis, as we've explained it, how is it apprehended as the act exists today? It's not clearly addressed, and so there's legal uncertainty around this. We could look perhaps to the temporary reproduction exemption, but that doesn't quite fit. If you turn to specific fair dealing exemptions, research, private use, this isn't clear. We think it's within reach of Parliament to clarify this, and in turn help drive investment and certainty for Canada's AI sector.

If we look at research purposes more specifically, the uncertainty here is quite impactful. Indeed, it could permit the informational analysis itself under research, but there's clear uncertainty as to whether we can leverage this research into products and solutions. Relying on solely the research exemption might not be enough.

We suggest this exemption not be limited to the identity of the specific entities conducting this informational analysis. Truly, if you look at research around AI, the public sector is quite active, as is the private sector. At Element AI, we collaborate every day with researchers at universities across Canada. If we were to clearly exclude commercial entities such as ours to perform this research, it would fundamentally misapprehend the nature of research in Canada.

What's the impact of this uncertainty? In time, if we do not bring this additional added clarity to informational analysis, it can have real and practical impacts on Canada's competitiveness in the AI sector. It can deter R and D investments, and create risks for businesses. Not having legal clarity around informational analysis disproportionately impacts startups and SMEs. Why? As we all know, certainty and predictability are the currency for our entrepreneurs. On the other hand, big players have deep pockets to litigate and fight through this uncertainty. We might not have this luck for our startups and SMEs.

Should we wait for this to be litigated in court and clarified downstream two or three years on? We don't think so. There's a great opportunity to clarify this now.

We often hear that we live in the age of big data, which is true. In terms of volume, there are massive amounts of data generated every day, but there's a huge data gap. Because we generate that data, it doesn't make it accessible to smaller players. Indeed, there's a huge gap between who controls and has access to this data. To ensure the competitiveness of our SMEs, our startups and our more established companies, it's essential to make sure there can be clearer access to this data in order to bridge this data gap in order for this chasm between Internet giants not to be broader.

committee foss hansard indu 21803 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on October 03, 2018

2018-10-02 PROC 121

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

(1100)

[English]

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

Good morning. Welcome to the 121st meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs as we continue our study 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 Greg Essensa, the Chief Electoral Officer of Ontario. He is appearing by video conference from Toronto.

Thank you for making yourself available today, Mr. Essensa. I know you're very busy, so I'm glad we could finally get a time together. This is very exciting for us. We have lots of great questions.

You can proceed with some opening remarks. We did get your notes, but we haven't translated them yet, which means we can't circulate them yet.

If you would go ahead with your opening remarks, that would be great.

Mr. Greg Essensa (Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Ontario):

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I would like to begin by thanking the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for inviting me to provide my observations on Bill C-76, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts and to make certain consequential amendments.

I welcome the chance to offer you my insights and observations on the electoral process. When I provide comments to a committee of the House of Commons, I am very aware that I am addressing Canada's lawmakers.

Today I would like to briefly address the following topics: the provisions of the bill and my observations from Ontario's 2018 general election.

In reviewing the provisions of this bill and other bills related to elections, I always ask myself whether the change protects the integrity of the electoral process, preserves fairness and promotes transparency. I have reviewed this bill closely and I offer the following observations.

The bill offers amendments that, if passed, would improve access and reduce barriers to voting. A number of the provisions in this bill were implemented in Ontario, and I am highly supportive of them.

I specifically want to highlight the provision that allows voter information cards as a piece of identification. The voter information card is a staple of electoral administration and, in my humble opinion, a core piece of the Canadian electoral fabric. The voter information card unites every elector group, giving them the confidence that they are registered, and provides them with the information they require to cast their ballot. This proposed amendment creates consistency with Ontario's identification requirements, and I applaud this government for recognizing its importance.

Additionally, lengthening the election calendar and extending advance poll hours are important amendments to contribute to the success of the election. I appreciate the flexibility that these provisions and others provide to the chief electoral officer. Election administrators are in the best position to make decisions on how elections are delivered. Allowing the chief electoral officer to make decisions on their mandates while complying with legislation is a key factor of success in overseeing elections.

I will now turn my attention to third party regulation. In 2016 Ontario implemented substantive reform with respect to election finances. While Ontario was undergoing significant electoral reform, I had been asked, and agreed, to serve as an adviser to the Standing Committee on General Government. This committee undertook an extensive process in consulting the public by travelling Ontario and hearing from interested individuals and stakeholder groups on the proposed legislation.

I also appeared three times in front of the standing committee to provide my thoughts on the provisions in this bill. My messaging in this area has been simple and consistent. The concept of the level playing field is central to our democracy. It is also a unifying principle of election administration, tying together the voting process and the campaign process.

Election outcomes are intended to reflect the genuine will of the people. Political finance rules are in place to ensure that all political actors have an equal opportunity to raise and spend funds to advance their message and win votes. Electoral outcomes should not be distorted because of unequal opportunities to influence the electorate. Third parties are no exception to this. Creating a regulation system for third parties is critical in creating a level playing field, and I am supportive of the proposed provisions in this bill.

There are amendments in this bill that align with Ontario's model, with some exceptions. Spending thresholds differ in Ontario compared with what is being proposed in Bill C-76. While I will not comment on the specific amounts and whether it is appropriate or not, what is important to me is that regulation be in place prior to the writ period and during the writ period. In Ontario, prior to the legislative reform in 2016, we never had pre-writ regulation. It was something I long advocated for because of the lack of transparency on what could be incurred by third parties in the six months leading up to an election.

One feature of Bill C-76 that I am quite supportive of is the requirement for third parties to provide interim reports. I believe this contributes to effective oversight and better transparency.

I would also like to highlight the area of foreign spending. I strongly support restricting third parties from using funds from a foreign entity. However, this bill does not address how it will regulate this source of funding. There are no requirements to disclose where third parties are receiving funding from, which could very well be from foreign entities. I highlight that for the committee to consider.

Overall, I view these provisions as a step in the right direction.

The next area I would like to address involves the provisions related to enforcement. In order to effectively enforce, it is important to provide regulators with the tools they require.

(1105)

I am pleased to see the commissioner of Canada elections' ability to issue administrative monetary penalties, compel testimony and lay charges where he or she deems fit. I also believe it is appropriate that the commissioner of Canada elections be relocated to the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer. Being equipped with these tools allows the commissioner to fulfill the mandate effectively and maintain public trust by holding political actors accountable.

I would now like to focus the remainder of my time on my observations from Ontario's 2018 general election.

This year's election saw an unprecedented amount of change. Elections Ontario operationalized four different pieces of legislation in advance of the June 2018 election. These amendments enabled Ontario to implement new boundaries, new technology, new staffing models, new processes and modern tools for all elections-related stakeholders.

The 2018 general election in Ontario, in my humble opinion, was a great success, and the legislation helped support our efforts to provide greater access and modernized services to electors.

There are a few key areas that I'd like to highlight for your consideration.

The first is privacy and security. With an increased focus on personal data and intrusion into public networks, privacy and cybersecurity were and are top of mind.

This was the first general election where technology was implemented, including e-poll books to strike off electors and vote-counting equipment to count ballots.

In order to ensure security, we worked closely with the provincial security adviser, who was appointed by Ontario's secretary of cabinet. We went to him to seek advice on ensuring our processes and systems met thresholds and limited the risk of threat. In coordination with the provincial security adviser, Elections Ontario had a security expert carry out comprehensive audits of our systems, processes and people. The report recommended a number of actions that we implemented to reduce vulnerability.

There is little evidence to suggest that the 2018 general election in Ontario was significantly affected by cybersecurity intrusions, fake news or any other form of electronic interference.

The last area I'd like to speak to is third party spending. With a new regime in place, similar to Bill C-76, third parties now had registration requirements and spending limits for both the pre-writ and writ periods. In the 2018 general election we had a total of 59 third party registrants—34 in the six-month pre-writ period and 25 during the writ period. By comparison, in 2014 we only had 37 third parties registered in the writ period. This represented a 59% increase in the total number of third parties that registered compared to 2014.

At this time it is difficult to assess the overall impact of the new regulations, as we will not receive full financial filings until December of this year. However, I am confident that regulation significantly impacted how much money was spent on third party advertising. I will give you an example. In 2014, 37 registered third parties spent approximately $8.67 million during the writ period alone. In 2018, we had 25 third parties registered in the writ period who, combined, could only have spent $2.55 million under the new regime. This represents a decrease of more than $6.12 million in spending during the writ period. This is a significant reduction, and I look forward to seeing the final expenses of all third parties in December.

One area of challenge for us, though, was in registration requirements. In Ontario, similar to the provisions in Bill C-76, a third party is only required to register once it incurs $500 in expenses. This registration requirement was a challenge for us to navigate and regulate. We received numerous complaints on third parties, many of which had not registered with us, as they kept their spending under $500. The result was unregulated third party advertising. The difficulty we encountered was that many of these parties spent money on advertising exclusively through the Internet. This made it a challenge to ascertain if and when they went past the $500 threshold.

Third party registration is an area of reform I will be commenting on to Ontario's legislators early next year, and something you may wish to consider as a review in this bill.

I would finally like to take this opportunity to thank the committee for inviting me to speak and to offer my perspectives as chief electoral officer of Ontario. I applaud the work this committee is doing on electoral reform, and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have at this time.

(1110)

The Chair:

Thank you very much. That certainly addressed a number of the topics that people wanted to address, so that's great. I appreciate your time.

Now we'll start some questioning with Mr. Simms from the Liberal Party.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Essensa, thank you very much for this. I thoroughly enjoyed it. You were well worth the wait, sir.

Mr. Greg Essensa:

Thank you.

Mr. Scott Simms:

I'll start with the last point that you made concerning your difficulty ascertaining who went above $500 in spending. That causes some alarm

You said you were going to make recommendations to legislators in Queen's Park. Very briefly, what would they be?

committee hansard proc 33578 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on October 02, 2018

2018-10-01 INDU 129

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.

It's another fine Monday afternoon here. Welcome to INDU, where we are continuing our study of the five-year legislative review of the Copyright Act.

Today, from Telus Communications, we have with us Ann Mainville-Neeson, vice-president, broadcasting policy and regulatory affairs, as well as Antoine Malek, senior regulatory legal counsel.

From Association québécoise de la production médiatique, we have Hélène Messier, president and chief executive officer; and Marie-Christine Beaudry, director, legal and business affairs, zone three. That's exciting, zone three.

From the Société professionnelle des auteurs et des compositeurs du Québec, we have Marie-Josée Dupré, executive director, by video conference from Montreal. Can you hear me?

Ms. Marie-Josée Dupré (Executive Director, Société professionnelle des auteurs et des compositeurs du Québec):

Yes, very well. [Translation]

The Chair:

Excellent.[English]

Finally, from Association des réalisateurs et réalisatrices du Québec, we have Gabriel Pelletier, president, and Mylène Cyr, executive director.[Translation]

I'll do my best.[English]

Before we get started, Mr. Albas, I believe you have a notice of motion you'd like to present.

Mr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC):

Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I apologize to the witnesses, and I'll make this very quick.

Obviously this is very timely. I'd like to table a notice of motion.

It reads as follows: That, to assist in the review of the Copyright Act, the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology requests Ministers Freeland and Bains, alongside officials, to come before the committee and explain the impacts of the United-States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) on the intellectual property and copyright regimes in Canada.

Obviously this isn't something we can debate at this time. I do hope that members find it to be timely and that we can discuss this at an upcoming meeting.

Thank you.

The Chair:

Thank you very much.

Now we're going to go to presentations. Why don't we start with Telus Communications?[Translation]

Ms. Mainville-Neeson, you have seven minutes.

Ms. Ann Mainville-Neeson (Vice-President, Broadcasting Policy and Regulatory Affairs, TELUS Communications Inc.):

That's great. Thank you.[English]

Just for a change, I'll make my presentation in English, but I'm happy to respond to any questions in French or in English.

Good afternoon, and thank you on behalf of Telus Communications for the opportunity to appear before the committee.

My name is Ann Mainville-Neeson, and I'm vice-president of broadcasting policy and regulatory affairs at Telus. With me is Antoine Malek, senior regulatory legal counsel at Telus and an intellectual property lawyer.

Telus is a national communications company. Whether it's connecting Canadians through our wireless and wireline businesses or leveraging the power of digital technology to enhance the delivery of health care services, we are committed to connecting with purpose, positioning Canada for success in the digital economy and enhancing economic, educational and health outcomes for all.

We provide a wide range of products and services, including wireline and wireless telephony, broadband Internet access, health services, home automation and security, and also IPTV-based television distribution. In light of earlier testimony that you received from other TV service operators, it is relevant to note that unlike our main competitors, Telus is not vertically integrated, meaning that we do not own any commercial programming services. We are purely an aggregator and distributor of the best content there is to offer.

In striving to be an aggregator of choice and the place where Canadians go to access content, we listen to our customers and we are constantly looking for better ways to meet and anticipate their needs and desires. We know that innovation is essential to competing in the digital environment, where consumers have more choice than ever before. We believe that innovation is essential in keeping the Canadian broadcasting system, which is a major source of income for Canadian artists, healthy and competitive. Accordingly, our remarks today are focused on amendments that would foster innovation by promoting efficiency and by increasing the resiliency of the act in the face of rapid change.

I want to start with one of the areas where amendments enacted in 2012 fell a little short on the innovation front. In 2012, Parliament adopted exceptions that would provide users with the right to record a program for later viewing. This recording can be made on their own device or on a network storage space. When the recording is made in the cloud, it is referred to as a network personal video recorder—NPVR—or sometimes cloud PVR.

While the 2012 amendments were a step in the right direction, the statutory language contemplates a discrete recording for each user. As a result, an NPVR service provider like ourselves might need to store hundreds of thousands—even millions—of copies of the same recording, one for each user who initiates a recording. That kind of excessive duplication is unnecessarily inefficient and costly for the network operator, and creates no value for the rights holder.

Innovation dictates leveraging the benefits of network efficiency by sharing a single recording of a program among all the users who initiated a time-shifted recording of that particular program. Telus recommends that the act be amended to allow this to happen without any additional liability being incurred by the network operator.

Looking to the future and other ways that the act can more broadly foster innovation and be adaptable to technological change, Telus recommends that the risks associated with innovation in the face of statutory ambiguity be distributed more evenly between rights holders and innovators. Specifically, we propose some changes to the statutory damages regime in the act.

Under the current rules, the potential liability posed by statutory damages can be completely detached from either the actual harms suffered by rights holders or any profits derived from an infringement. We recommend that the courts be empowered in all cases to adjust statutory damage awards to align them with the circumstances of the infringement. The courts are already empowered to do this, but in limited circumstances only. Evidence of bad faith should be required to justify statutory damages if they're disproportionate to the infringement. By ensuring that the punitive aspect of these awards is applied only in cases where it is appropriate and desirable to do so, the Copyright Act would no longer be discouraging innovation.

I would now like to turn to the notice and notice regime.

First, Telus agrees with other ISPs who have presented before you that notice and notice is a reasonable policy approach to copyright infringement because it balances the interests of rights holders and users. We also agree with proposals to mandate the form and the content of notices, especially to require them to be machine-readable so that the processing can be as close to fully automated as possible.

(1535)

Telus also agrees with Minister Bains's earlier announcement that notices should not contain extraneous content, such as settlement demands, nor should they contain advertising on where to find legal content, as some have suggested. That is not the purpose of notice and notice.

Telus also echoes TekSavvy's proposal that ISPs be permitted to charge a reasonable fee for forwarding notices. This is not only a matter of fairness to ISPs, which are innocent third parties in copyright disputes; it would also address the potential for misuse of the regime. While the government has announced an intention to take steps to address misuse by prohibiting settlement demands, this doesn't address other forms of misuse, such as fraudulent notices or notices that include phishing links, which pose a security concern for consumers. Adding an economic cost to accessing the regime would go a long way towards minimizing its abuse.

Finally, Telus also proposes that the separate statutory damages provisions under notice and notice be amended to be harmonized with our proposals for amendments to the broader statutory damages regime under the act. Specifically, Telus proposes that under notice and notice, the courts should be given the discretion to lower a minimum award to ensure that it is proportional to any actual harm to rights holders, and that evidence of bad faith on the part of the non-compliant ISP be required to justify a disproportionate and punitive level of damages. Such an amendment would go a long way to helping ISPs deal with the significant and increasing costs that they are required to incur to help rights holders enforce their rights.

In closing, we thank the committee for its work in reviewing this important piece of legislation. Copyright is one of the key legal regimes that governs the digital markets of the modern economy, and we support its intent. In order to maximize the potential for Canada's digital economy, we believe the legislative framework must balance support for creators with the public interest in supporting innovation that leads to new technology and business possibilities for the benefit of all Canadians. Thank you.

The Chair:

Thank you very much.

We're going to move to Association québécoise de la production médiatique. Madame Messier. [Translation]

Ms. Hélène Messier (President and Chief Executive Officer, Association québécoise de la production médiatique):

Good afternoon.

committee hansard indu 33241 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on October 01, 2018

2018 Fall newsletter / infolettre automne 2018

A Word From David

Dear friends,

This is already the tenth edition of our newsletter. Over the past five years, since starting my campaign, and in the three years that I have had the privilege of being your representative in Ottawa, I have met a tremendous number of truly remarkable people offering various amazing, interesting, original, and sometimes plainly amusing products and services.

Last Christmas, my staff got together and bought me a custom wooden bowtie with a small image of a steamtrain etched on one side and a biplane on the other side, produced by artists in the greater MontTremblant region named MarcAntoine and François who run a small business called Créations Yarox.

With the resumption of Parliament in January, I immediately started wearing this unique local creation in the House of Commons where there is an informal tradition of bowtie Thursdays.

And it got me thinking: there are so many unique and special things that people in this riding do, let's see if we can make a sampling of them for my newsletter. We are pleased to present you this issue which focuses on the theme of entrepreneurship.

There is quite a range of local and unique entrepreneurs in every sector. You will learn about some of these and the passionate people behind them from among the many I have had a chance to visit over the past couple of years. There are many left for us to discover, and so I invite you to never hesitate to send me suggestions.

With two federally-funded CFDCs, known in French as SADCs, the Antoine-Labelle CLD, the Laurentides CDE, the Pays-d’en-Haut MRC economic service, and 8 Chambers of Commerce and similar organisations, there is a tremendous amount of resources available to those looking to start or promote their businesses here.

There are thousands of small businesses and self-employed workers who form the basis of our local economy and contribute to the reputation of our region. I raise my hat to each of these business-owners here and their teams. My objective with this newsletter is not to offer an exhaustive list of them—that would not technically be possible—but rather to share my enthusiasm for a community full of people who I take so much pride in representing in Ottawa and in seeing the fascinating and creative dynamism that makes up the economy of Laurentides—Labelle.

- David

Mot de David

Chers amis,

Il s’agit déjà de la dixième édition de ce bulletin de circonscription. Depuis le lancement de ma campagne, il y a 5 ans, et au cours des trois dernières années - ayant le privilège d’être votre représentant à Ottawa - j’ai rencontré un nombre incalculable de gens vraiment formidables, ici dans la circonscription. Parmi eux, des entrepreneurs qui proposent des produits et services originaux, et parfois même amusants.

À Noël l’an dernier, mon équipe s’est unie pour m’offrir un nœud papillon en bois, personnalisé avec les petites images d’un train à vapeur et d’un avion-biplan. Ce nœud papillon a été produit par Marc-Antoine et François, des artistes de la région de Mont-Tremblant qui possèdent une petite entreprise appelée Créations Yarox.

Lors de la reprise des travaux parlementaires en janvier, j’ai immédiatement commencé à porter cette création locale unique à la Chambre des communes, entre autres, parce qu’une tradition informelle veut que les députés portent des nœuds papillon les jeudis.

C’est à ce moment que je me suis dit: « des entrepreneurs de la circonscription font des choses tellement uniques et spéciales, pourquoi ne pas présenter des exemples dans mon infolettre ? » C’est donc ce que nous vous offrons dans ce bulletin, qui met en valeur le thème de l’entreprenariat.

Il y a toute une gamme d’entrepreneurs locaux uniques dans tous les secteurs. Vous découvrirez quelques-unes de ces entreprises, et les gens passionnés qui y œuvrent, parmi les centaines que j’ai visité au cours des dernières années. De nombreuses autres nous restent à découvrir. Je vous invite, ainsi, à ne pas hésiter à me faire des suggestions.

