Thank you very much for the opportunity to address you today on the budget implementation act. My name is Katherine Scott, and I'm a senior researcher with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives here in Ottawa.
Bill marks an important milestone for Canada with the introduction of part 1 of Canada's first poverty reduction act, followed quickly this week by Bill yesterday, as well as three other pieces of legislation enshrining the principle of gender equality and efforts to advance gender equality through policy and program.
These bills have been a long time coming. The call for proactive pay equity legislation reaches back decades. It's been a recommendation in the CCPA's alternative federal budget for many years. With this bill, federally regulated employers will be required to create proactive pay equity plans that will help to chip away at Canada's stubbornly high gender pay gap and to uphold women's right to equal pay for work of equal value.
The Canadian gender budgeting act will require governments of the day to assess and report on the impact of all new budget measures, including proposed revenue generation and program expenditures using a gender and diversity lens.
The new department for women and gender equality will ensure that the federal government is actively engaged in both supporting women's rights and gender equality through its own policy and research and providing much-needed support to government agencies and civil society organizations working in communities across the country.
These are foundational pieces for a more inclusive, a more just, and a more prosperous country. At a time when there is a mounting backlash against women's rights, these efforts are significant and important to ensure that, as the preamble to the proposed legislation for the new department attests, all have the opportunity equal with others “to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have”.
The provisions for gender-based budgeting are also essential in modernizing Canada's processes for policy and program development. Around the world, gender budgeting is recognized as key to generating the evidence necessary to inform policy and programs that successfully deliver on their stated goals and contribute to broader societal well-being. The new act provides a vehicle for strengthening accountability and transparency, both key characteristics of effective public policy.
It's one thing to know, for example, that a measure like the employee stock option costs Canadians $755 million a year in forgone revenue. It's another thing to know that 77% of those benefits are claimed by men. The partial exclusion of capital gains delivers 75% of its benefits to men at an enormous cost to the government of $6.6 billion. These policies effectively amplify existing gender disparity in the labour market. A gender analysis poses fundamental questions. Are these tax expenditures effective in achieving their stated goals? Are they just? Could Canadian tax dollars be better spent elsewhere?
The work of the new department and those charged with carrying out GBA+ analysis will require sufficient resources to ensure the positive impact of this work. This will include mechanisms for meaningful engagement with and support for women's rights and gender equality-seeking groups. We have recommended an annual budgetary target of $100 million for the new department in the alternative federal budget.
So too does the new pay equity act hinge on the resourcing available for the new commissioner for training, education, compliance and enforcement.
We fully endorse and support the recommendations of the pay equity coalition with respect to proposed reforms, enshrining existing human rights protections, and the call for a robust mechanism for pay transparency. Without these actions, the proposed pay equity model risks becoming a variant of “comply and explain”, an approach that's met with precious little success in encouraging gender parity on corporate boards.
The issue of resources is also fundamental to the potential success of the new poverty reduction act. The act outlines specific targets for reducing poverty as measured against an official poverty line, and establishes a framework and a process for reporting on progress to both houses of Parliament.
At the same time, the act does not include any new investment in the programs that are needed to achieve the strategy's goals. Indeed, Canada's new plan is really more of a framework than a strategy to accelerate poverty reduction. A strategy implies that we have a plan to get from where we are to where we want to go, and crucially, the resources to back it up. On this score, low-income Canadians are still waiting.
With urgent need across Canada, an effective poverty reduction plan requires more ambitious targets and timelines and greater investments in programs such as universal child care, national pharmacare, training and education for marginalized workers, and the like.
Finally, I would like to commend the government for the amendment to the Income Tax Act taking up recommendation 3 of the consultation panel on the political activities of charities. This is a very important amendment, and we hope that the forthcoming guidelines coming from CRA will uphold the letter and the spirit of the bill's proposed amendments.
Thank you again very much for your kind attention.
:
Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to appear before the committee.
We are pleased to appear on behalf of the Canadian Council for International Co-operation, Canada's national coalition of civil society organizations working to end global poverty and to promote social justice and human dignity for all. Our 80-plus members include many of Canada's leading international development and humanitarian assistance organizations. More broadly, we represent a sector that includes over 2,000 organizations that employ 14,000 people and spend over $5 billion each year.
The 2018 budget implementation act, no. 2 will have important impacts on the work we and our members do to build a fairer, more sustainable and safer world. Today we will focus our remarks on two areas. The first is changes to the rules governing charitable activities and the Income