Avec deux SADC financées par le gouvernement fédéral, le CLD d’Antoine-Labelle, la CDE de la MRC des Laurentides, la service économique de la MRC des Pays-d’enHaut, et 8 chambres de commerce et organisations similaires; des ressources considérables sont mises à la disposition de celles et ceux qui cherchent à concrétiser une idée, à développer leur entreprise et la promouvoir bien au-delà des frontières de notre région.

La circonscription compte des milliers d’entreprises et de travailleurs autonomes, qui sont à la base de l’économie locale et contribuent à la renommée de notre région. Je lève mon chapeau à chacune et chacun des dirigeants d’entreprises de chez-nous et leurs équipes. Mon objectif dans cet envoi collectif n’est pas de dresser une liste exhaustive d’entreprises — la chose n’aurait techniquement pas été possible — mais plutôt de vous transmettre mon enthousiasme pour une communauté et des gens que j’ai tant de fierté à représenter à Ottawa, en constatant à chaque jour leurs projets fascinants et créatifs, et leur dynamisme qui façonnent l’économie de Laurentides—Labelle.

- David

KNOWING OUR REGION: Then and now...

As the saying goes, you can’t know where you’re going if you don’t know where you’ve been. I love my country, and I’m passionate about exploring the origins of the places and people shaping this nation. That’s why I’ve invited my father, local historian Joseph Graham, to tell us a bit about the history of our region. If there are any historical subjects you want to know more about, please let us know. Enjoy!

CONNAÎTRE NOTRE RÉGION : d’hier à aujourd’hui

Il y a un adage qui dit : il faut savoir d’où l’on vient pour savoir où l’on va. J’aime mon pays et je trouve passionnant de découvrir les origines des lieux et des gens qui le façonnent. J’ai donc invité mon père, l’historien local Joseph Graham, à nous parler un peu de l’histoire de notre région. Vous recevrez au cours des prochaines années plusieurs autres communications du type de ce journal et j’inclurai le plus souvent possible une section historique. D’ailleurs s’il y a des sujets dont vous voulez connaître l’histoire; faites-nous le savoir. Bonne lecture !

Laurentides—Labelle’s Earliest Trading Culture

In the earliest days of contact between traders and the Anishinaabe, the coureurs des bois found that deep integration into Algonquin society was the best way to establish trade, acquiring furs for French commerce. Their greatest obstacle was not resistance from their trading partners but from the Catholic Church as the traders ‘went native,’ happily absorbed into and accepted by their hosts. Jean-François Beaudet, author of Dans les filets du Diable, describes how the coureurs des bois learned to accommodate the religious authority by mixing aspects of their own religious rituals with those of their Indigenous hosts.

They were dealing with a society that was not based on property or ownership, but rather a society in which sharing was a measure of social status. This new lifestyle was enticing, even seductive, but what really drew the traders back to the Anishinaabe and the Iroquoian (Huron) peoples was the products they exchanged. While the Church fostered an image of nomadic devil-worshippers, the traders found a mercantile society that extended along all of the river systems. We recall the fur trade, but the Indigenous Nations maintained an active exchange of products ranging from canoes and clothing to food products, grains and much more. On Jacques Cartier’s second visit, he was informed that a month’s journey to the south he could trade for oranges. One is left with an image of a large, developed culture that traded actively across the continent, with certain specialties associated with various regions. In Laurentides—Labelle, those were clothing, canoes and dried fruit and meat in the form of pemmican, traded with the Huron (Wendat) in exchange for corn, beans and tobacco. Their trade was based on a much different social foundation and was more an exchange of gifts and a celebration than a profit-making enterprise.

According to the scientist and citizen of the Potawatomi Nation, Robin Wall Kimmerer, the Anishinaabe word minidewak means ‘giving from the heart,’ playing on the root word for berries, min, and the heart shape of the strawberry, and it formed the basis of the gift ceremonies that drove their economy and continues to provide meaning and purpose in their culture. Imagine a trading society that confers status through the act of giving. It turns our moneydriven society on its head, yet theirs worked for thousands of years.

Stephen Jakes Beaven was a trader who met the Anishinaabe as they came down the Rouge River in the spring, their canoes filled with gifts, at what is now Beaven Lake. He must have known how to celebrate and to give, living, as he did, as much in the gift world as in the monetary one. When the surveyor G. N. Allbright created the township of Arundel in 1857, like all the other surveyors he cut up the land into private properties that would be assigned to settlers. Beaven was not included in that category, nor were the Anishinaabe who fed and maintained Allbright’s team. They observed to Allbright that a certain field should not be measured or made into private property, using the subtler locutions of their culture to express their wish that it not fall into the settler category. He proceeded anyways, and some of the Anishinaabe did become settlers, as did some of the descendants of Beaven. Among the costs to them would be their traditions, spiritual beliefs, gift economy and the products that they had traded for millennia. Most Anshinaabe moved into more remote regions of their historic territories, but the continental gift economy proved incompatible with modern consumerism.

- Joseph Graham

Les débuts du commerce dans Laurentides—Labelle

À l’époque des premiers contacts entre les Anishinaabes et les commerçants coureurs des bois, ces derniers ont constaté qu’une profonde intégration au sein de la société algonquienne constituait le meilleur moyen d’établir des liens commerciaux et d’acquérir des fourrures pour le commerce avec les Français. Leur plus grand obstacle n’est toutefois pas venu d’une résistance de leurs partenaires commerciaux, mais plutôt de l’Église catholique, car les commerçants, chaleureusement accueillis et acceptés par leurs hôtes, adoptaient les us et coutumes autochtones. Jean-François Beaudet, auteur de Dans les filets du Diable, décrit comment les coureurs des bois ont appris à satisfaire l’autorité religieuse en mélangeant des aspects de leurs propres rituels religieux avec ceux de leurs hôtes autochtones.

Les coureurs des bois devaient traiter avec une société qui n’était pas fondée sur la propriété ou la possession, mais plutôt sur l’échange, une société où le statut social se mesurait à l’aune du partage. Ce nouveau mode de vie était attrayant, voire séduisant aux yeux des commerçants, mais ce qui les a vraiment poussés à tisser des liens avec les peuples anishinaabe et iroquois, ce sont les produits qu’ils échangeaient. Tandis que l’Église entretenait une image de ces peuples comme étant des adorateurs du diable nomades, les commerçants ont plutôt découvert une société commerçante s’étendant tout le long du réseau des cours d’eau. Nous nous souvenons de l’époque du commerce des fourrures, mais les nations autochtones avaient déjà un réseau actif d’échange de produits allant des canots aux vêtements, en passant par des produits alimentaires, des grains et bien plus.

Lors de sa seconde visite, on a informé Jacques Cartier qu’une expédition d’un mois vers le sud lui permettrait de troquer des produits contre des oranges. On peut donc conclure à la présence d’une grande culture développée qui commerçait activement sur tout le continent, avec des spécialités associées aux diverses régions. Dans Laurentides—Labelle, ces spécialités étaient des vêtements, des canots, des fruits séchés et de la viande sous forme de pemmican. Ces produits étaient échangés avec les Hurons (Wendats) contre du maïs, des haricots et du tabac. Le commerce de ces peuples était fondé sur des assises sociales très différentes et relevait davantage de l’échange de cadeaux et d’une célébration que d’une entreprise faisant des profits.

Selon le scientifique et membre de la Nation Citizen Potawatomi, Robin Wall Kimmerer, le mot anishinaabe minidewak, qui signifie «donner du fond du cœur», tire son origine de la racine «min» pour les petits fruits, et de la forme en cœur de la fraise. Ce concept formait la base des cérémonies de remise de cadeaux faisant tourner l’économie de ces peuples et est toujours porteur de sens et de raison d’être dans leur culture. Imaginez un modèle de société où le statut est conféré par l’action de donner. Voilà qui chamboule complètement notre modèle de société axé sur l’argent, et pourtant, le leur a fonctionné pendant des milliers d’années.

Stephen Jakes Beaven était un commerçant qui rencontrait les Anishinaabes lorsqu’ils descendaient la rivière Rouge au printemps, leurs canots chargés de cadeaux, où se trouve maintenant le lac Beaven. Il devait savoir comment célébrer et donner à la manière des Autochtones, car il vivait autant dans l’univers des cadeaux que dans celui de l’argent. Lorsque l’arpenteur G. N. Allbright a créé le canton d’Arundel en 1857, comme tous les autres arpenteurs, il a divisé les terres en propriétés privées devant être assignées aux colons. Beaven ne faisait pas partie de cette catégorie, pas plus que les Anishinaabes qui nourrissaient les membres de l’équipe d’Allbright et subvenaient à leurs besoins. Ils ont fait observer à Allbright qu’une certaine étendue de terre ne devrait pas être mesurée ou transformée en propriété privée, en employant les locutions plus subtiles de leur culture pour exprimer leur souhait qu’elle ne se retrouve pas dans la catégorie des terres à assigner aux colons. Allbright s’est exécuté malgré tout, et certains Anishinaabes ont fini par devenir des colons, tout comme certains descendants de Beaven.

Il leur en a coûté, entre autres, leurs traditions, leurs croyances spirituelles, leur culture économique fondée sur les cadeaux et les produits qu’ils commercialisaient depuis des millénaires. La plupart des Anishinaabes se sont installés dans des régions plus éloignées de leurs territoires historiques, mais le modèle économique de l’échange – économie du cadeau – s’est révélé incompatible avec le consumérisme moderne.

- Joseph Graham

View the original publication.

Voir la publication originale.

history newsletter 2327 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:45 on October 01, 2018

2018-09-28 11:06 House intervention / intervention en chambre

Air accidents, Anniversary, Canadian Forces, Deaths and funerals, Military aircraft, Statements by Members,

Accidents aériens, Aéronefs militaires, Anniversaire, Décès et funérailles, Déclarations de députés, Forces canadiennes,

Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, I will be at a ceremony in Saint-Donat to mark the 75th anniversary of the B-24D Liberator Harry crash.

On October 20, 1943, 24 Canadian military personnel returning home from the battlefield died on Black Mountain, which lies between my riding and Joliette. The crash site has become an important historic site in our region. It is the worst tragedy the Royal Canadian Air Force has ever experienced on Canadian soil.

I salute those who watch over the Liberator Harry, and the volunteers who have taken care of the site over the years. I congratulate André Gaudet and everyone who worked with him to organize this commemorative gathering. I am grateful to Héli-Tremblant, which volunteered to transport veterans to the mountaintop by helicopter.

I want to express my sincere respect for the families and descendants of the victims. It is our duty to remember all of the aviators and soldiers who have served our country.

Monsieur le Président, dimanche prochain, j'aurai l'occasion de participer à une cérémonie soulignant le 75e anniversaire de l'écrasement du Liberator Harry, un bombardier B24D, à Saint-Donat.

Située à la frontière de ma circonscription et de celle de Joliette, la montagne Noire a vu périr 24 militaires canadiens qui revenaient des champs de guerre, le 20 octobre 1943, devenant ainsi un lieu historique important dans notre région. Cet événement dramatique demeure la pire tragédie de l'Aviation royale canadienne à survenir en sol canadien.

Je salue les gardiens du Liberator Harry et les bénévoles qui ont entretenu le site au fil des années. Je félicite André Gaudet et ses collaborateurs pour l'organisation de ce rassemblement de commémoration, ainsi qu'Héli-Tremblant qui s'est porté volontaire pour amener des vétérans par hélicoptère au sommet de la montagne.

J'offre mon plus sincère respect aux familles et aux descendants des victimes. Nous avons un devoir de mémoire envers tous les aviateurs et soldats qui ont servi notre pays.

Watch | Hansard

Ecoutez | Hansard

hansard parlchmbr statements tv 349 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 20:26 on September 28, 2018

2018-09-27 PROC 120

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

(1535)

[English]

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

Good afternoon, and welcome to the 120th meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Mr. Bittle.

Mr. Chris Bittle (St. Catharines, Lib.):

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the minister for being here, and I apologize for interrupting before we begin, but we did have an agreement with the Conservatives that the minister would appear prior to clause-by-clause proceeding. We have a motion before this committee that needs to be finalized. It needs to be voted on, and I think we should take a moment. It won't take long. We've debated it all week.

The Conservatives have been ragging the puck. It's like a bad episode from the movie Groundhog Day, time after time, delay after delay, to prevent clause-by-clause from starting. The Canadian people want to see us bring this forward.

The CEO of Elections Canada said that this is a good bill. He said it's not a perfect bill, so let's get to clause-by-clause and make this bill better.

We have a motion before the committee. I don't want to take up any more time, but I think we should vote on that bill and get clause-by-clause started, and have a date set for the beginning and the end, and then we can quickly proceed to questioning the minister.

The Chair:

We'd have to vote on the amendment first.

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, CPC):

Sorry, Mr. Chair. Am I mistaken about this? I think, and I might be mistaken, that procedurally this is not the same meeting.

I'm not sure if Mr. Bittle is moving a new motion that we not hear from the minister but instead move to the motion that was before the committee, or perhaps he is moving that we withdraw that motion. Procedurally, I'm just not sure how it works.

This meeting was not called to deal with that issue, the issue of the motion. It was called to hear from the minister. There was a separate meeting this morning, which has adjourned, and we had a discussion at the committee about calling a new meeting following this one, at which the minister would appear, at which we would deal with Ms. Sahota's motion, to which Mr. Nater had made an amendment. It seems to me that it's procedurally out of order to simply assert that we should be on that now. Although, as I say, it may be procedurally acceptable for Mr. Bittle to move such a motion.

I will just editorially say it strikes me as being bad form to do that, at this time. That's just an editorial, but I would like my procedural question answered.

The Chair:

Mr. Christopherson.

Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP):

Can I get a ruling on the question, please? There's no sense in my arguing something that I may have already won depending on the ruling. If you don't mind, I'll wait.

The Chair:

Okay, the clerk tells me that Mr. Reid is somewhat in order, but Mr. Bittle could propose a motion that we move onto discussion of the other motion. It's not debatable, and if that passed then we would move onto the discussion he's having.

Mr. David Christopherson:

I'm good.

Mr. Chris Bittle:

Then I propose we do that, followed by having the minister speak.

The Chair:

Okay.

All in favour?

Mr. Scott Reid:

Could we have a recorded vote on this one, Chair?

The Chair:

We'll have a recorded vote.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

Mr. Scott Reid:

Mr. Chair, I believe I am correct in assuming that at this point we are once again back to discussing not the motion but the amendment to the motion.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Scott Reid: Okay.

Are we at a point in the proceedings where I could speak to the amendment to the motion? Am I right that the speaking order was established? I guess it's only a convention, a best practice, that we—

The Chair:

You're the only person on the list, so you can go ahead.

Mr. Scott Reid:

Right, in fact the speaking order that we had is gone and we don't go back to it. I think that's right.

I'm just trying to work out what it is, that's all.

The Chair:

Go ahead.

(1540)

Mr. Scott Reid:

Look, Mr. Chair, it's unfortunate that we're in the middle of a procedural discussion that we all assumed would be suspended for an hour while we heard from the minister.

This is a strong-arm tactic to keep us.... I'm not sure whether the government's point is that they don't want the minister to speak, or whether they want to teach us a lesson: You don't get to hear from the minister unless you just collapse like a house of cards. This is actually an offensive tactic.

If we have to, we can talk for some length of time and we can reschedule the minister's appointment.

committee hansard proc 17523 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on September 27, 2018

2018-09-27 PROC 119

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

(1105)

[English]

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

Good morning. Welcome to meeting 119 of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. This meeting is being held in public.

I already have two people who wish to speak. The standard line is that Elvis has left the room and Christopherson's on the bus. He will be here shortly.

For members' information, Greg Essensa, the Chief Electoral Officer of Ontario, has advised me that he's available to appear by video conference next week. We have therefore gone ahead and scheduled his appearance from 11a.m. to noon on Tuesday, October 2.

As well, a delegation from Kenya will be here at the end of October. They're related to broadcasting. They're going to want to meet with us. If they want to meet with us, I'll do what I always do with foreign delegations and have an informal meeting where anyone who wants to come can come.

Yes, Mr. Nater.

Mr. John Nater (Perth—Wellington, CPC):

Mr. Chair, we couldn't hear what was said about Mr. Essensa. Could you please repeat that part?

The Chair:

Greg Essensa, the Chief Electoral Officer of Ontario, has advised me that he's available to appear by video conference next week. I have therefore gone ahead and scheduled his appearance from 11 a.m. to noon on Tuesday, October 2.

We were doing the motion last week, and I had two people who had their hands up: Chris and Ruby.

Who wants to go first?

Ms. Ruby Sahota (Brampton North, Lib.):

I just want to remind everyone that we have a motion on the table that we'd started debating a little bit.

Does everyone have a copy of the motion? It's being circulated. Perfect.

Now that the motion and the amendment to the motion have been distributed, I want to reiterate, and I think I took a fair amount of time last time explaining—

An hon. member: [Inaudible—Editor]

An hon. member: On division.

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

We're on the amendment.

Ms. Ruby Sahota:

We are on the amendment, yes.

I think I took a fair amount of time explaining my reasoning for bringing the motion that I brought forth. After that, John made an amendment to that motion.

I just want to state again and remind you guys that we are not willing to make any amendments until we have set forth the dates for the study, a beginning date and an end date. We want to know when we can start clause-by-clause. Our proposed end date is October 16. Until we have that agreed to, we won't be entertaining any amendments.

I'll hand it over to Chris.

Mr. Chris Bittle (St. Catharines, Lib.):

Thank you, Ruby.

I'm just getting frustrated, and I know that a number of people on the committee are getting frustrated because it's just been delay after delay. I tip my hat to the Conservatives for their best attempts to make it look like they're not delaying things, but after submitting dozens of witnesses, many of whom had nothing to contribute, many of whom had no expertise.... I know one was convicted of a criminal offence and was proud of it; one witness they brought in to laugh at. We have no path forward.

This was a campaign commitment. I can appreciate that they may not want to see undone what was done by the Harper government in terms of the so-called Fair Elections Act. However, this was something that we promised the Canadian people we would do. We've heard from the chief electoral officer multiple times and even multiple times on the CEO report beforehand. He's come and testified on multiple occasions that this is a good bill. He has said that it's not a perfect bill, and I'll admit that.

It's time to go to clause-by-clause. There's time to improve the bill. We can make it better. We want to hear from the Conservatives. We want to hear from the NDP, but we have to move that forward. The Conservatives promised us. We had an agreement. As a lawyer, I know that an agreement to agree isn't an agreement, but we entered into a good faith agreement that the Conservatives would come up with a date to start clause-by-clause. We're still waiting for that, so again, there's more delay.

I expect that there's nothing further, that they will again try to rag the puck, drag out the clock and waste another day. It's time to move this forward. The chief electoral officer is here. We've even gone forward. I know that the Liberals would be willing to hear from the Chief Electoral Officer, which is another request. The Conservatives, in an effort to delay, try to make their requests seem reasonable. It's reasonable to hear from the chief electoral officer if he's available, even though we have invited this witness several times. He said that he wasn't available to attend. It was pushed and pushed that we needed to hear from this witness, that we couldn't possibly start until we heard from this witness. Well, we're hearing from this witness. Let's come up with a date.

We have a motion on the floor. The Conservatives are being unreasonable. It's time to push this forward. It's time to get things going. It's time to move things along because Elections Canada needs this to move forward.

I implore the members of the Conservative Party to cease the filibuster. Let's move on with this, and let's get this forward.

Thank you.

(1110)

The Chair:

Mr. Reid.

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, CPC):

Just a word of warning to everybody. You really, really don't want to hear me if I haven't had my morning coffee, and this is the start for me. It's not that you don't want to hear me; it's just that you will have no idea what I'm saying and neither will I. Thank you.

We are, I believe, speaking to Mr. Nater's amendment to Ms. Sahota's motion. I believe that's correct.

Before I get into addressing it directly, I think it would be appropriate for me to respond a little bit to Mr. Bittle's commentary. I do object a bit. I say I object, but I want to be clear: I'm not objecting to Mr. Bittle's sincerity at anything he says; I object to some of the ostensible facts that I think he presented.

He said that some of the witnesses were not very good witnesses. He was harsher than that, a good deal harsher than that. They didn't have anything worthwhile to say, I think was the phrase he used. I don't think we ought to be saying that about our witnesses. At least, I would encourage colleagues, when they actually think that, and I have had that thought myself one or two times in the course of my 17 years here, but I hope I have always expressed that particular thought privately as opposed to publicly.

I actually thought the witnesses on the whole have been pretty good.

I think, as well, that with regard to inviting Mr. Essensa, I don't believe anyone can say there's been any nefariousness in our repeated efforts to get Mr. Essensa here. I think this is either our third attempt or our fourth attempt at that. He's a busy guy.

He was in the middle of an election campaign the first time we called. That's a good reason for a chief electoral officer not to be available. In the aftermath, they have recounts and all the other things that keep a chief electoral officer busy. This is a chief electoral officer for a jurisdiction that has a 100-odd seats in it. He is a busy person.

Most recently, he was quite specific as to why he was not available. He had a very specific reason. He didn't tell us what the meeting was, but he had something on his agenda that he couldn't get out of. We can all relate to that. We've all had those things.

We're finally inviting him back again, and he has accepted. One of our staff, Adam Church, who always has something intelligent to say on every subject, pointed out to me that maybe the reason Mr. Essensa never comes when we invite him is that we always invite him on 48 hours' notice. I kind of agree with that comment.

If you say to me that you're putting on a golf tournament on Saturday, no matter how good the cause is, well, it's Saturday. But if you say we have a golf tournament coming up next June, I'm much more available. Now, I may regret it later when I get there and say I could have used the Saturday for a camping trip. I actually don't like those charity golf tournaments that much.

(1115)

The Chair:

committee hansard proc 34236 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on September 27, 2018

2018-09-26 INDU 128

Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

(1530)

[English]

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

Good afternoon, everybody. Welcome to another exciting meeting of the INDU committee while we continue our legislative review of the Copyright Act.

Today we have with us, from Teksavvy Solutions, Andy Kaplan-Myrth, vice-president, regulatory and carrier affairs; from BCE, Robert Malcolmson, senior vice-president, regulatory affairs, and Mark Graham, senior legal counsel; from Rogers Communications, David Watt, senior vice-president, regulatory, and Kristina Milbourn, director of copyright and broadband; and finally, from Shaw Communications, Cynthia Rathwell, vice-president, legislative and policy strategy, along with—he's not on our list—Jay Kerr-Wilson, legal counsel, Fasken.

Welcome.

Thank you, everybody, for coming today. Each group will have up to seven minutes to make their presentation and then we will get into our rounds of questioning.

We're going to get started right away with Teksavvy Solutions.

Mr. Kaplan-Myrth, you have up to seven minutes. Go ahead, please.

Mr. Andy Kaplan-Myrth (Vice-President, Regulatory and Carrier Affairs, TekSavvy Solutions Inc.):

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members.

My name is Andy Kaplan-Myrth. I am VP, regulatory and carrier affairs at TekSavvy. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to share our perspective and experience with the Copyright Act.

TekSavvy is an independent Canadian Internet and phone services provider based in southwestern Ontario and Gatineau. We've been serving customers for 20 years, and we now provide service to over 300,000 customers in every province. Over the years, we've consistently defended network neutrality and protected our customers' privacy rights, in the context of copyright and in other contexts.

TekSavvy is different from the other witnesses here today in two important ways, for the purposes of this review. First, while we take copyright infringement very seriously, we do not own media content that's broadcasted or distributed. We're appearing here as an Internet service provider and not as a content provider or rights holder.

Second, to provide services to most of our end-users, we build out our networks to a certain extent and then we use wholesale services that we buy from carriers to cover the last mile, to reach homes and businesses. Because of that wholesale services layer, things sometimes work very differently for us compared to for the incumbent ISPs.

I'm going to focus my comments today on two areas: First, notice and notice and our concerns with the way it currently works; and second, our opposition to proposals to block websites to enforce copyright.

I'll turn first to the notice and notice regime. When notice and notice first came into effect, TekSavvy expended significant resources to develop systems to receive and process notices. Maintaining those systems and hiring staff to process notices continues to be a challenge for a small ISP like TekSavvy. I'll get to our concerns, but I want to start by noting that, in principle at least, notice and notice is a reasonable policy approach to copyright infringement that balances the interests of both rights holders and end-users. At the same time, now that it's been in place for nearly four years, we can see that notice and notice needs some adjustments. We would recommend three tweaks to the current notice and notice regime.

First, a standard is needed to allow ISPs to process notices automatically in a way that's consistent with Canadian law. On average, we receive thousands of infringement notices per week. They come from dozens of companies and use scores of different templates, fewer than half of which can be processed automatically. In effect, notice forwarding is an expensive and difficult service that we provide to rights holders at no cost and for which we're expected to provide a 100% service level. That's not sustainable.

Infringement notices are emails that generally have a block of plain text followed by a block of code. Some senders use notices with a block of code that follows a Canadian standard, which contains all of the elements of the Copyright Act that allow us to forward those notices. If they have the code that follows the Canadian standard, those notices can be processed automatically, without the need for a human to actually open them and review the content.

However, many notices use code adapted from American copyright notices that don't include everything we require in the Canadian Copyright Act. Others are in plain text only; they have no code. When that happens, a human needs to actually read the text of the notice to confirm that it has the required content before it can be forwarded. Both of those notices have to be processed manually. That's work-intensive and slow—and realistically, it is not sustainable as volumes increase. If rights holders were required to use a Canadian notice standard, ISPs would be able to automatically process their notices and better handle a high volume of notices.

Second, a fee that ISPs could charge to process notices should be established. Currently there's essentially no cost for rights holders to send infringement notices. As long as they can send notices at no cost, then even if they get settlements from only a small number of end-users, there will be a business model for rights holders to send greater and greater volumes of notices. Rather, ISPs bear the cost for processing those notices and then answering the many customer questions they generate. Even a small fee would help to transfer the cost back to rights holders from ISPs and constrain the volume of notices. We already get thousands of notices per week. I expect larger ISPs get far more.

I'm not necessarily suggesting we need to reduce those numbers, but we need to create some economic pressure to prevent them from ballooning indefinitely. The Copyright Act already contemplates that a fee could be established, and we recommend that a fee be established to protect ISPs and end-users from being flooded with unlimited numbers of notices.

Third, infringement notices should not be able to contain extraneous content. Many infringement notices contain content that is intimidating to end-users or that can violate customer privacy. In some cases, they don't reference Canadian law at all.

Some notices include content that's more familiar from scams and spam: advertising for other services, settlement offers, or personalized links that secretly reveal information about the end-user to the sender. This puts ISPs in a difficult position, since we're required to forward notices to end-users, including whatever extraneous, misleading or harmful content may be included. This does not serve the purposes of the notice and notice regime, and we recommend that the content or form of notices be prescribed so they can contain only the elements they are required to contain.

Finally, turning briefly to site blocking, earlier this year a group of media companies proposed a new site-blocking regime to the CRTC aimed at policing copyright infringement. TekSavvy opposed that proposal at the CRTC, and we would oppose any similar proposal here. Simply put, such site blocking would be a violation of common carriage and network neutrality without being especially effective, all without any real urgent justification. TekSavvy strongly encourages you to oppose any such site-blocking proposals.

Thank you. I will be pleased to answer any questions.

(1535)

The Chair:

Excellent. Thank you very much.

We're going to move to BCE.

Mr. Malcolmson, you have up to seven minutes.

Mr. Robert Malcolmson (Senior Vice-President, Regulatory Affairs, BCE Inc.):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and honourable committee members.

My name is Robert Malcolmson, senior vice-president of regulatory affairs at BCE. With me today is my colleague Mark Graham, senior counsel, legal and regulatory at BCE. We appreciate your invitation to provide Bell's views on how to maximize the benefits to Canadians and our economy through the review of the Copyright Act.

Bell is Canada's largest communications company, employing 51,000 Canadians and investing $4 billion per year in advanced networks and media content. These investments allow us to provide advanced communications services that form the backbone of Canada's digital economy. We are also a key supporter of Canada's cultural and democratic system, investing approximately $900 million per year in Canadian content and operating the largest networks of both TV and local radio stations in the country.

I think we bring a unique and balanced perspective to the issues you are considering. As a content creator and major economic partner with Canada's creative community, we understand the importance of copyright and effective remedies to combat piracy. As an Internet intermediary, we also understand the need for balanced rules that do not unduly impede legitimate innovation. I look forward to sharing this perspective with you today.

I'll begin with piracy. There is an emerging consensus among creators, copyright owners, legitimate commercial users and intermediaries that large-scale and often commercially motivated piracy operations are a growing problem in Canada. Piracy sites now regularly reach up to 15.3% of Canadian households through widely available and easy-to-use illegal set-top boxes. This is up from effectively zero five years ago.

In addition, last year there were 2.5 billion visits to piracy sites to access stolen TV content. One in every three Canadians obtained music illegally in 2016. Each of these measures has grown significantly over time. According to recent research conducted for ISED and Canadian Heritage, 26% of Canadians self-report as accessing pirated content online. TV piracy in Canada has an estimated economic impact in the range of $500 million to $650 million annually.

In the light of these concerning trends, we believe the most urgent task facing the committee in this review is to modernize the act and related enforcement measures to meet the challenges posed by global Internet piracy without unduly burdening legal businesses. To be clear, this does not mean targeting individual Canadians who are accessing infringing material. Rather, it means addressing the operators of commercial-scale copyright-infringing services. It is these large infringing operations that harm the cultural industries that employ more than 600,000 Canadians, account for approximately 3% of our GDP, and tell the uniquely Canadian stories that contribute to our shared cultural identity.

With this in mind we have four recommendations.

First, we recommend modernizing the existing the criminal provisions in the act. Criminal penalties for organized copyright crime are an effective deterrent that do not impact individual users or interfere with legitimate innovation.

Section 42 of the Copyright Act already contains criminal provisions for content theft undertaken for commercial purposes, but they have grown outdated. They deal with illegal copying, while modern formats of content theft rely on streaming. These provisions should be made technologically neutral so that they apply equally to all forms of commercial-scale content theft.

Second, we recommend increasing public enforcement of copyright. In jurisdictions such as the U.K. and the United States, law enforcement and other public officials are actively involved in enforcement actions against the worst offenders. The committee should recommend that the government create and consider enshrining in the act an administrative enforcement office and that it direct the RCMP to prioritize digital piracy investigations.

Third, we recommend maintaining the existing exemptions from liability related to the provision of networks and services in the digital economy. These exemptions protect service innovation without diluting the value of copyright.

Fourth and finally, we recommend considering a new provision that specifically empowers courts to order intermediaries to contribute to remedying infringements. This would apply to intermediaries such as ISPs, web hosts, domain name registrars, search engines, payments processors, and advertising networks. In practice this would mean that a new section of the Copyright Act would allow a court to issue an order directly to, for example, a web host to take down an egregious piracy site, a search engine to delist it, a payment processor to stop collecting money for it, or a registrar to revoke its domain.

(1540)

While financial liability for these intermediaries is not appropriate, they can and should be expected to take these reasonable steps to contribute to protecting the value of copyright, which is essential to a modern digital and creative economy.

Thank you for the opportunity to present our views. We look forward to your questions.

The Chair:

Thank you very much.

We're going to move to Rogers Communications.

committee hansard indu 38999 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on September 26, 2018

2018-09-25 PROC 118

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

(1105)

[English]

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

Good morning. Welcome to the 118th meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Welcome, Mr. Cullen. Welcome, Ms. May. It's great to have you here.

We will continue on Bill C-76, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other acts and to make certain consequential amendments.

We're pleased to be joined by Stéphane Perrault, Canada's Chief Electoral Officer. He is accompanied by Anne Lawson, deputy chief electoral officer, regulatory affairs; and Michel Roussel, deputy chief electoral officer, electoral events and innovation.

For the information of members, we invited the Chief Electoral Officer of Ontario to appear today, but he declined due to prior commitments.

Thank you for coming. You probably have better attendance than some of us; you've been here lots of times. It's great to have you back.

Mr. Perrault, we'll let you make some opening remarks, and then we'll go on to some questions.

Mr. Stéphane Perrault (Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada):

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's always a pleasure to be here and to support the work of the committee. Hopefully this morning my colleagues and I will be of assistance to the committee as it reviews Bill C-76.

I don't have any written remarks. I would like, though, to briefly touch upon three points before turning to questions.

The first point relates to the importance of this bill, in particular for the next election. The second point touches upon a technical amendment, which I did not bring to the attention of the committee when I last appeared, so I want to bring it to your attention. The third point relates to the work that we need to do to prepare the implementation of this bill and to be ready for the next election, as well as how that fits into the work of this committee, and of the Senate, of course.

On the importance of the bill, again, I don't want to repeat what I've said. Overall this is, in my view, a very strong bill, albeit not a perfect one. I've made some recommendations to improve that bill.

What I would say, though, is that the bill brings some long-term benefits to the electoral process, and it brings some much-needed short-term remedies to some of the concerns that many share regarding the integrity of the electoral process. Of course, that's a very important part of our mandate.

For the next election, given the environment, I very much look forward to having this legislation passed. It includes measures to deal with third parties and foreign influence. It also includes measures to deal with cyber-attacks and disinformation. It is an important piece of legislation from that perspective.

Also, it significantly reinforces the powers of the commissioner in terms of his investigations, so, from an integrity point of view, I think it's important to have this bill passed. [Translation]

If there is one area where the bill failed, it is privacy. The parties are not subjected to any kind of privacy regime. I have pointed this out in the past and I want to mention it again today. The Privacy Commissioner has talked about it, and we are in agreement on this issue. I simply wanted to reiterate that this morning, without going into detail.

As for the technical amendment I talked about, the committee unanimously approved a recommendation that had been made by my predecessor. The recommendation pertained to situations where, as required under the Parliament of Canada Act, a by-election must be held late in the election cycle, shortly before a fixed-date election. It was agreed that it was inadvisable in such cases to hold a by-election, because these elections are generally cancelled when a general election is held. The committee had unanimously approved that recommendation, and the government agreed.

The bill includes a provision on this matter. Unfortunately, as it is currently drafted, in the case of a vacancy, a government could decide not to hold a by-election during the last nine months of the cycle, and on top of that, there would be an additional period of six months less a day. Thus, there could be a period of 15 months less a day without a by-election to fill a vacancy. I am pretty sure that was not the intention of our recommendation, nor is it what the committee or the government wants.

I noticed the flaw this summer. We brought it to the government's attention, but my role is to report to the committee. If you would like us to propose some new phrasing to correct the problem, I would be happy to do so. [English]

The last point I want to touch upon relates, as I said, to preparation for implementing Bill C-76 and our readiness efforts, and how that fits with the work that Parliament needs to do.

As you know, I would have liked this bill to have been passed last spring. It would have given us more time to work toward its implementation.

When I met this committee, I indicated that we would need to start the summer, first of all, by having a two-track approach to the training and the guidebooks for poll workers so we're prepared. We have prepared guidebooks on the current legislation, as well as the potentially amended legislation. We have not printed that material, of course, and we may adjust it further as the committee and Parliament do their work. However, that's been done.

The other part, and perhaps the more challenging part, relates to the IT systems. The bill would affect, at a minimum, 20 of our IT systems, some in small ways and some in large ways. What I said last spring was that we would spend the summer completing the work that we have to do on our side with our systems, and then start in the fall to look at the coding for the new system changes for Bill C-76. That's largely what we've done.

As you may recall, I indicated that we were then building a new, much more secure data centre, which is really the bedrock of our election delivery. That data centre has been built successfully and we've done the migration. It was scheduled for September 1. We did it on September 15, so it was a two-week delay, which is not bad. We're fine-tuning that, but it's going quite well. We still have a bit of IT work to do, but overall we are progressing well.

We now turn our attention to this bill. We will need a window to do some of that coding and then some of that testing. The coding window is, essentially, between October 1 and early December, when the House rises. That's when we need finality, basically, in terms of how this bill will impact our systems, because after that we go through a very rigorous testing in January, and then we do bug fixing. Then we roll out the systems in a field simulation in March.

That's our timeline to make sure that everything works well for this election. That may be useful for the committee to understand in terms of the time that we need.

I have one more point, which is not directly related to Bill C-76. Perhaps if there's time at the end I'd like to come back to it. That's the issue of electronic poll books, which we have discussed before this committee a number of times. There were some changes just last week in our plans in that regard. If there are questions I'll be happy to answer them, and perhaps at the end, if there's time, I could speak to the changes that we're making to that project.

(1110)

The Chair:

Maybe you should do that now, if you could do it briefly.

Mr. Stéphane Perrault:

Sure. You will recall—and some of you here were not members of this committee—that over the last couple of years we talked about introducing electronic poll books, which is not electronic voting and it's not electronic tabulation, but it's essentially the electronic lists and the poll books that assist the poll workers in processing voters.

We planned to do that because it improves the integrity of the record-keeping. It reduces the errors and speeds up the process, especially at advanced polls. It's one of several ways in which we're improving services for the future.

We've seen that kind of technology being used increasingly at provincial levels. In order to roll that out for the next election, I need to be satisfied that the systems meet the highest standards in terms of security. You will remember that the Communications Security Establishment Canada issued a report in 2017 saying that the threat to elections is highest at the federal level, and that's not surprising. Our standards are commensurate to that threat, and we've been working with them to set those standards.

In order to roll out that technology at the next general election in any significant way, I need to be ready to pilot that technology in by-elections this fall. Last week, despite a lot of hard work that has gone into this, I was not satisfied that the technology was sufficiently secure and mature to be rolled out in a by-election. So, it will not be piloted in a by-election.

I remain absolutely convinced that this is the way of the future, but it will happen only if and when I'm satisfied that it is robust and flawless. Those are the conditions under which we set out to do this project, and those are the conditions under which we are pursuing that project.

This has implications for the general election in terms of the rollout. We planned to roll out that technology in 225 advanced polls. That will not happen.

Will we do some testing in some polls? I think we still have to explore that. I am still committed to the future of that vision in terms of serving electors and assisting poll workers, but I have to be satisfied, at this point in time, a year ahead of the election, that it will succeed and that it meets the highest standards; and at this point I don't have that degree of assurance. So I have pulled the plug on this for the by-elections. That will have impacts for the general election.

It has no bearing on this bill, but the bill does provide long-term flexibility to better leverage that technology. The bill and that project have some connection and, as I said, I remain convinced of a future. It just has to be ready, to be safe and flawless, as I said.

The Chair:

Thank you very much.[Translation]

We will now move on to questions and comments.

Mr. Simms, go ahead. [English]

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to our guests. I have a very important question off the top. How was your summer?

Mr. Stéphane Perrault:

committee hansard proc 38139 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on September 25, 2018

2018-09-24 INDU 127

Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

(1530)

[English]

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

Good afternoon, everybody.

Welcome to meeting number 127, where we're continuing our five-year review of the Copyright Act.

With us today, we have from the National Campus and Community Radio Association, all the way from my neck of the woods, Freya Zaltz, by video conference.

We have from the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, Nathalie Dorval, chair, board of directors; and Susan Wheeler, chair, copyright committee.

Finally, from Stingray Digital Media Group, we have Annie Francoeur, vice-president, legal and business affairs.

We were supposed to also have someone from Radio Markham York with us. However, challenges came up with the tornado that affected her ability to come here. Hopefully, we can maybe get her in at another time.

We're going to get started right into this after I introduce our newest member, Mr. David de Burgh Graham.

Ms. Zaltz, you have up to seven minutes.

Ms. Freya Zaltz (Regulatory Affairs Director, National Campus and Community Radio Association):

As you heard, my name is Freya Zaltz. I'm the regulatory affairs director for the National Campus and Community Radio Association. I also represent two additional associations, l'Association des radiodiffuseurs communautaires du Québec and l'Alliance des radios communautaires du Canada. These associations work to ensure stability and support for non-profit campus and community radio stations, and the long-term growth and effectiveness of the sector. Going forward, I will refer to the sector and the stations as C and C for campus and community. Together, the associations represent about 90% of the Canadian C and C sector, or 165 radio stations.

I'd like to tell the committee a little about the sector and how its stations are affected by copyright tariffs. I'll also emphasize the continuing importance of paragraph 68.1(1)(b) of the Copyright Act, which provides C and C stations with certainty and protection from some tariff increases that could impact their financial viability.

C and C radio stations reflect the diversity of the communities they serve. They are community owned, operated, managed and controlled, and some or all of their programming is produced by community volunteers. Being tied to communities so directly means that C and C stations produce programming that is rich in local information and reflection. They also present a wide variety of community perspectives, especially under-represented voices and content.

C and C stations in Canada provide their communities with access to local programming in more than 65 languages, including a number of indigenous languages. They provide an array of locally produced programming that reflects the linguistic duality of Canada and meets the needs of both French and English linguistic minority communities. They provide important community services.

The Canadian music industry and the public derive great benefit from the support that C and C broadcasters provide to Canadian artists as a result of their mandate to provide diverse content and exposure for new artists. Many successful Canadian artists owe their start to C and C radio. Because these stations focus on achieving their mandate rather than on generating profit, they can afford to take the risk of playing works by unknown artists who otherwise lack radio exposure.

One of the sector's concerns is ensuring that paragraph 68.1(1)(b) of the Copyright Act is preserved when the act is amended. That paragraph limits to $100 per year the fee that non-commercial radio stations must pay to the copyright collective Re:Sound for the rights associated with communicating to the public by telecommunication performers' performances of music works or sound recordings embodying such performers' performances within Re:Sound's repertoire, in other words, neighbouring rights.

Keeping that tariff and all others low is very important to stations in the C and C sector. Because they are non-profit, they have no stable sources of operational funding, and are usually under severe financial constraints. Some stations have tiny budgets, as small as $5,000 per year, and no paid staff whatsoever. Many already struggle to pay their expenses, and any additional tariff obligations, not matter how small, make them more vulnerable to closure due to insolvency.

Also, applicable tariffs have been steadily increasing in number and cost, and the tariff addressed by paragraph 68.1(1)(b) is only one of presently five tariffs that C and C stations must pay annually. This increase is due in part to listeners' expectations that they'll be able to access C and C stations' content via multiple platforms, including over the Internet. The costs of providing these services over multiple platforms, including the associated copyright tariffs, make it increasingly difficult for C and C stations to remain solvent.

In that vein, existing exceptions for ephemeral and internal copies should be retained for non-commercial uses, since non-profit broadcasters do not benefit financially from the use of copyrighted material.

Also, participating in Copyright Board proceedings and effective negotiations with copyright collectives requires resources and legal expertise, and for financial reasons the C and C sector has limited capability in these respects.

(1535)

It would, therefore, help the associations to simplify the board's procedures where possible. The board's 2013 Re:Sound tariff 8 decision suggests that it understands non-profit users' financial limitations perhaps better than the copyright collectives do, so moving to a private agreement model is not necessarily in the association's best interests.

The C and C sector understands that copyright tariffs are intended to compensate copyright holders for their use of the work. Since C and C stations don't derive any profit from such use, and since, instead, their goal is to increase the exposure and further the careers of Canadian and emerging artists, they believe there's value to copyright holders in keeping tariffs low for the C and C sector.

The associations, therefore, appreciate the protection that paragraph 68.1(1)(b) provides by limiting the cost and providing ongoing certainty for one of the many tariffs that C and C stations must pay. They ask that this committee keep these issues in mind when contemplating possible changes to the act in order to ensure that Canadians continue to reap the benefits of a strong C and C broadcasting sector.

In conclusion, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today, and I would be pleased to answer any questions.

The Chair:

Thank you very much.

We're going to move to the Canadian Association of Broadcasters.

Ms. Dorval, you have the floor. You have up to seven minutes.

(1540)

[Translation]

Ms. Nathalie Dorval (Chair, Board of Directors, Canadian Association of Broadcasters):

Ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss issues relating to copyright, which are integral to our businesses.[English]

Local broadcasting in our country provides entertainment, but it is also a critical source of news and information to Canadians from large urban centres with diverse ethnic populations to the most rural, remote and first nations communities.

From emergency alerting to local news in a variety of languages, radio connects communities. In fact, radio is one of the sole sources of local news and culture in rural and remote communities across Canada, many of which have already felt the sting of local newspaper and television closures.[Translation]

Radio also plays a key role in maintaining the health of the Canadian music eco-system. Not only is private radio the number one source for discovering Canadian music it is also the number one source of funding for the development, promotion and the export of Canadian musical talent.

Last year alone, private radio contributed $47 million in Canadian Content Development funding, the majority of which was directed to the country’s four largest music funding agencies: FACTOR, MusicAction, Radio Starmaker Fund and Fonds RadioStar. Those agencies provide critical support to Canadian music labels and artists to create, promote and export their music internationally and across our vast country.

We are proud of the role we have played in helping to create the vibrant and successful community of internationally successful music artists our country enjoys today.

Over and above this important role, radio also invests in broadcast talent at the local level, creating employment opportunities, enhancing creativity and bringing local content to people everywhere.

Finally, let's not forget that local radio serves as one of the key channels that local businesses use to market their products and services.[English]

We believe the Copyright Act, in its current form, strikes the very delicate balance of ensuring that artists are renumerated for their work while also ensuring that local radio has a reasonable and predictable copyright regime that reflects its continued investment in local communities and music artists. Indeed, section 68.1 of the act provides important support for local radio stations by mandating that radio will pay neighbouring rights of $100 on the first $1.25 million in revenue, and then paying a higher rate through a percentage of advertising revenue which is set by the Copyright Board of Canada. While the rate structure for neighbouring rights payment is subject to this special measure, as Parliament intended in 1998, the music industry still collects over $91 million in copyright payments from private radio each year.

If Parliament agrees to amend the Copyright Act by removing these exemptions, the primary beneficiaries will be the multinational record labels that are proposing it. Under the existing neighbouring rights regime, payments are allocated fifty-fifty between performers and record labels. Where the money flows from there is unclear, and worth further discussion before any amendments to the act should be contemplated.

What we do know from publicly available information is that Re:Sound, the copyright collective responsible for distributing neighbouring rights payments, takes 14% off the the top in administrative fees before anyone gets paid. Of the remaining amounts, the music industry has carefully concealed where that money might go. For example, in the English market, based on radio repertoire, we estimate that of the performers' share, after administration costs are deducted, 15% goes to international performers and 28% goes to Canadian performers. Of the labels' portion, no less than 41% goes to the multinational record labels, with Canadian labels receiving only about 2%. What this tells you is that multinational record labels will be the primary beneficiary of the proposed change to section 68.1, at the cost of local Canadian businesses.

The American labels are also asking you to change the definition of sound recording in the act to extract additional royalty payments from television broadcasters. In fact, the labels are attempting to squeeze out an additional payment for the use of music from broadcasters, distributors and digital platforms in a television program that has already been paid for up front by the producers of that program. Quite simply, they are asking us to pay twice for the same product, otherwise known as double-dipping.

(1545)

[Translation]

The current definition of “sound recording” is carefully worded to reflect the contractual realities of the audiovisual production sector. This was confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in a 2012 decision. Any consideration of adding new costs on conventional television broadcasters, or on the digital sector, should be rejected as it would diminish Canadian broadcasters’ ability to invest in Canadian productions by shifting more than $50 million into the hands of foreign owned corporations.[English]

Honourable members, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters respectfully urges the committee to reject any proposed amendment to the Copyright Act that would harm the Canadian broadcasting sector and jeopardize the important service that local broadcasters provide to Canadians.

I want to reiterate that the current legislation strikes the right balance between rights holders and local broadcasters, and that the proposal being advanced by the music industry risks coming at the expense of local programming and the valued and essential services that we provide to Canadians. [Translation]

The Chair:

Thank you very much.[English]

committee foss hansard indu 25507 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on September 24, 2018

2018-09-20 PROC 117

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

(1105)

[English]

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

Good morning, and welcome to the 117th meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. This is primarily a committee business meeting, but we have a couple of elections to do first.

I'll turn it over to the clerk to run our election for a vice-chair.

The Clerk of the Committee (Ms. Angela Crandall):

Pursuant to Standing Order 106, the first vice-chair is a member of the official opposition.

I'm now ready to receive motions for the position of first vice-chair.

Mr. Reid, go ahead.

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, CPC):

After giving this long thought, and considering the available candidates, and also the instructions from our whip—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Scott Reid: —I have come to the conclusion that the stars have aligned for the most competent and best candidate, and also the one the whip would like to see, and therefore I nominate Stephanie Kusie.

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie (Calgary Midnapore, CPC):

Does it have to be seconded before I make a speech?

The Clerk:

Are there any further nominations?

The Chair:

There's time for a half-hour speech.

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie:

I'm very happy to be here. I'm very honoured to have the role of shadow cabinet member for democratic institutions.

I'm sure many of you know.... Actually, I would not expect that.[Translation]

I say this because I served on the Standing Committee on Official Languages with Ms. Lapointe. We have a history together. After that, I served with Mrs. Jordan.[English] That was through Status of Women, so it's very nice to see some familiar faces in the room.

Previous to my life as a parliamentarian, I was a diplomat for 15 years. I was very fortunate to have postings both in established and in developing democracies. I've seen the government hold democracy to account, as well as the potential negative pathways that this can take in the world, which we have definitely seen in the region of the Americas, where I primarily did my diplomatic career, but also other places abroad. It's really an honour to receive this position.

It's exciting for me as well because the minister and I have a lot in common. We're both young mothers, like Ruby. Each of the three of us has one son. That's something very exciting for us, but also our love for the Americas, of course, given the minister's charitable work abroad, where she met her husband, I understand. We both hablar español as well, so maybe we'll have some preguntas en español on the next occasion when she visits us. That probably won't happen, considering we keep things in both official languages here.

It's definitely an honour to be here. For the record, and regarding past vice-chair appointments, I will say that I am pro-democracy. I hope no one has a problem with that.

That's a joke.

Mr. Scott Reid:

I did not know this. I don't know why this wasn't shared with me before I made the nomination.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie:

That's a terrible habit I have, turning tragedy into comedy.

Anyway, it's a pleasure to be here. Thank you very much, Scott and the committee, for your confidence in me. I look forward to this being a lot of fun. Procedure and processes, of course, are the basis of good society: peace, order and good government as we know it. As such, I'm very happy to be here.

I happily accept the nomination, and I ask for your support.

Thank you.

The Clerk:

Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?

(Motion agreed to)

The Clerk: I declare the motion carried, and Mrs. Kusie duly elected first vice-chair of the committee.

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie:

Thank you very much.

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

It was eerily similar to a Venezuelan election.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie:

Yes, that's right. Exactly.

My first act is not really democratic.

Mr. Scott Reid:

To be fully parallel, I would have to beat up John as the alternative candidate.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie:

While I look away....

Mr. Scott Simms:

committee hansard proc 11599 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on September 20, 2018

2018-09-20 14:12 House intervention / intervention en chambre

Statements by Members

Déclarations de députés

Mr. Speaker, from Sainte-Anne-des-Lacs to the Petawaga ZEC, by way of Lantier, Huberdeau, and Notre-Dame-du-Laus, I travelled more than 10,000 kilometres this summer to meet with the residents of the 43 municipalities in my riding.

I joined hundreds of young people at an aviation open house organized as part of the young aviators program in Sainte-Anne-du-Lac and Mont Tremblant. I met with more than 100 employers, community organizations, and students who were benefiting from the Canada summer jobs program. I attended more than 100 community activities, festivals and events, where I congratulated and thanked the organizers and volunteers who get involved in our communities and without whom there could be no community events.

I often feel like I have the best job in the world, because it allows me to meet people and spend time with them. People are the heart and soul of a region. I can say without a doubt that Laurentides—Labelle is the most beautiful riding in Canada.

Monsieur le Président, de Sainte-Anne-des-Lacs à la ZEC Petawaga, en passant par Lantier, Huberdeau et Notre-Dame-du-Laus, j'ai parcouru cet été plus de 10 000 kilomètres sur la route pour rencontrer les résidants des 43 municipalités de chez nous.

J'ai participé aux découvertes de l'aviation avec des centaines de jeunes lors des journées du programme jeunes en vol de Sainte-Anne-du-Lac et de Mont-Tremblant. J'ai rencontré plus d'une centaine d'employeurs, d'organismes communautaires et d'étudiants qui ont bénéficié du programme Emplois d'été Canada. J'ai participé à plus d'une centaine d'activités communautaires, de festivals et d'événements au cours desquels j'ai pu féliciter et remercier les organisateurs et les bénévoles qui s'impliquent dans nos communautés et sans lesquels celles-ci ne fonctionneraient pas.

Je me dis souvent que j'ai le plus beau métier au monde, parce qu'il me permet de rencontrer les gens et d'être avec eux. Ce sont ces gens qui font l'unicité d'une région. Sans l'ombre d'un doute, j'affirme haut et fort que Laurentides-Labelle est la plus belle circonscription du Canada.

Watch | Hansard

Ecoutez | Hansard

hansard parlchmbr statements tv 340 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 20:26 on September 20, 2018

2018-09-20 TRAN 108

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. This is our first session of the 42nd Parliament. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are continuing our study of the Canadian transportation and logistics strategy.

For the first hour this morning, from the Department of Transport, we have Christian Dea, chief economist and director general of transportation and economic analysis; Sandra LaFortune, director general of international relations and trade policy; Martin McKay, director of transportation infrastructure programs in the west; and David McNabb, director general of surface transportation policy.

Thank you so very much for joining us first thing this morning.

Good morning to all of our members. We have Chris Bittle filling in this morning. Welcome. Of course, there's David Graham, who likes to watch what transportation does all the time. Welcome to all of the members.

Who would like to go first?

Ms. Sandra LaFortune (Director General, International Relations and Trade Policy, Department of Transport):

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and members, for inviting Transport Canada to appear before you today as you move forward on your study on the establishment of a Canadian transportation and logistics strategy. This is a broad subject, and we hope the background information we have provided helps to show how Transport Canada's work aligns with and can contribute to your study. It is clear from your committee's work over the last few years that some of the subject matter will not be new to you.

My name is Sandra LaFortune. I am the director general of the international relations and trade policy branch at Transport Canada.

Before we begin, I will ask my colleagues to introduce themselves and outline briefly their own areas of responsibility within Transport Canada.

Mr. David McNabb (Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport):

Good morning, everyone. My name is David McNabb. I am the director general for surface transportation policy, and I am responsible for policy development in the freight and passenger rail area, as well as highways, borders and motor carriers.

Mr. Christian Dea (Director General, Transportation and Economic Analysis, Chief Economist, Department of Transport):

Good morning. My name is Christian Dea. I am the director general of transportation and economic analysis, and my responsibility is to monitor the performance of the system.

Mr. Martin McKay (Director, Transportation Infrastructure Programs (West), Department of Transport):

My name is Martin McKay. I am the director of the transportation infrastructure programs group, with the fundamental responsibility of delivery of the national trade corridors fund.

Ms. Sandra LaFortune:

I'll begin by making a few opening remarks. In the time remaining, we all would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. I should note as well that we have provided four background documents, as per your request, to support your study.

Minister Garneau's transportation 2030 vision is a good starting point for our discussion. With transportation 2030, the minister is delivering on his commitment to create a safe, secure, green, innovative and integrated transportation system that supports trade and economic growth, a cleaner environment and the well-being of Canadians and their families. Transportation 2030 sets out the government's strategic plan for the future of transportation in Canada and is a reflection of what we heard directly from Canadians during extensive cross-Canada consultations.

In moving forward with this strategic plan, we are seeking to identify opportunities to enhance the traveller experience; remain vigilant to our fundamental responsibility to ensure a safe and secure transportation system; use innovative technologies to reduce the system's environmental impacts and build the transportation system of the future; protect our waterways, coasts and northern areas and build our reputation as a world-leading maritime and Arctic nation; and ensure that the transportation system enables Canada's trade and economic objectives. You'll note in the background information circulated that these goals align with the five core themes of transportation 2030.

The government is taking action on a number of fronts to help bring the transportation 2030 vision to fruition. For example, in May 2018, the Transportation Modernization Act—formerly Bill C-49—was approved by Parliament, and the implementation of initiatives like the oceans protection plan and the port modernization review continues. Together, these and related initiatives aim to address the needs for the future of transportation in Canada. In the context of our appearance before you today, we know that these needs include cost-effective, reliable and timely transportation access to global markets so as to enhance our trade competitiveness and ultimately grow Canada's economy.

Making strategic and cost-shared investments in trade-related transportation infrastructure has been central in our efforts to achieve this goal over the last 10 years. A key distinction of Canada's approach, which has since been emulated by other countries, is that it is multimodal and based on systems rather than on the performance or capacity of individual modes of transportation separately.

This approach mirrors the way in which businesses approach the physical movement of imports and exports from their starting points to their ultimate destinations. It also recognizes that changes or improvements at one point within our integrated transportation network can have far-reaching impacts on the performance and capacity of the system overall.

Being strategic, we aim to align our investments to improve access to priority and high-growth markets. The background information concerning the Asia-Pacific gateway and corridor transportation infrastructure fund highlights some of the progress we have achieved in western Canada over the last decade. The update on the trade and transportation corridors initiative, or the TTCI, outlines how we are building on our best practices and lessons learned over the past decade to address the needs for the future of the trade-related transportation system in Canada.

Rather than repeat all the details included in the TTCI reference document that we prepared, it may be more useful to briefly provide you with a sense of where we are today. In the context of the national trade corridors fund, which is the core of the trade and transportation corridors initiative, Minister Garneau and the Government of Canada have so far announced federal investments of nearly $760 million in trade and transportation infrastructure projects across the country. These are cost-shared with other levels of government and the private sector.

The reference document provides examples of projects that support import and export flows with established and high-growth markets, recognize the need to strengthen the climate resilience of transportation infrastructure and support the unique transportation needs of Canada's territories, support safety and improved traffic flow for both cargo and residents—particularly around Canada's largest ports—and are based on collaboration with and among infrastructure owners, authorities and other levels of government to help maximize the scale, scope and impact of our investments.

(0850)

While collaboration with stakeholders provides valuable insight into where public and private infrastructure needs or bottlenecks exist, Transport Canada has also invested significantly to establish an objective evidence base to help inform and quantify trade-related transportation infrastructure issues. This past year, the department, in collaboration with Statistics Canada, established the Canadian centre on transportation data, an open portal for multimodal transportation data and performance measures. The trade and transportation corridors initiative background document provides more details on future plans in this area.

Innovation and new technologies will continue to shape transportation infrastructure needs and uses. Within the context of the TTCI, Transport Canada is undertaking targeted actions in the areas of connected and automated vehicles, and unmanned aerial vehicles or remotely piloted aircraft systems. A central goal of this work is to ensure their safe deployment and use. In the context of transportation infrastructure, for example, future uses could include long-range infrastructure inspections and, over the long term, perhaps even carrying cargo and passengers. From a road transportation perspective, the uses of connected and automated vehicles are both promising and likely disruptive.

I will conclude my remarks at this point. We would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have, and we look forward to a more interactive discussion.

Thank you.

The Chair:

Thank you very much. We appreciate that you keep your comments brief, so that the committee gets a full opportunity to ask the many questions they have.

We'll start with Mr. Liepert, for six minutes, please.

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

Mr. McNabb is probably the fellow who can answer this question.

First of all, of the three of us on this side of the table, Kelly comes from Saskatchewan, and Matt and I from Alberta. Rail transportation has always been an issue in western Canada, but it was primarily our grain producers who couldn't get product to market.

In recent years, the issue of oil by rail has become increasingly.... Well, we're now up to 200,000 barrels a day by rail; you can correct me if my numbers are wrong here. To put some context around this for those who wouldn't be that familiar with it, I believe each railcar carries 1,000 barrels of oil, which means that every day there are 200 railcars full of oil on a track. It probably takes four or five days to get to the coast, so we're talking 1,000 to 2,000 railcars on tracks at any one particular time.

These railcars are going through areas of British Columbia that Mr. Hardie would be very familiar with, over the Fraser River. I am quite surprised that we haven't yet had an environmental catastrophe. The reason this is happening is obviously the delay in pipeline construction.

What are you doing to try to encourage the federal government or at least put the federal government on notice that we are on the verge of an environmental catastrophe if we don't move ahead with pipeline development and get these oil cars off the rail tracks.

Mr. David McNabb:

Thank you for the question.

From our perspective, one of the key things we are doing is monitoring the situation in terms of the statistics and the volumes. I know that Christian's group is reviewing a lot of the commodities that are on the rail network system. Part of that is monitoring what's happening going forward and being able to report in terms of how the mix of commodities is changing over time, and then thinking about what type of remedies we may need to put in place given the risks that may be coming up. In terms of safety and security, we have an area within the department that we would be providing that information to, and then they would be looking at the potential risks and what some of the potential responses to those risks would be.

(0855)

Mr. Ron Liepert:

As a department, are you getting concerned about this? Are you advising the minister that this is becoming a very serious issue, or are you just monitoring it?

Mr. David McNabb:

We're providing the information. That is not an area that I'm responsible for, but from our perspective, we provide that kind of objective information for consideration. It's not something I can comment on in terms of the safety and security side because that's not my area of responsibility.

Mr. Ron Liepert:

Can somebody else comment?

I find it very disturbing that this doesn't seem to be of any priority for senior officials of the transportation department, and yet we in western Canada are getting more and more concerned every day. I just can't believe that the Department of Transport wouldn't be pushing the government to deal with this issue.

committee hansard tran 27866 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on September 20, 2018

2018-09-19 INDU 126

Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

(1530)

[Translation]

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

Good afternoon, everyone.[English]

Welcome to meeting 126 of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology as we continue our statutory review of the Copyright Act.

Before we get into it, we just have a couple of minutes of House duty. I'd like to officially welcome Celina Caesar-Chavannes.

Welcome. You are officially a member.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Chair: On this side, both Michael Chong and Dan Albas are official members, too.

Welcome. Congratulations.

As such, we need to elect a vice-chair.

Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC):

Mr. Chair, I nominate Mr. Albas as vice-chair of this committee.

The Chair:

Are there any more nominations from the floor?

I declare Mr. Dan Albas acclaimed as the first vice-chair.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC):

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair:

Now that we have that out of the way, we have with us today some really interesting witnesses. From the Professional Music Publishers Association, we have Jérôme Payette, executive director. From the Canadian Network Operators Consortium, we have Christian S. Tacit, barrister and solicitor, and Christopher Copeland, counsel. From the Société des auteurs de radio, télévision et cinéma, we have Mathieu Plante, president, and Stéphanie Hénault, executive director, and, finally, from the Movie Theatre Association of Canada, we have Michael Paris, director, legal and chief privacy officer.

Each group will have up to seven minutes to make their presentation, and after that we'll go into our rounds of questions.

We're going to start off with the Professional Music Publishers Association.[Translation]

Mr. Payette, you have the floor for seven minutes.

Mr. Jérôme Payette (Executive Director, Professional Music Publishers' Association):

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I am very pleased to appear before you today on this major review of the Copyright Act.

The Professional Music Publishers' Association (APEM) represents francophone and Quebec music publishers in Canada. Our members run 830 publishing houses featuring 400,000 musical works.

Partnering with songwriters, music publishers support the creation of musical works, and promote and manage them. Typically, a music publishing house works with a number of songwriters to create new works and represents catalogues of existing songs. Publishers are in a way the agents of songwriters and their works. They are the professionals in copyright management.

I would like to point out that the APEM is a member of the Canadian Music Policy Coalition, which produced a 34-page document, of which you have certainly received a copy. Virtually the entire music industry supports this document.

APEM has nevertheless targeted a few points to discuss with you today.

Right away, I will tackle point 1, which proposes to amend the provisions on network services, which indiscriminately apply to a wide range of companies.

Section 31.1 of the Copyright Act is, in a way, the Canadian exemption rule. The text under “Network Services” allows a provider of “services related to the operation of the Internet” who “provides any means for the telecommunication or the reproduction” of protected content to not be held liable for infringing copyright and for not paying rights holders.

Based on how the act is drafted right now, companies providing services as diverse as Internet access, cloud storage, search engines or sharing platforms such as YouTube, Facebook or Instagram indiscriminately benefit from the exception on network services. However, those companies provide very different services: an Internet service provider provides an Internet connection; a storage service stores files and makes them available for private usage; a search engine classifies results according to keywords; sharing services such as YouTube make content available to millions of users, develop recommendation algorithms, promote, organize content, sell advertising and collect user data.

The development of the Internet may have been difficult to predict, but today we know that not all those companies provide the same services. The Copyright Act must now consider those companies' spectrum of activities and ensure that their responsibilities are not automatically the same.

Let me clarify. I think that all those companies should remunerate the rights holders, because they use copyrighted content for commercial purposes. However, Internet service providers may have different responsibilities than YouTube, for example. Internet service providers should remunerate rights holders and be more active in the fight against piracy, whereas sharing services should be required to obtain proper licences for the entire repertoire they make available.

Last week, on September 12, the European Parliament adopted a copyright directive to that effect. The directive establishes that online content sharing service providers such as YouTube must make a statement to the public and enter into fair and appropriate licencing agreements with rights holders, even for online user content.

In addition, sharing services will need to be more transparent about how they use content. As a result, users will be able to continue to put content online, but sharing services will have to sign agreements with copyright collective societies, pay for the use of the content and be transparent. I think Canada should draw inspiration from this European approach.

I will close the first point by talking about NAFTA.

We know that the U.S., at the request of major tech companies, is pushing for the intellectual property chapter to include exemption rules based on its Digital Millennium Copyright Act. If Canada were to accept this request, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to change its own legislation to reflect today's reality.

The second point I want to address is the need to make the private copying system technologically neutral and to set up a transition fund.

Annual revenue from private copying royalties paid to music creators has gone down by 89%, from $38 million in 2004 to less than $3 million in 2016. As economist Marcel Boyer said, it is “the theft of the century”, and just because it's been going on for years doesn't make it acceptable.

The spirit of the 1997 Canadian legislation is no longer upheld, simply because of technological change. The current review of the Copyright Act should be used to make the private copying system technologically neutral and thereby allow royalties to be paid for a variety of devices, including tablets and smartphones. The levy would be charged to the manufacturers and importers of devices.

(1535)

In Europe, the average fee is $2.80 per smartphone. It would be very surprising if the average price of an iPhone X were to increase from $1,529 to $1,532 if a private copying levy is introduced. That cost would not be passed on to the consumer.

Finally, the drastic drop in private copying revenue requires a $40-million transition fund, as requested by the Canadian Private Copying Collective. The Liberals have agreed, and it is high time the fund became a reality.

The third point proposes to extend the duration of copyright protection to life plus 70 years after the author's death. In the vast majority of OECD countries, the protection lasts for 70 years, whereas in Canada, it is only 50 years after the author's death.

Canadian rights holders are at a disadvantage in terms of exports, since their works are subject to less international protection. Canadian laws should not prevent showcasing our works and creators internationally.

For the music publishers I represent, extending the term to 70 years after the author's death means more revenue to be invested in the career development of Canada's authors and composers of today.

The fourth point is about clarifying and eliminating exceptions. The number and nature of the exceptions under the Copyright Act deprive rights holders of revenue they should normally receive. Today, I don't have time to present all the exceptions that should be amended in the Copyright Act. A document from the Canadian Music Policy Coalition goes over the exceptions in detail.

I will close with a fifth point, which is the importance of having a functional copyright board.

I am well aware that work is under way to reform the Copyright Board of Canada. I applaud that, I think it is great news. I would simply like to emphasize the importance of this reform for implementing the Copyright Act.

committee hansard indu 32796 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on September 19, 2018

0 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at on July 01, 2018

2018-06-19 INDU 124

Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

(1610)

[English]

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

Welcome, everybody, to meeting 124 of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, as we continue our five-year review of the Copyright Act.

I'd like to welcome our new member Mr. Mike Lake as well as Mr. Pierre Nantel to our committee.

Before we get started, Mr. Jeneroux, you have a quick notice of motion?

Mr. Matt Jeneroux (Edmonton Riverbend, CPC):

I sure do, and thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be as quick as I can here.

We're not moving the motion today, just the notice of motion. The notice says: Given that the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development has been explicitly tasked in his mandate letter from the Prime Minister to “work closely with the Minister of International Trade to help Canadian firms compete successfully in export markets,” and given that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has raised concerns over Canada’s ability to compete with changes in the United States’ tax regime, that the Committee undertake a study of four meetings to review, among other things: i) the impact of any U.S.-imposed trade restrictions on the affected industries, ii) the impact of Canada’s tax regime on Canadian companies’ ability to compete with foreign-owned companies in Canada and abroad, and iii) the state of private sector investor confidence in Canada.

This is also rather timely today, Mr. Chair, due to the comments by the President of the United States. I hope to move this motion in the future.

Thank you.

The Chair:

Thank you very much.

We have received your notice of motion, and we are going to move on.

We have very tight time today, but we have some witnesses. From the Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights Agency, we have Caroline Rioux, President. From the Motion Picture Association - Canada, we have Wendy Noss, President of the Starship Enterprise, apparently. From the Writers Guild of Canada, we have Maureen Parker, Executive Director; and Neal McDougall, Director of Policy. From the Society for Reproduction Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers in Canada, we have Alain Lauzon, General Manager; and Martin Lavallée, Director of Licensing and Legal Affairs. Finally, from Canadian Media Producers Association, we have Erin Finlay, Chief Legal Officer; and Stephen Stohn, President of SkyStone Media.

We're going to get started with Caroline Rioux.

You have five minutes. Go ahead, please.

Ms. Caroline Rioux (President, Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights Agency Ltd.):

Good afternoon. My name is Caroline Rioux. I am President of the Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights Agency, CMRRA. I thank the committee for the opportunity to share our experiences and recommendations for amendments to the Copyright Act. I have prepared a few brief slides to assist you in following my presentation.

CMRRA is a collective that licenses the reproduction of musical works on behalf of more than 6,000 music publisher and songwriter clients. Together they represent more than 80,000 music catalogues, which comprise a large majority of the songs sold, broadcast, and streamed in Canada. CMRRA grants licences to authorize the copying of these songs to record companies that release sound recordings on the marketplace, such as CDs; online music services, such as iTunes, Spotify, and YouTube; and Canadian radio and television broadcasters.

Reproductions of musical works may be licensed under a tariff certified by the Copyright Board or by direct agreement with users. Pursuant to those licences, CMRRA collects and distributes royalties to rights holders after having carefully matched the usage data received from those users to the copyright ownership information in our database.

I am here today to talk to you about certain exceptions to copyright liability that were introduced in 2012. In the interests of time, I will describe the impact of only two of these exceptions. Unfortunately, there is insufficient time to cover the third item from my initial presentation, technological neutrality and the impact of the most recent Copyright Board decision on the rates applicable to online streaming services. This issue will nonetheless be covered in our written submission, because it is of critical importance to us.

With regard to backup copies, in 2012 a broad exception for backup copies was introduced. As a result, in 2016 the Copyright Board applied a large blanket discount on the established rate, reducing royalties payable since 2012 by 23.31%. In doing so, the board effectively took an estimated $5.6 million away from rights holders to subsidize already profitable radio stations. We firmly believe that rights holders should be compensated for these valuable copies. CMRRA recommends that the Copyright Act be amended to clarify that the exception for backup copies should be limited to copies made for non-commercial purposes only, consistent with other exceptions under the act, such as for user-generated content and time-shifting.

The second exception is “ephemeral copies”. Radio stations make copies of musical works for many purposes. Copies intended to exist for no more than 30 days are known as ephemeral copies. Until 2012 the ephemeral copies exception effectively addressed the concerns of both rights holders and broadcasters. Rights holders rightly wanted to be compensated for the reproduction of their works, while broadcasters wanted to minimize the onerous task of seeking licences from countless individual rights holders. Crucially, the exception did not apply where the right was otherwise available via a collective licence.

Following lobbying by broadcasters, the collective exception clause was repealed in 2012, giving the exception very broad application—but only to broadcasters. As a result, the Copyright Board reduced the royalties payable by up to an additional 27.8%, worth up to $7 million per year, provided that broadcasters could somehow prove they met the conditions of the exception. Ironically, the exercise of proving or disproving which reproductions actually qualify for the exception has introduced a significant administrative and enforcement burden on rights holders, resulting in the further erosion of the value of the right.

There is no reason why commercial broadcasters should not compensate rights holders when they themselves benefit so greatly from the copies at hand. CMRRA recommends that subsection 30.9(6) be reintroduced, in keeping with the original intention. That one user group or technology should benefit from an exception over another is not technologically neutral, and represents an unfair advantage to broadcasters.

In conclusion, given the ongoing difficulties caused by the exceptions introduced in 2012, we ask Parliament to refrain from introducing any further exceptions to copyright, but instead focus on addressing the erosion of copyright that has been caused by the existing exceptions. Traditional revenue streams have declined, but a robust copyright law protects against the pace of change by adhering to a principle of technological neutrality.

The exceptions outlined in this submission compromise that principle, and in so doing further erode the value of music and the value of creation. In addition to these recommendations, CMRRA asks that you improve the efficiency of the Copyright Board. We recognize that this has already been identified as a priority, and we appreciate Minister Bains' recently announced innovation strategy.

(1615)

We also ask that you make the private copying regime technologically neutral, address the value gap by amending the hosting services exception, and extend the term of copyright for musical works to life plus 70.

Thank you.

(1620)

The Chair:

Thank you very much. We're going to move to Ms. Wendy Noss.

You have five minutes.

Ms. Wendy Noss (President, Motion Picture Association-Canada):

Thank you.

I'm Wendy Noss, with the Motion Picture Association-Canada. We are the voice of the major producers and distributors of movies, home entertainment, and television who are members of the MPAA. The studios we represent, including Disney, Paramount, Sony, Fox, Universal, and Warner Bros., are significant investors in the Canadian economy, supporting creators, talent and technical artists, and businesses large and small across the country.

We bring jobs and economic opportunity and create compelling entertainment in Canada that is enjoyed by audiences around the world. Last year, film and television producers spent over $8.3 billion in total in Canada and supported over 171,000 jobs. Over $3.75 billion of that total was generated by production projects from foreign producers, of which our American producers represented the vast majority.

From Suits to Star Trek, from X-Men in Montreal to Deadpool in Pitt Meadows, and from the inflatable green screen technology that created the Planet of the Apes to the lines of code used to simulate the flight of the Millennium Falcon, our studios support the development of talent and provide good middle-class jobs for tens of thousands of Canadians.

We appreciate the opportunity to appear before you, as the study before this committee is essential to both future creation in Canada and the innovative distribution models that deliver content to consumers on the device they want, at the time they want, and the way they want.

We have a range of concerns that touch upon fundamental copyright issues: the term of protection itself, as you've heard from many others, and the need for Canada to provide copyright owners with the same global standard that already exists in more than 90 countries. Given the limited time we have, our focus today is on a single priority: the need for modernizing the act to address the most significant threats of online piracy, including those that were not dominant at the last round of Copyright Act amendments.

You've already heard from others about the research that quantifies the piracy problem. While measurements of different aspects may vary, the one constant is that piracy causes loss to legitimate businesses and is a threat to the Canadians whose livelihoods depend upon a healthy film and television industry.

We propose two primary amendments.

First, allow rights holders to obtain injunctive relief against online intermediary service providers. Internet intermediaries that facilitate access to illegal content are best placed to reduce the harm caused by online piracy.

This principle has been long recognized throughout Europe, where article 8.3 of the EU copyright directive has provided the foundation for copyright owners to obtain injunctive relief against intermediaries whose services are used by third parties to infringe copyright. Building upon precedents that already exist in Canada in the physical world, the act should be amended to expressly allow copyright owners to obtain injunctions, including site-blocking and de-indexing orders, against intermediaries whose services are used to infringe copyright.

This recommendation is supported by an overwhelming consensus on the need for site-blocking from the broadest range of Canadian stakeholders—French and English, and, notably, even ISPs themselves. Moreover, there is now more than a decade of experience in over 40 countries around the world that demonstrates site-blocking is a significant, proven, and effective tool to reduce online piracy.

Second, narrow the scope of the safe harbour provisions. The Copyright Act contains safe harbour provisions that shield intermediary service providers from liability, even when those intermediaries knowingly have their systems used for infringing purposes.

In every other sector of the economy, the public rightfully expects companies to behave responsibly and to undertake reasonable efforts to prevent foreseeable harms associated with their products and services. For two decades, the Internet has lived under a different set of rules and expectations, stemming largely from immunities and safe harbours put in place when the Internet was in its infancy and looked nothing like it does today.

The act should therefore be amended in a manner consistent with the European Union to ensure that safe harbours only apply where the service provider is acting in a passive or neutral manner, and that overly broad exceptions do not shield intermediaries when they have knowledge that their systems are being used for infringing purposes but take no steps to stop it. While there is no single solution to piracy, there is a new public dialogue about restoring accountability on the Internet, and in Canada there is a need for modern, common-sense policy solutions in line with proven international best practices.

We are grateful for the work of the committee in your consideration of these important issues and would be pleased to address your questions.

committee hansard indu 31849 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on June 19, 2018

2018-06-19 SMEM 15

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

(1315)

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Filomena Tassi (Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, Lib.)):

Good afternoon, everyone. I'm pleased to call to order the 15th meeting of SMEM.

Before we begin, I want to make sure that everyone here is okay with the fact that I'm chairing this meeting today while recognizing that I also have a motion listed on the agenda.

Is everyone okay that I chair the meeting notwithstanding that I have an item listed on the agenda?

Mr. Blake Richards (Banff—Airdrie, CPC):

Yes, and my respect for raising that. Obviously, it's something that I don't think you had to do, but you're just being completely above board on that. We appreciate it.

The Chair:

Okay, thank you.

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

I agree.

The Chair:

Thank you, Rachel.

You've all received a copy of the items?

David.

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

On a point of order, there are two I'd like discussion on. I haven't landed on a decision about them, and maybe you guys would like to approve everything else and come back to these two. It's Bill C-405 and Bill C-406 that I have some questions about.

The Chair:

Are other members okay with doing that?

Mr. Blake Richards:

I'm not sure which of the two....

Mr. David de Burgh Graham:

If you guys are okay with approving everything else, we can come back and talk about these two.

Ms. Rachel Blaney:

Okay.

The Chair:

That's fine with me.

Mr. Richards, are you okay with that?

Mr. Blake Richards:

I don't have problems with any of the other items, or the two that have been referenced either.

Mr. David de Burgh Graham:

I'm not sure if I have problems with them. I just want to talk to the analyst about them before I go anywhere.

Mr. Blake Richards:

I'm okay with approving the rest of them, I guess, and hopefully we can approve the other two as well.

The Chair:

Okay, very good.

Mr. David de Burgh Graham:

Do I dive straight into that or...?

Okay. I'll wait for Blake to come back.

The Chair:

Okay.

Mr. David de Burgh Graham:

We haven't landed on anything. I just want to bring up a discussion on them. The concern that we have is that Bill C-405 risks conflicting with Bill C-27, and Bill C-406 risks conflicting with Bill C-76. I gave David, the analyst, a heads-up that I'd bring this up, so if he'd like to give us his analysis, then we can see if there's any merit to my concern or if we should just leave them the way they are.

Mr. David Groves (Committee Researcher):

As you can see from the document I distributed, it is my assessment that there isn't an issue. I'm going to go through my assessment.

The potential issue with Bill C-405 revolves around whether it concerns a question that is currently on the Order Paper, an item of government business. Specifically, Bill C-405 amends section 29 of the Pension Benefits Standards Act, the same section of the PBSA that Bill C-27 amends.

However, Bill C-405 and Bill C-27 amend different subsections of that section, so there's no formal overlap, and the substance of their proposed amendments differ. Bill C-405 amends the PBSA to allow pension plan administrators to sell off pieces of plans they are managing. Bill C-27 proposes amendments to allow the regulation of target benefit plans. I apologize, but I don't know enough about pension benefit plans to know what that is, but it's unrelated. It's a type of plan that involves fixed contributions.

As for Bill C-406, the same rule is potentially at issue, whether it concerns a question that is on the Order Paper as government business. Bill C-76 and Bill C-406 both amend the Canada Elections Act, and both deal with issues of political financing. They do not amend the same sections of the CEA, however, so there's no formal overlap, and in terms of substance, they also deal with different issues. Bill C-406 places a prohibition on foreign contributions by third parties who engage in certain types of political spending. Bill C-76 amends the Canada Elections Act to provide an expanded list of the kinds of activities that third parties cannot engage in, using unknown contributions, as opposed to foreign ones. But it also changes the definition of what a foreign entity is.

In my assessment, there is no direct formal overlap, and they deal with different substance. However, Bill C-76 provides a new definition for foreign entity, which means it would have an effect on Bill C-406. Moreover, Bill C-406 includes a coordinating amendment, so if Bill C-76 were to pass, the language inserted by Bill C-406 would change as well.

We are returning to the same criterion that has been before this committee twice already this spring. The criterion is that bills and motions must not concern questions that are currently on the Order Paper or Notice Paper as items of government business.

Unfortunately, from the rule, as I said in an earlier meeting, it's not clear what is meant by “question”, and it's not clear what is meant by “concern”. However, judging by decisions made by this committee already—it has come up twice before in the last couple of months—there was a private member's bill that SMEM found non-votable because it sought to establish a national strategy for dealing with abandoned vessels while a government bill on the Order Paper would establish a federal framework for abandoned vessels. Furthermore, SMEM found another private member's bill non-votable because it would have extended protections to a series of bodies of water in British Columbia that would, under a government bill on the Order Paper, have received very similar levels of protection. In both cases, the determination that the committee made was that the private member's bill and the government bill addressed the same issue and dealt with it in a similar enough way that, were the two bills to advance at the same time, one would be redundant.

The way I have been interpreting the words “concern” and “question” is to see their being about preventing a few problems. One is pure duplication: two bills that exist to do the exact same thing in the exact same way. Another is conflict: two bills trying to achieve two opposing goals using the same section of an existing act, so they could not exist at the same time. The last is redundancy: two bills trying to achieve a similar enough objective that, should they pass, one or the other would be of little additional value.

The reason we care about these three criteria—duplication, conflict, and redundancy—as I understand them, is that this committee is interested in providing members the fullest opportunity possible to use their private members' time effectively, so that if the bill or the motion would have little or no effect, they should be given the opportunity to replace it.

committee hansard smem 3061 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on June 19, 2018

2018 Summer newsletter / infolettre été 2018

A Word From David

We are frequently called upon to solve problems, whether an issue is federal, provincial, or municipal. For us, at all three levels, knowing and respecting the boundaries of our jurisdictions is important. Sometimes the lines between them can be quite fuzzy. This raises the question: Who is responsible for what?

Healthcare, for example, is a split jurisdiction. Federally, we are responsible for the overall policy direction for, among other things, ensuring that healthcare in Canada is free and transparent. We also transfer tens of billions of dollars each year to the provinces through the Canada Health and Social Transfer, for implementation and management of the system. Day-to-day decisions and administration are up to the provinces, therefore someone with healthcare problems who turns to my office will find a sympathetic ear — and a referral to one of our provincial counterparts.

Similarly, one of the biggest issues in our riding is the inadequacy or our highway system. Highway 15 is at the breaking point with weekend traffic, and the 117 north of Labelle is in dire need of a major overhaul. These highways sport signs every 10 kilometres that say, in French, “Trans-Canada Highway,” as they are indeed part of the national network. The assumption at first glance is that the highway is under federal jurisdiction. While the federal government does significantly invest in highways, it does so only at the request of the provinces, through negotiated agreements. For the most part, the provinces decide where, when, and how to spend federal infrastructure money. A highway will only get federal funds if it is placed on the priority list by the provincial government. Congratulations to the Government of Québec and the Committee SOS 117 for their recent major announcement concerning the 117.

Telecommunications regulation which regular readers will know is of very high concern to me) aviation safety and regulation, postal delivery, and what constitutes a criminal offense, are under federal jurisdiction, as are matters of immigration, passports, and foreign relations. Railways are federal if they cross provincial boundaries, otherwise, they are under provincial jurisdiction. Finally, management of lakes and waterways, as I mentioned in the Summer 2017 edition of this Householder, is extremely complex because it falls in the jurisdiction of all 3 levels of government, which also work with lake associations and environmental organisations.

Laurentides—Labelle has 304 city councillors, mayors, and county wardens. Following this fall’s provincial election, there will be four members of the National Assembly. Regardless of political stripe or personal opinion, our job, as your elected representatives, is to work together for the benefit of the whole community.

We have to know who is responsible for what, while not getting distracted by who gets the credit. We need to cooperate to make progress on files and work together to find solutions to the problems we face. That’s what I and my team strive to do every day for all the residents of Laurentides—Labelle.

Have a wonderful Summer!

- David

Mot de David

Nous sommes appelés à résoudre des problèmes, peu importe qu’il s’agisse d’une responsabilité fédérale, provinciale ou municipale. Pour nous, à chacun des paliers, il est important de bien connaître et de respecter les limites de nos champs de compétence respectifs. Cependant, ces limites se révèlent parfois pas mal floues, ce qui nous amène à poser la question: qui est responsable de quoi?

Par exemple, la santé est une compétence partagée : le fédéral s’occupe des orientations stratégiques globales, veillant à ce que la prestation de soins de santé au Canada demeure gratuite et transparente. Par le Transfert canadien en matière de santé et de programmes sociaux, les provinces reçoivent des dizaines de milliards de dollars annuellement pour la mise en œuvre et la gestion du réseau. Donc l’administration et les décisions à prendre au quotidien incombent aux provinces. Ainsi, une personne ayant un problème touchant les soins de santé qui arrive à mon bureau recevra une écoute sympathique, et puis sera redirigée vers son député provincial.

Un autre enjeu majeur dans notre circonscription concerne les lacunes du réseau autoroutier. L’autoroute 15 fonctionne presque au-delà de sa capacité les fins de semaine, tandis que la route 117, au nord de Labelle, a grand besoin de réfections majeures. Ces routes sont jalonnées de panneaux indiquant qu’il s’agit de la « transcanadienne ».

Certains tronçons faisant effectivement partie du réseau national, on pourrait en conclure qu’il s’agit d’une route de compétence fédérale… Or, s’il est vrai que le gouvernement fédéral investit énormément dans les autoroutes, il ne le fait qu’à la demande des provinces, en fonction d’accords négociés. En majeure partie, c’est la province qui décide où, quand et comment sera dépensé l’argent fédéral consacré aux infrastructures. Donc, une autoroute ne recevra des fonds fédéraux que si elle figure dans la liste prioritaire établie par le gouvernement provincial. Par ailleurs, je tiens à féliciter le gouvernement du Québec et le Comité SOS 117 pour la récente annonce majeure concernant la route 117.

La réglementation des télécommunications – sujet qui m’interpelle énormément, comme vous le savez –; la sécurité et la réglementation du transport aérien; la livraison du courrier; la définition de ce qui constitue une infraction criminelle; l’immigration, et les passeports, relèvent tous de la compétence fédérale. L’assurance-emploi est une initiative fédérale, alors que l’aide sociale relève du provincial. Les chemins de fer sont fédéraux s’ils traversent les limites provinciales, mais ils sont de compétence provinciale autrement. Finalement, la gestion des plans d’eau, comme j’en ai parlé dans l’Infolettre de l’été 2017, est complexe puisqu’elle implique les 3 paliers de gouvernement, qui travaillent conjointement avec les associations de lacs et les organismes de prévention environnementale.

Notre circonscription compte 304 conseillers municipaux, maires et préfets. Ajoutons 4 députés qui siègeront à Québec suite à l’élection provinciale de l’automne prochain. Peu importe notre allégeance politique, ou nos opinions personnelles, nous avons la responsabilité partagée, en tant que représentants élus, de collaborer au bénéfice de toute la collectivité. Nous devons savoir qui est responsable de quoi, mais il ne faut pas se préoccuper de savoir à qui « revient le mérite ». Il faut coopérer pour que les dossiers avancent pour trouver, ensemble, des solutions aux problèmes. C’est ce que mon équipe et moi nous efforçons de faire, chaque jour, pour tous les citoyens de Laurentides— Labelle.

Bon été !

- David

KNOWING OUR REGION: from the past to the present...

There is an old adage that goes: we need to know where we come from to know where we are going. I love my country and am passionate about discovering the origins of places and the people who made them. So I invited my father, local historian Joseph Graham, to tell us a bit about the history of our region. Over the next few years you will receive many more of this type of communications and as often as possible I will include a section on our history. If you have any historical subjects that you would like to learn more about, let us know! Enjoy the read!

CONNAÎTRE NOTRE RÉGION : L’origine de certains partis politiques

Il y a un adage qui dit : il faut savoir d’où l’on vient pour savoir où l’on va. J’aime mon pays et je trouve passionnant de découvrir les origines des lieux et des gens qui le façonnent. J’ai donc invité mon père, l’historien local Joseph Graham, à nous parler un peu de l’histoire de notre région. Vous recevrez au cours des prochaines années plusieurs autres communications du type de ce journal et j’inclurai le plus souvent possible une section historique. D’ailleurs s’il y a des sujets dont vous voulez connaître l’histoire; faites-nous le savoir. Bonne lecture !

The origins of some political parties

The similarity of the names Liberal Party of Canada and Liberal Party of Quebec creates a lot of confusion, but they are two distinct parties.

The term Liberal comes from a middle-class Spanish movement from the early 1800s called the Liberales, who opposed the powers of the clergy and the nobles. British Tories used it as a derogatory term for the more progressive British Whigs, but the Whigs embraced the name. It became the label for those here who struggled for liberty and progress.

At the beginning of the 1800s, lawyer Pierre Stanislaus Bédard so respected the legal protections of the Constitutional Act of 1791 that he founded the Parti Canadien and a newspaper with the same name. Though he had broken no laws, Governor Sir James Henry Craig threw him in prison for being critical. He knew the constitution of 1791 protected him and insisted on a fair trial, refusing any plea bargain. Eventually, having lost face, the governor was forced to release him. Bédard’s initiative began a powerful reform movement that would lead to rebellion and responsible government.

Louis-Joseph Papineau, the second leader of the Parti Canadien, which had changed its name to Parti des Patriotes, believed in the American model of republican liberty. He encouraged a rebellion to force Britain to cede control of Lower Canada to the movement he led, but he did not have the support of the Church or of most of the people.

When Papineau’s rebellion failed, one of his dedicated followers, lawyer LouisHippolyte Lafontaine, who had been in England seeking solutions through legal means, came forward to lead the Parti des Patriotes and argued persuasively for pardons for many of the rebels. In his foundational “Adresse aux électeurs de Terrebonne” in 1840 he also made common cause with the Reform Party in Upper Canada.

By 1848, working together they achieved an elected government. Lafontaine became our first prime minister. This led to another rebellion in 1849 when the wealthy British business elite, the Chateau Clique, attacked and burned the Canadian parliament buildings in Montreal while Parliament was sitting. Later that summer they attacked Lafontaine at his home. After Lafontaine calmly re-established the peace, he insisted on pardons and clemency, setting a pattern of accommodation that characterizes Canada still.

Lafontaine’s Parti des Patriotes lost its more secular supporters, who created both Quebec’s Parti Rouge and Parti Libéral. These two provincial parties eventually merged under the provincial Liberal name. After Lafontaine’s time, the Patriotes became the ‘Bleus,’ and were ultimately absorbed into the Conservative Party of Quebec, the party of the Chateau Clique.

At the first federal election after Confederation in 1867, the Liberal-Conservative Party led by John A. Macdonald won, and the new Liberal Party of Canada formed the opposition. A third party called the Anticonfederate Party of Nova Scotia won 17 seats. In 1873, after losing control of the government in a vote of non-confidence, Macdonald’s party dropped the word Liberal from its name, becoming the Conservative Party of Canada.

Wilfrid Laurier, a member of the Parti Rouge, became leader of the federal Liberal Party and worked closely with the Liberal Party of Quebec, but relationships between the parties became strained, and by 1955 they had officially broken their ties with each other. Since that time, more than 60 years ago, the two parties, both named Liberal, have been totally separate. In Quebec, federal and provincial parties have remained separate and distinct from each other for several generations, regardless of colour or name.

- Joseph Graham

L’origine de certains partis politiques

Bien que leurs noms se ressemblent et portent souvent à confusion, le Parti libéral du Canada et le Parti libéral du Québec sont deux partis bien distincts.

Le terme « libéral » tire son origine des « Liberales », un mouvement de la classe moyenne espagnole qui, dès le début du XIXe siècle, s’oppose aux pouvoirs du clergé et des nobles. Alors que les tories britanniques emploient ce terme de façon péjorative pour décrire les whigs, plus progressistes, ceux-ci l’adoptent volontiers. Le terme « libéral » désigne, dès lors, ceux qui œuvrent pour la liberté et le progrès.

Au début des années 1800, Pierre-Stanislas Bédard, avocat de profession, voue un tel respect aux protections juridiques garanties par l’Acte constitutionnel de 1791 qu’il fonde le Parti canadien, de même qu’un journal du même nom. Bien qu’il n’enfreigne aucune loi, il est jeté en prison par le gouverneur, sir James Henry Craig, qui lui reproche ses critiques. Se sachant protégé par la Constitution de 1791, Pierre-Stanislas Bédard insiste pour avoir un procès équitable et refuse toute négociation de peine. Le gouverneur est forcé de le libérer après un certain temps et perd la face. C’est le point de départ d’un puissant mouvement qui conduira à une rébellion et à l’établissement d’un gouvernement responsable.

Le Parti canadien, devenu le Parti patriote, a pour deuxième chef Louis-Joseph Papineau, adepte de la liberté républicaine selon le modèle américain. Papineau tente de lancer une rébellion pour forcer l’Angleterre à céder le contrôle du Bas-Canada au mouvement qu’il dirige, une idée que n’appuient ni l’Église, ni la plupart des habitants.

Quand la rébellion de Papineau échoue, l’un de ses fidèles adeptes, l’avocat Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine, qui s’est rendu en Angleterre dans l’espoir de trouver des solutions juridiques à la situation, offre de diriger le Parti patriote et présente des plaidoyers convaincants en faveur de l’amnistie de nombreux rebelles. Dans son « Adresse aux électeurs de Terrebonne », un texte fondateur publié en 1840, il fait cause commune avec le Parti réformiste du Haut-Canada.

Unissant leurs efforts, ces deux partis réussissent, en 1848, à former un gouvernement élu, et Lafontaine devient le premier de nos premiers ministres. Ces événements entraînent une autre rébellion en 1849, à l’époque où l’Hôtel du Parlement est situé à Montréal. La clique du Château, composée de riches marchands britanniques, met le feu à l’édifice tandis que le Parlement siège. La clique attaque ensuite Lafontaine à son domicile pendant l’été 1849. Après avoir calmement ramené la paix, Lafontaine insiste pour privilégier l’amnistie et la clémence, ouvrant la voie à l’esprit d’ouverture qui caractérise toujours le Canada.

Le Parti patriote, dirigé par Lafontaine, perd ses partisans les plus neutres, qui créent le Parti rouge du Québec et le Parti libéral du Québec. Ces deux partis provinciaux fusionnent, par la suite, sous le nom Parti libéral du Québec. Après l’époque de Lafontaine, les Patriotes deviennent les « Bleus », puis sont intégrés au Parti conservateur du Québec, le parti de la clique du Château.

Lors des premières élections fédérales de la Confédération canadienne, en 1867, le Parti libéral-conservateur de John A. Macdonald prend le pouvoir, et le nouveau Parti libéral du Canada devient l’opposition officielle. Un troisième parti, le Parti antiConfédération de la Nouvelle-Écosse, obtient 17 sièges. En 1873, après avoir perdu le pouvoir à la suite d’un vote de défiance, le parti de Macdonald retire de son nom le terme « libéral » et devient le Parti conservateur du Canada.

Wilfrid Laurier, membre du Parti rouge, prend la tête du Parti libéral du Canada et travaille de près avec le Parti libéral du Québec. Les liens entre ces deux organisations deviennent toutefois tendus et, en 1955, sont officiellement rompus. Depuis cette rupture, qui remonte à plus de 60 ans, ces deux partis nommés « Parti libéral » sont tout à fait séparés. Au Québec, les partis provinciaux et fédéraux sont indépendants les uns des autres depuis plusieurs générations, quels que soient leur couleur et leur nom.

- Joseph Graham

View the original publication.

Voir la publication originale.

history newsletter 2513 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:41 on June 10, 2018

2018-06-07 PROC 114

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

(1530)

[English]

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

I call the meeting to order.

Good afternoon, and welcome to the 114th meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, as we continue our study 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 David Moscrop, who is appearing as an individual by video conference from Seoul, South Korea, and I don't know what time it is there; Sherri Hadskey, the Commissioner of Elections, Louisiana Secretary of State, who is appearing by video conference from Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Victoria Henry, digital rights campaigner from OpenMedia Engagement Network, who is appearing by video conference from Vancouver; and Sébastien Corriveau,[Translation]

leader of the Rhinoceros Party, who is also appearing by video conference from St-Donat-de-Rimouski, Quebec.[English]

Thank you all for making yourselves available.

I just want to say something I'd forgotten to say. We have made the clerk's job quite interesting over this study so far, so I think we should really give our appreciation to the clerk and his huge staff for getting all these witnesses on short notice.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Chair: It's been a mammoth job, and you've done—

Mr. Blake Richards (Banff—Airdrie, CPC):

I think it's 4:30 in the morning in Seoul, South Korea. I think it's 8:30 in the morning in New Zealand.

The Chair:

It's 4:30 in the morning in Seoul, South Korea.

Maybe we'll have David go first.

You each have an opening statement, but David, seeing as it is 4:30 in the morning there in South Korea, you could go first.

Mr. David Moscrop (As an Individual):

Thank you.

The Chair:

The floor is yours. Can you hear us?

Mr. David Moscrop:

Yes, I can.

Well, good morning from Seoul, South Korea, and thank you for the invitation to appear before the committee.

I just left Vancouver the other day, so I was closer to a much nicer time zone, but I am so pleased to be here. I know there is a lot to cover, so I'll get right to it.

The goals of any election legislation should be to protect the procedural integrity of how we choose our representatives during and outside the writ period, and to support a vibrant, diverse, egalitarian, and inclusive public sphere in which citizens can make informed political decisions.

With those ends in mind, I am pleased to see that this bill introduces a few measures that facilitate those goals, including stricter spending limits and regulations on third parties, as well as constraints that further constrain foreign actors. I think these measures will help level the playing field.

As others have testified, the limits are more than reasonable, although I would argue that it might be good to extend the pre-writ period covered under the legislation to perhaps as long as a year if the goal is to curb the permanent campaign.

I am also pleased that changes introduced by the Fair Elections Act are being amended or removed. The Chief Electoral Officer should be able to play an active role of promoting elections and educating citizens.

Also, because elections should be as successful as possible, I am excited and encouraged to see that vouching is reinstated, the use of a voter card as identification is brought back, and certain restrictions on limitations for voting for Canadians overseas or living abroad have been removed as well. That will free up a little bit of capacity for folks to turn out.

I think the bill is weaker when it comes to encouraging turnout vis-à-vis younger Canadians. A voluntary registry for those approaching voting age is fine, and I support that, but I think the voting age should be lowered to 16, full stop. Sixteen-year-olds have plenty of capacity, and the idea that we could get people voting younger and forming that habit earlier in life, I think, is a good one. However, if we really want to get serious about turnout I think we should think about mandatory voting.

Finally, on the weaker side, I think the privacy provisions in this bill don't go far enough. A policy for parties that they make public is fine, but when was the last time you read the terms of service on any service you signed up for? That is often inadequate. Parties should be run under stricter privacy legislation. There should be regular auditing of data and strict enforcement of privacy standards, and someone with some teeth who can do that.

I'll wrap up really quickly. Elections must be accessible and fair, but more importantly, folks must believe that they are accessible and fair. This bill takes some encouraging steps toward that end, but it could go further and probably should, especially in light of growing concerns about the sustained decline in voter turnout, as well as data rights and privacy.

Thank you.

(1535)

The Chair:

Thank you very much.

Now we'll go to Sherri Hadskey, Commissioner of Elections for Louisiana.

Ms. Sherri Hadskey (Commissioner of Elections, Louisiana Secretary of State):

Hi, it's nice to be with you. I'm honoured to be able to speak with you today.

Louisiana has such a unique election system. I believe we have more elections than any state in the United States. You were speaking about voter fatigue, and that is a big problem in Louisiana. Generally we have four scheduled elections a year, but we always end up with special elections, and it's the ripple effect. A senator runs in the fall, wins a different seat, and that opens the first seat. Our legislature would like these people to be seated for each legislative session, so a special election is called, and we're looking for a better turnout for those types of elections.

We too are trying to find things to prevent voter fatigue and trying to get good turnout consistently. We have an 87% registration number, which is amazing. I'm so proud of that, but to have only 16% turnout in a [Inaudible—Editor] election cycle is saddening, because with the registration that we have, we would like to have the turnout match.

I'd love to be able to provide the answers to any questions you may have, and I'm just happy to be here.

The Chair:

Thank you very much. We're happy you're here too.

Now we'll go on to Victoria Henry from OpenMedia Engagement Network.

Ms. Victoria Henry (Digital Rights Campaigner, Open Media Engagement Network):

Hi there. Thanks so much for having me here to discuss this issue.

I'm Victoria Henry. I'm a digital rights campaigner specializing in privacy issues with OpenMedia, which is a community-based organization committed to keeping the Internet open, affordable, and free of surveillance. The revelations stemming from the Cambridge Analytica and Facebook scandal have highlighted the extent to which our privacy laws are failing to protect the privacy of ordinary people in Canada and how this can influence elections.

While Bill C-76 makes some positive steps to protect the integrity of elections and safeguard our democracy, the omission of political parties from privacy legislation is a concerning gap, and that's the issue I'd like to talk about today.

People around the world are increasingly concerned, of course, about how their personal information is gathered, used, and stored. More than 10,000 people in Canada have recently signed on to a letter asking for reform of our privacy laws. The key demand in that letter is for Canada's political parties to be subject to federal privacy laws.

The existing privacy exemptions for political parties have left many Canadians convinced that the current system is not working in our best interests. We need guarantees that our government's political interests will not take precedent over our privacy and our security.

committee hansard proc 55982 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on June 07, 2018

2018-06-07 PROC 113

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

(1005)

[English]

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

Welcome to meeting 113 of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

This morning we continue our study 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 Leslie Seidle, Research Director from the Institute for Research on Public Policy; Nicolas Lavellée, Strategic Adviser, from Citoyenneté jeunesse; and Michael Morden, Research Director from the Samara Centre for Democracy.

Thank you for being here this morning.

I'll now turn the floor over to Mr. Seidle for his opening comments.

Dr. Leslie Seidle (Research Director, Institute for Research on Public Policy, As an Individual):

Thank you, Chair and committee, for the opportunity to come before you today.

You have a huge bill in front of you. I'm going to dig down or at least somewhat down in one area, the limits on the spending by third parties prior to and during the official election period. This is an area on which I've done research in the past and recently did a fairly large comparative report. It's also one of the major issues that were addressed in the early nineties by the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing, often known as the Lortie commission, on which I served as senior research coordinator.

I'll start with the third party limits during the writ period.

At present, the limit on advertising expenses for a third party nationally is $214,350, of which no more than $4,287 can be spent in a particular riding. The bill you have in front of you will expand the scope of spending, subject to limits, to include partisan activity expenses and election survey expenses, in addition to the advertising expenses that have been covered since 2000. In consequence, the limits have been raised considerably according to the backgrounder that was released when the bill was tabled. The new national limit on third party spending is estimated at around $500,000 for 2019. The level that's printed in the bill, $350,000, is adjusted for inflation from 2000, not from now. I find it reasonable to expand the scope of third party limits because the additional activities, such as surveys, are linked to, and indeed may even support, third party election advertising. The level of the new limits also seems reasonable to me.

There's a related amendment that limits the writ period to 50 days, and this will mean that, for political parties and candidates, a pro-rated increase of the third party limits will no longer be possible. I support this move. The pro-rated-limits provision that was brought in under the previous government was a very odd piece of public policy, and dropping it is definitely a good step, not just for third parties but obviously also for parties and candidates.

I'll now turn to the pre-writ spending limits for third parties.

Before commenting on the scope and level of these limits, I want to say a few words about the rationale for this move and the experience in some other jurisdictions.

On the rationale, the government has decided that spending limits for candidates and parties will be extended to the pre-writ period. I think it's fair to say that this is consistent with Canada's long experience with party and candidate spending limits, which date from 1974, and also with the broad public support for such limits. The new third party limits will apply as of June 30 in an election year, along with candidate and party limits, so they will cover a period of almost four months.

As members know, there's a fairly widely held view that to be effective, limits on party and candidate spending need to be paired with limits on third party spending. They're seen as complementary and, in a sense, mutually supportive. Indeed, the Supreme Court in the 2004 Harper decision stated that third party election spending limits are necessary to protect the integrity of the financing regime applicable to candidates and parties. If party and candidate limits are introduced for the pre-writ period, if that decision has been taken, it follows logically that third party spending or at least some aspects of that spending should also be subject to limits, otherwise that linkage, that complementarity, that exists during the election period will not apply.

Other jurisdictions have taken similar steps. In the U.K., there have been pre-writ spending limits for parties, candidates, and third parties since 2000. They're quite long. They apply for an entire year, give or take a few days depending on when the election is held. In Ontario, pre-writ limits for the three entities were introduced in 2016. They are applying in the election that's ending today, and the period there is six months. In your bill, it's somewhat shorter. It's close to four months. I find the duration in Bill C-76 to be reasonable.

As for the scope, the new limits will cover three areas: partisan activities, partisan advertising, and election surveys. This may appear analogous to the expanded scope of the election limits, but there's an important difference to be noted.

Unlike the definition of election advertising, partisan advertising does not include advertising messages that take a position on an issue with which a party or person is associated. You have, in the copy of my notes, the two definitions appended at the end. This means that if a third party sponsors advertising on an important public policy issue, but the messages do not promote or oppose a registered party or candidate, the cost of such advertising will not count against the pre-writ spending limit for the third party.

To illustrate this, here are a couple of examples of advertising that a third party might sponsor: Message A: Marijuana can harm your children's health, so don't vote Liberal. Message B: The Trudeau Liberal government legalized marijuana, which can harm your children's health.

Based on my reading of Bill C-76, third party spending on the first message would be subject to a limit, but spending on the second message—The Trudeau government legalized marijuana, which can harm your children's health—would not be because there's no promotion of voting for Liberals or against Liberals. This is often referred to as “issue advertising”.

If that kind of a message were sponsored during the official election period, it would count against the third party limit. There's a policy difference between the pre-writ limits and the election limits for third parties.

I'll finish on the question of the level of permitted spending.

The pre-writ limits on third party spending are estimated at about $1 million nationally, and $10,000 in a single electoral district. Third parties' national pre-limit will thus be twice their election limit, and two-thirds of what registered parties will be allowed to spend in the pre-writ period. For the parties, it's estimated at $1.5 million.

Moreover, in light of the difference between the definitions of advertising expenses that I just explained, the pre-writ limits for third parties will cover a narrower range of activities than their election limits, so they have additional room. The spending on issue advertising is not subject to limit. In light of what I just said, I am not convinced it is necessary to set the pre-spending limits for third parties at such a high level.

(1010)

The Chair:

Thank you very much.

Now we'll go to Mr. Lavallée. [Translation]

Mr. Nicolas Lavallée (Strategic Advisor, Citoyenneté jeunesse):

Hello, Mr. Chair, members of parliament, dear members of the committee.

My name is Nicolas Lavallée. I am a Strategic Advisor with Citoyenneté jeunesse, formerly known as the Table de concertation des forums jeunesse régionaux du Québec. It was under that name that we appeared before this committee in the spring of 2014.

The core mandate of regional youth forums is to encourage the civic participation of youth and to serve as an advisor on youth matters. Various projects of these youth forums are funded by Quebec's youth secretariat and Quebec's ministry of immigration, diversity and inclusion. For provincial and municipal elections, we have also had various financial partners, including Élections Québec.

We also work with Élections Québec to conduct an election simulation exercise in Quebec called “Voters in training”, which was developed by one of our members, the Forum jeunesse de l'île de Montréal. The youth forums conduct activities year round to increase young people's interest in politics and their sense of competency. For example, we offer activities and workshops on politics for young people. During an election period, we reach out to young voters on the ground to encourage them to exercise their right to vote and to tell them about the different voting procedures.

I will now tell you a bit about civic education and its impact on the youth vote.

In the last federal election, just 57.1% of young Canadians aged 18 to 24 voted, and just 57.4% of young Canadians aged 25 to 35 voted. That is about 10 percentage points below the overall voter turnout of 68.3% for that election. So it is essential for us to get young people out to vote since studies show that a young person who votes as soon as they are of age to do so is very likely to continue voting throughout their life. Getting young people to vote is ultimately a way of getting the whole population to vote.

Why do young people not vote? There are two types of factors at play. Essentially, there are motivational factors, such as interest in politics and knowledge, and voting access factors, such as registration on lists, lack of proper identification, and ignorance of voting procedures. The 2015 National Youth Survey, which measured the relative importance of all factors in the decision to vote, also identified both motivational and access factors.

We need to conduct civic education activities because they are effective. In the fall of 2016, Elections Canada also commissioned an independent evaluation of the Student Vote program. The study showed that the Student Vote program has a positive impact on the many factors involved in electoral participation. In particular, the program increases knowledge of and interest in politics, and also strengthens the view that voting is a civic duty.

If these campaigns are effective for grade school and high school students, they are of course also effective for young people who have just become eligible to vote. It is precisely that age group that needs more information and public education. So we are very excited to see that Bill C-76 would once again allow Elections Canada and the chief electoral officer to act independently to address factors relating to motivation to vote and access to voting. Campaigns for the general public also play an important role and help create healthy social pressure to vote.

Research has also shown that people are sensitive to those around them when it comes time to vote. Young people are especially influenced by their family, their peers, and society. Following the general elections in Quebec in 2014, Élections Québec had an evaluation done of its own voting promotion campaigns, which found that 75% of the population studied had seen the ads.

Finally, here are a few recommendations.

We think it is possible and desirable to once again address the motivational and voting access obstacles.

First, we recommend that the new wording of subclauses 18(1) and 18(2) of the bill be adopted. That would once again allow the chief electoral officer to conduct campaigns focused more on motivation or information, at his discretion, with full independence and, of course, without any restrictions.

Secondly, we support initiatives to increase voter participation, especially among young people. Citoyenneté jeunesse is very interested in measures such as creating a registry of future voters and extending the opening hours of advance polling stations.

Finally, we also ask that education remains at the core of Elections Canada's activities, whether through its own initiatives or by providing funding for other organizations, which are obviously non-partisan and whose mandate is civic education. Promoting the vote and democracy, whether through friends, family members, teachers, peers, and so on, is essential in order to prevent youth voter turnout from plummeting.

(1015)

To turn the tide, society has to work as a whole and play a role, especially Elections Canada, which is responsible for conducting elections and has a great deal of expertise in this area.

I sincerely hope that this bill will be passed and that all the parties can agree to work together to strengthen the health of the country's democracy.

committee hansard proc 46836 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on June 07, 2018

2018-06-06 PROC 112

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

(1825)

[English]

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

Good evening. Welcome to the 112th meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Our first two panels, we didn't quite get to. We gave them the option of coming back at 8:30 p.m. or sending a written submission. Two are coming back at 8:30 p.m., so we're going to our third panel. We are joined by Vivian Krause, researcher and writer; Gary Rozon, auditor, Gary Rozon CMA Inc.; Talis Brauns, mediation officer, and John Akpata, peace officer, both from the Marijuana Party; and from the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada, Anna Di Carlo, national leader, national headquarters.

Thank you for making yourselves available to appear.

We will start with you, Ms. Krause. Please make your opening statement.

Ms. Vivian Krause (Researcher and Writer, As an Individual):

Good evening, everyone. Bonsoir, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. [Translation]

I will make my presentation in English, but I'll be happy to answer your questions in either language afterwards.[English]

Thank you very much for inviting me to join you this evening to contribute to your work in relation to Bill C-76. My understanding is that you are interested in my input with regard to the issue of undue foreign influence in Canadian elections; therefore, I will do my best to speak to that first.

By way of background, perhaps it would be of interest to the committee for me to introduce myself briefly and to sum up why I believe undue foreign influence in our elections is a serious issue not only for our country but also for the sovereignty of our country.

By way of background, I am a Canadian citizen. I'm a resident of North Vancouver. For the last 10 years I have been following the money and the science behind environmental activism and, more recently, behind elections activism. I have done all my work on my own initiative. I am not funded or directed by anyone, and I've written a series of articles that sum up most of my work published in the Financial Post and elsewhere.

As you may be aware from some of the articles I've written, there is a significant extent to which non-Canadian influence had an impact in the 2015 federal election in our country. I reported this extensively to Elections Canada. I would just sum up for you briefly that there are at least three U.S.-based organizations that have claimed credit for having had a significant influence in the 2015 federal election. Two of these are Corporate Ethics International, based in San Francisco, and the Citizen Engagement Laboratory, based in Oakland, California.

How do we know these American organizations influenced the outcome of the 2015 federal election? Well, we know this because they've told us in writing. I'll cite one example.

In the 2015 annual report of the Online Progressive Engagement Network, which is part of the Citizen Engagement Laboratory, its executive director, referring to the year 2015, wrote: We ended the year with...a Canadian campaign that moved the needle during the national election, contributing greatly to the ousting of the conservative Harper government.

That's a written statement by the executive director of a non-Canadian organization. How do they do that? Well, the Citizen Engagement Laboratory has a project called the Online Progressive Engagement Network, OPEN for short, and it had a program called strategic incubation. That program helped to create, launch, and back behind the scenes a Canadian-based organization called Leadnow, based in Vancouver.

Leadnow, with the support of OPEN, ran a “get the vote out” campaign in the 2015 and 2011 federal elections. In the 2015 federal election in particular, they ran a campaign that targeted Conservative incumbents in 29 ridings. In some of these ridings, it stands to reason that this group had an impact. For example, in Winnipeg, in the Elmwood—Transcona riding, where Leadnow had full-time staff for more than a year, as far as I'm aware, the incumbent was defeated by only 61 votes.

Bill C-76 aims to close some of the loopholes that have allowed non-Canadian influence in our federal elections. I understand that a lot of work has gone into the preparation of this bill, and as a Canadian I would like to acknowledge and thank everyone who's worked so hard on it so far. I regret to say, though, that unfortunately I think with the way the bill stands today, what happened in the 2015 election would be able to occur and reoccur. I don't see that this bill has been changed in the ways that would be needed to deter and in fact make illegal what happened in 2015 and keep it from happening again.

Specifically, I would refer the committee to proposed section 282.4 under “Undue influence by foreigners”. It's paragraph 282.4(1)(b) in particular that I think needs some work.

I'll leave it at that as my opening comments, Mr. Chairman, and I would be glad to answer any questions that you may have.

(1830)

The Chair:

Thank you very much. That was great.

Now we'll go to Mr. Rozon.

Mr. Gary Rozon (Auditor, Gary Rozon CMA Inc., As an Individual):

I'm Gary Rozon. I'm an independent auditor. I work, obviously, independently. I work with all parties. I think I have a client or two in this room right now. I've been doing this for over 10 years. Before that, I worked at Elections Canada, so I have a perspective of how things work from the inside.

One of the things on which I've always thought the punishment didn't fit the crime is the issue of making people and agents go to court to file extension deadlines.

For those of you who don't know, after an election, for example, you have four months to file. After the four-month deadline, you have to have either filed or asked for an extension from Elections Canada, which is usually always granted. If you are late and you don't have your paperwork in or you didn't file the extension, you have to go to court to get an extension. This is costly, in the $4,000 to $6,000 range. I'm sure that some of you, as members of Parliament, may not even know. You trust your financial agents and your official agents to handle the money, and for the most part, they do a very good job, but sometimes—human nature—it slips. They forget the deadline. They have to go to court, and the costs are in the $5,000 range and more. For some of the major parties that have the cash or the riding associations or the campaigns that can pay this, it's the cost of doing business, but the same rule applies to people running independently who hardly spend any money, or to someone from the smaller parties who might have raised a couple of thousand dollars. For them to be hit with a $4,000 or $5,000 penalty, as I said, the penalty exceeds the crime.

The same applies to the riding associations that had the May 31 deadline. I've been working with them. It's always a rush for those who forgot about the date. If you have new agents, the dates aren't burned into their brain like they are with some of the rest of us who do this all the time.

One way to get around it, I would suggest—and I've suggested it with some of the agents I've been working with for years—is that in the matter of a campaign, where you're getting back 60% of your spending from Elections Canada.... To make round numbers, if you spend $100,000, Elections Canada is going to give you back $60,000. I'll say that you motivate people the best way you can, and for most people, that's money.

I would do away with the court side of things. I would say that if they did four months, they needed an extension, they got it, they got an extra 30 days, and they still couldn't file after a few days, don't send them to court. I would say to take 10% off every month. Instead of 60%, it would be, “No, you missed the extra month and you're now getting 50%. You missed another month? You're now getting 40%.” That paperwork would get filed faster than any court would ever do.

I'm not going to mention names, but I know that one person in this room had to go through that with their riding association. The file went into Elections Canada. The agent didn't know that Elections Canada puts the “dead” in “deadline”, and he thought, “Close enough.”

Everybody is pointing.

Voices: Oh, oh!

(1835)

Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP):

I feel like it's a murder mystery now.

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, CPC):

To be clear, everybody in the room is looking at me.

Mr. Chris Bittle (St. Catharines, Lib.):

Let the record show, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Gary Rozon:

That's why I didn't name names.

To me, it's just crazy. In the one case that I'm speaking of, he got the paperwork in. He was in the Elections Canada mailroom, but they flat out refused to open it until they.... He had to go to court. The judge is like, “I went to law school for this?” He got the court order. Then it came to Elections Canada, and they opened it. It just seems like overkill. That's the main thing. It's equal until it gets down to the little guys. They're being asked to pay $4,000 or $5,000, as well. It's overkill. If this ever goes back to Elections Canada, I hope they take advantage of that.

My other totally self-serving item is this. Over the years, we've all seen the indexing of campaign spending limits for elections. We've all seen the indexing of contribution limits, which I'm sure some of you totally appreciate. They have not indexed the Elections Canada subsidy in about 15 years. Every year we are asked/told to do more, and with inflation we're getting less. That ends up going back onto your riding associations and your campaigns, when there is more audit work that has to be done before going to elections.

That's my semi self-serving.... The main thing is that I wish we could do something to keep these kinds of things out of the courts.

Thank you.

The Chair:

Well, thank you.

I can assure you Elections Canada is watching this very closely, so I'm sure they'll give that due consideration.

committee hansard proc 44276 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on June 06, 2018

2018-06-05 20:23 House intervention / intervention en chambre

Aboriginal reserves, Government bills, Quality of life, Third reading and adoption,

Qualité de la vie, Réserves autochtones, Troisième lecture et adoption

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I had the privilege of joining my colleague from Joliette and going to the Atikamekw of Manawan First Nation.

We could see that there are desperate needs on this territory. Together with Chief Jean-Roch Ottawa and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, we embarked on a day-long tour of the community. We saw that there are some serious needs and we were able to make a small announcement and start helping.

Can my colleague talk about this issue and what we can do in budget 2017-18 and what work we can do in general to improve things in these regions and these communities?

Monsieur le Président, hier, j'ai eu le privilège de me rendre avec mon collègue de Joliette à la réserve indienne des Atikamekw de Manawan.

Nous avons constaté les besoins énormes dans ce territoire. Avec le chef Jean-Roch Ottawa et le secrétaire parlementaire de la ministre des Services aux Autochtones, nous avons eu l'occasion de faire le tour de ce territoire pendant une journée entière. Nous avons constaté qu'il y avait de sérieux besoins, et nous avons pu faire une petite annonce et commencer à aider.

Mon collègue peut-il parler de cet enjeu et de ce que nous pouvons faire dans le cadre du budget de 2017-2018 et du travail que nous pouvons faire en général pour améliorer le sort de ces régions et de ces communautés?

Watch | Hansard

Ecoutez | Hansard

hansard parlchmbr tv 265 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 20:26 on June 05, 2018

2018-06-05 PROC 111

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

(1535)

[English]

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

Good afternoon. Welcome to meeting 111 of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs as we continue our study 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 officials from the Communications Security Establishment, Scott Jones, Deputy Chief, Information Technology Security; and Jason Besner, Director, Cyber Threat Evaluation Centre, Information Technology Security. As well, from the Canadian Federation of Students, we have Coty Zachariah, National Chairperson, and Justine De Jaegher, Executive Director.

I have some good news for the committee. Twitter has agreed—

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Andrew Lauzon):

I sent the email to Mr. Chan from Facebook and to Twitter as well, and I've been in contact with both of them by phone or by email. Mr. Chan said that he would be able to be here on Thursday afternoon, and I'm still waiting to hear back from Twitter with an official response.

The Chair:

Mr. Jones, you can make your opening statement. Thank you for coming.

Mr. Scott Jones (Deputy Chief, Information Technology Security, Communications Security Establishment):

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Scott Jones and I'm the head of cybersecurity at the Communications Security Establishment. As mentioned, I'm accompanied by Jason Besner, the Director of the Cyber Threat Evaluation Centre, or CTEC, at CSE. Thank you for inviting us here today.[Translation]

As I believe it has been sometime since a CSE official appeared before this committee, please allow me to provide you with a brief overview of CSE's cybersecurity mandate.

For over 70 years, CSE has helped provide and protect Canada's most sensitive information.

In addition to our foreign signals intelligence and lawful assistance mandates, CSE, as Canada's centre of excellence for cyber operations, is mandated to help ensure the protection of information and information infrastructures of importance to the Government of Canada.

In this effort, CSE provides advice, guidance, and services to Government of Canada departments and agencies and to owners of other systems of importance to the Government of Canada. CSE works closely with partners from across government as part of this important effort, some of whom you have already heard from as part of your study.

(1540)

[English]

As you know, the Minister of Democratic Institutions asked CSE to analyze risks to Canada's political and electoral activities from hackers. In response, CSE released an assessment of cyber-threats to Canada's democratic process. This assessment, released in June 2017, was developed by looking at the experiences of elections around the world over the last 10 years. The report found that Canada is not immune from cyber-threat activity against its elections.

While the threat in Canada was assessed as generally low sophistication, political parties, politicians, and the media are vulnerable to cyber-threats and influence operations. Indeed, the report assessed that in 2015 Canada's democratic process was targeted by low-sophistication cyber-threat activity.

There are many types of threat actors who could target our democratic process, and CSE plays a vital role in preventing them from achieving their goals. By providing advice to government departments, political parties, and the public on how they can better protect themselves against cyber-threats, we help prevent harmful compromises.

Since publishing the report on cyber-threats to Canada's democratic process in June, CSE has held productive meetings with political parties, parliamentarians, and electoral officials to discuss the report and its findings and to offer cybersecurity advice and guidance. For example, at the federal level, CSE officials have met with parliamentarians, representatives from all political parties with standing in the House of Commons, and in partnership with Elections Canada, we met with a majority of federally registered political parties in Canada.

We have been asked by the Minister of Democratic Institutions to continue our analysis of cyber-threats to Canada's democratic process. Our 2017 report was produced with the intent of it being updated as required. Our analysis will continue to look at the rapidly changing technological and threat environment, and will help characterize and understand the evolving threats to our democratic processes.

These efforts are part of CSE's goal of supporting an enhanced understanding of cybersecurity issues and will help increase resilience against threats to Canada's democratic process. In addition, this ongoing analysis will help inform briefings to Government of Canada officials, political parties, and parliamentarians.

Our ongoing efforts are set within the context of broader initiatives taken by the Government of Canada to bolster cybersecurity. Through budget 2018, the government has announced its intention to create a Canadian centre for cybersecurity within CSE as part of a new “to be announced” Canadian cybersecurity strategy. This initiative is complemented by the enhanced statutory framework proposed under Bill C-59, which would help strengthen CSE's capacity to thwart cyber-threats. This important legislation includes key provisions to advance the tools available to government in this domain, set within an enhanced accountability regime.

Thank you, and we look forward to answering your questions.

The Chair:

Thank you.

Now we'll go to Coty Zachariah, from the Canadian Federation of Students.

Mr. Coty Zachariah (National Chairperson, Canadian Federation of Students):

[Witness speaks in Mohawk]

I was just speaking Mohawk and said, “Hello, everyone.” My name is Coty Zachariah, or “He Speaks in the Wind”. I come from the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte First Nation, located near Kingston. I'm also the national chairperson of the Canadian Federation of Students and represent around 650,000 students across the country at the post-secondary level.

In October 2014, we joined the Council of Canadians in a charter challenge to the voter suppression elements of the so-called Fair Elections Act. Our primary concerns about the act were with regard to prohibiting the authority of the Chief Electoral Officer, or CEO, to authorize the use of the voter information cards as valid ID for voting, and limiting the CEO's authority to carry out voter education and outreach.

Students face additional barriers to voting, notably that students move frequently, often up to twice a year. As a result, common identification cards do not indicate the address that students live at on election day, or their names are not on the voters list in the poll or riding that they live in while they attend school. Moreover, by limiting the CEO's authority to carry out voter education and outreach, students, who are often new voters, are likely to be more confused about the process.

Despite these barriers in the last election, the CFS undertook a massive, non-partisan elections campaign that worked to mobilize students to come out in record numbers to vote. In 2015, 70,000 student voters took part in the democratic process at on-campus polling stations. It led to an expansion of that initial pilot project within Elections Canada. For 18- to 24-year-olds, turnout was 57.1%, compared to 38.8% in 2011. This increase of 18.3 percentage points is the largest increase of voting engagement in any demographic in the country. However, this increase was in spite of the Fair Elections Act and students still faced issues.

To quote the Chief Electoral Officer's post-2015 election retrospective report: As in the previous two elections, problems with voter identification at the polls were more often related to proof of address. The labour force survey after the 42nd general election asked non-voters why they did not vote. In terms of reasons related to the electoral process, the inability to prove identity or address was the main reason cited ... and was more often cited among those aged 18 to 24.... Based on estimations from the survey, that amounts to approximately 172,700 electors. Among them, some 49,600 (28.7%) said they went to the polling station, but did not vote because they were not able to prove their identity and address. Approximately 39% of that group were aged 18 to 34.

We at CSF find that unacceptable. Students, however, are encouraged to see that Bill C-76 would make substantial reform to the Canada Elections Act, including the amendments formerly set in Bill C-33, and we look forward to seeing it passed.

We are discouraged, however, that these reforms are coming so late. It seems likely that even if Bill C-76 proceeds expeditiously, it would not make it through the Senate and be proclaimed into force until 2019, making it unlikely that Elections Canada could fully implement the bill's reforms before the next general election in October of next year. It seems likely that it is our court case with the Council of Canadians that might result in the necessary reforms around voter suppression being implemented prior to this election, a regretful outcome of a delayed process around Bill C-33 that we would like noted.

We believe student and youth participation in the democratic process is something to be celebrated and not discouraged. We hope that Bill C-76 will promote this principle.

Thank you.

(1545)

The Chair:

Thank you very much.

Now we'll begin our round of questions, starting with Mr. Graham.

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

Thank you.

My question is to our friends Mr. Jones and Mr. Besner.

What services does CSE provide to Elections Canada and political parties?

Mr. Scott Jones:

There are a few areas. We've been working with Elections Canada on general architecture, advice, and guidance, things such as supply-chain integrity, contractual clauses, and so on, as they start to establish the infrastructure for the election. In addition, though, we've also worked with them in the development of the threat assessment itself, just to ensure that we were maintaining neutrality and not stepping into what is the domain of Elections Canada as a non-government entity, an entity of Parliament.

Further to that, though, we are also looking at how to actively participate and work with Elections Canada in terms of defending the infrastructure that is being deployed in support of election 2019 to ensure that it is properly protected and is able to proceed.

Mr. David de Burgh Graham:

From your point of view, what's the greatest threat to cybersecurity in parties and in elections in general? Is it technical issues or is it social engineering?

committee hansard proc 65362 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on June 05, 2018

2018-06-05 PROC 110

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

(1000)

[English]

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

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the 110th meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Today we continue our study on 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 today by Taylor Gunn, president and chief election officer of CIVIX, and Duff Conacher, co-founder of Democracy Watch.

For the committee's information, you have the list from the clerk of the total number of witnesses. The good news is that they've all been invited—all 300—and we've accommodated everyone who's interested. If there are any more who express an interest, we have slots this week and can fill them. We should be finished with witnesses this week.

We can do some opening statements.

Mr. Gunn, maybe you could start, and then we'll hear from Mr. Conacher.

Mr. Taylor Gunn (President and Chief Election Officer, CIVIX):

It's nice to see everybody again. Last time, it was around the electoral reform issue, and I want to put on the record that I sincerely appreciate all the effort and the time you put in even if it didn't really turn into anything. It was a great example of a parliamentary committee at work.

It's a privilege to have been here a few times before. In case you don't recall who we are and what we do, I'll explain that we're a Canadian civic education charity that works to develop the habits and skills of citizenship within students under the voting age.

Our primary piece of work is the student vote program, which is a parallel election for kids under the voting age. You may have been aware of that. We're running one in Ontario right now. We expect probably around 300,000 kids to go through that process by Thursday of this week.

An interesting addition to our work is that we ran our first student vote outside of Canada in Colombia two weeks ago, with 31,000 kids participating. Hopefully, that will open us up to more countries and we can export our Canadian democratic values.

We've also started a new program that's all about news literacy and “mis-, dis-, and mal-information”, which relates a bit to what's in this bill. That's something that I might bring up later.

It's a privilege to be here. I can't say that I object to much—or maybe anything—in the proposed bill. I'm really comfortable giving more time to Duff, who might have some more specific points. There are some things I can comment on around the preregistration, and maybe a little bit around the foreign interference, with what we've learned over the last few months, and then on another couple of small points.

I'm happy to give up my time to Duff or to end short so that you guys can have a break and plan for your next session.

(1005)

The Chair:

Okay, Mr. Conacher, you're on.

Mr. Duff Conacher (Co-Founder, Democracy Watch):

Thank you very much.

Thank you to the committee for the opportunity to testify before you today.

I am testifying here in my role as co-founder of Democracy Watch, which, if you are not aware, is a citizen advocacy group. We've been working since 1993 to make Canada the world's leading democracy, pushing for changes to require everyone in politics to be honest, ethical, open, and representative, and to prevent waste. A total of 190,000 people have signed up to send a letter or petition in one or another of our campaigns from across Canada.

Today, my submission is based largely, as Mr. Gunn mentioned, on earlier submissions made to the Special Committee on Electoral Reform.

Bill C-76 makes many good changes, reversing many of the unfair changes made by the 2014 so-called Fair Elections Act, but the Democracy Watch position is that the negative effects of many of the changes in that act were exaggerated. As a result, the reversal of those changes will likely have little overall effect on what actually happens in elections. Like the 2014 Fair Elections Act, Bill C-76 unfortunately doesn't live up to its name. It's called the elections modernization act, but like the Fair Elections Act, it allows many old-fashioned, unfair, and undemocratic election practices to continue, as follows:

Number one, of course, the vote-counting system doesn't count votes in a fair way, and usually produces false majority governments. It also doesn't allow voters to vote “none of the above”—a key option that voters should have, and already have in four provinces—and it doesn't fully fix election dates, as the U.K. has, to stop unfair snap election calls.

Number two, it continues to allow the baiting of voters with false promises in ads. The Canada Elections Act prohibits inducing voters to vote for anyone by—and this is the actual wording—“any pretence or contrivance”. However, the commissioner of Canada elections refuses to apply that measure to a blatantly false promise or false statement made during an election. A clearly worded “honest promises” requirement, with significant penalties, is clearly needed. It's the number one hot-button issue for voters: even if they vote for the party that wins, they don't get what they voted for because of blatantly false promises.

While clause 61 of the bill adds some specifics to the measures in sections 91 and 92 of the Canadian Elections Act concerning false statements about candidates, the measures actually significantly narrow the range of prohibited false statements. That is a move in the wrong direction. Dishonesty in elections should be broadly defined and discouraged. It's a fundamental voter rights issue. They have the right to an honest campaign so that they know what they're voting for honestly, and misleaders, as opposed to leaders, should be discouraged with significant penalties.

Related to that, the bill does not do nearly enough to stop the new form of false claims, secret false online election ads, including by foreigners. Bill C-76 trusts social media companies to self-regulate, only holding them accountable if they “knowingly” allow a foreign ad, but not saying anything at all in terms of their knowingly or in any other way allowing a false domestic ad. Again, clause 61 narrows the definition of “false statements”, but it still would be illegal to make a false statement about a candidate.

In terms of the “knowingly” standard, the social media companies will easily be able to come up with evidence that they didn't know an ad had been placed. It's not going to be enforceable. They'll get off every time, so that doesn't discourage them from allowing secret, false, online election ads by people in the country or foreigners.

Media and social media companies should be required to report all details about every election-related ad to Elections Canada during the six months leading up to an election, so that Elections Canada can check whether the ad is false, whether it exceeds the third party spending limits, and whether it is paid for by a foreigner. All those three things are illegal, but if Elections Canada can't see those ads, which they can't because they're micro-targeted, how are they going to enforce those laws against false and foreign-sponsored ads, and ads that exceed the third party spending limits?

(1010)

Don't trust the social media companies to self-regulate in this area. Require them to report every ad to Elections Canada. During those six months, empower Elections Canada to order a clearly false or illegal ad because it's foreign or exceeds the spending limits to be deleted from a media and social media site and impose significant fines on the violators.

In terms of what the bill also does not address, annual donations are still too high. Bill C-50 doesn't do anything about this. As a result, the parties all rely on a small pool of large donors who donate thousands of dollars or more. That facilitates funnelling as SNC-Lavalin was caught doing. It also facilitates lobbyists bundling donations to buy influence. That's all undemocratic and unfair.

There are seven practices the bill does not address that should be switched to be overseen by Elections Canada or other watchdogs.

One is unfair nomination races. Elections Canada should be running all of them. The reform act has not changed anything. All the parties have handed back to party leaders the power to approve election candidates, sometimes with someone in their party headquarters' office as a screen.

Another is unfair leadership races. Elections Canada should be overseeing them.

Another is questionable auditing. Elections Canada should be auditing parties, candidates, and third parties.

Another is unfair election debates. Elections Canada or a commission should be running them with their rules. Hopefully a bill making that change will come soon, before the next election.

Another is biased election polling station supervision. The ruling party and second party choose those people and can force the returning officer to appoint whom they want. Elections Canada should be appointing all the polling station returning officers.

There is the questionable use of voter information. The bill does not extend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, PIPEDA, to the parties. The law should be extended to the parties with the Privacy Commissioner doing enforcement.

Another is unfair government advertising. Hopefully there will be a bill coming on that as well with the Auditor General or Elections Canada empowered to stop any ads that are partisan in the six months leading up to an election, and a full prohibition on government ads during the three months before an election.

There is the third party spending limits area. There's no way to stop Canadian businesses and citizen groups receiving foreign money from entities that frees up other money they have to use for third party election advocacy activities, unless you're going to prohibit foreign-owned businesses in Canada and foreign contributions to citizen groups completely. This bill does go quite far in requiring the separate bank account to be set up. I think the problem with it is it's discrimination against citizen groups that take donations versus unions and corporations that are also third parties. It's very easy for them to shift money into this bank account, but a third party is going to have to do special fundraising to get money into that account if it's a citizen group. It's going to make it much more difficult for citizen groups. They are allowed to donate into the account from their own funds that they may have gathered throughout the year, obviously not foreign funds. I think the overall effect is going to make it much more difficult for citizen groups to gather any funds compared to unions or corporations.

The disclosure of the reports and the limits are all good as well, but you need a limit on government advertising as well to make it fair for everyone leading up to the pre-writ drop period and the election period. Overall, I don't see any reason to increase the third party limit during the election period. That's a bad idea. That's a move in an undemocratic direction because it would allow wealthier interests to spend more. The cost of online ads is much less than traditional advertising was when the limits were first set. Even though the new limit covers more expenses, including surveys and going door to door and things like that kind of outreach, I don't see a reason to increase the limit. I think it's a move in a bad direction. How was the limit chosen? How were all the limits chosen? Are they based on anything? Are they based on looking at what parties spent on ads in the pre-writ period in the 2015 election, before the 2011 election?

(1015)

It's the same with third parties. Is it based on anything that's been reported to Elections Canada? I know that the figures in 2004 limiting third parties were arbitrary, but now we have some track record and I think it should be examined.

I'll just finish with this point. The limits as stated in the government's backgrounder are not the same as what's in the bill. I'm quite confused by huge discrepancies in the amounts. The pre-writ limit for party spending says $1.5 million in the backgrounder, but in the bill, it says $1.1 million. In the backgrounder, it says it's adjusted for 2019 figures based on inflation, which is 30% inflation which we don't have now. All the limits are the same. For third parties, there's a $300,000 gap between what it says in the bill and the backgrounder, and for a riding there's a $3,000 gap.

An hon. member: [Inaudible—Editor]

Mr. Duff Conacher: The pre-writ period and the writ period. I'm not sure where those figures came from in the backgrounder.

I would just make the overall point: how are these limits set? Why not look at what parties actually spent in the pre-writ period leading up to the 2011, 2015 elections. It's the same with the third parties and what they spent during the election. Set a limit based on that. I don't think any of the limits are very meaningful—any of them—because very few parties are going to spend that amount in July and August. People don't usually run big ad campaigns in July and August, especially for voters, because they're not paying attention until September after the writ is dropped.

Finally, overall enforcement must be increased. The fines must be increased. The watchdogs must be made much more independent. The length of time for bringing complaints must be extended from 30 days after an election to one year.

committee hansard proc 58653 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on June 05, 2018

2018-05-31 INDU 119

Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

(1545)

[English]

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

Thank you very much. Our apologies. Voting is always fun at this time of year.

Welcome, everybody, to meeting 119 of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology as we continue our fascinating, in-depth review of the Copyright Act.

We have with us today from the Professional Writers Association of Canada, Christine Peets, President; and from the Canadian Council of Archives, Nancy Marrelli, Special Adviser, Copyright.

Before we begin, Mr. Jeneroux, you had something you wanted to say.

Mr. Matt Jeneroux (Edmonton Riverbend, CPC):

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I apologize to the witnesses for the few moments that this will take.

I do want to take the opportunity because of the exceptional circumstances that I believe we find ourselves in. I'm sure when the witnesses booked their travel a few weeks ago, they weren't anticipating that there would have been a pipeline purchase by the government at this point in time, so I want to take the opportunity to move the motion that we put on the Order Paper last Tuesday. The motion reads: That the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology undertake a study of four meetings to review, among other things: the overall cost of buying and expanding the Trans Mountain Pipeline project, the costs related to oversight (crown corporation) of the project, and how this decision will impact investor confidence in Canadian resource projects; and that the Committee reports the findings back to the House and make recommendations on how to restore investor confidence.

I believe, again, it's imperative at this point in time, with the uncertainty in the energy sector created by the situation that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have unfortunately put us into, that this be something we undertake urgently so that we have that study before us, and we're able to advise the House of Commons appropriately.

The Chair:

Thank you very much.

First we have Mr. Graham and then Mr. Baylis.

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

I'm not really clear that it's relevant to having the witnesses here at this time. It's quite rude to the witnesses to do that right now.

The Chair:

Go ahead Mr. Baylis.

Mr. Frank Baylis (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.):

I move that we adjourn the debate.

The Chair:

Debate will be adjourned, and we will move forward. Okay?

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP):

Given that, Mr. Chair, I'm going to move my motion. If we're simply going to do that kind of a tactic, I will move my motion, which I have tabled in the committee.

The Chair:

May I jump in? As we talked about earlier, after the witnesses, you can move your motion at that time so we're not wasting the witnesses' time. We agreed to allow that out of camera so that you can move it in public, then we can actually debate it, but it's your call.

Mr. Brian Masse:

Do we have to vote on the motion? Procedurally, we can't talk about his motion now.

The Chair:

We have to vote on the motion to adjourn the debate.

Mr. Brian Masse:

That's where I was coming from.

The Chair:

My apologies.

Mr. Frank Baylis:

On a point of order, are we voting on my motion to adjourn the debate?

The Chair:

To adjourn the debate, yes.

Mr. Frank Baylis:

Are you all in favour of it?

An hon. member: No, not all.

Mr. Frank Baylis: Well, you just said it, so they're all in favour of my motion.

The Chair:

Stop. It's not debatable. It's a vote on the motion to adjourn the debate.

(Motion agreed to: yeas, 5; nays, 4)

(1550)

The Chair:

On that note, Mr. Masse, can we move forward?

Mr. Brian Masse:

Yes, we can move forward.

The Chair:

Thank you.

To our witnesses, we are going to start off with Christine Peets. You have up to seven minutes. Thank you.

Ms. Christine Peets (President, Professional Writers Association of Canada):

committee hansard indu 21793 words - read the full entry at permanent link - comments: 0. Posted at 22:44 on May 31, 2018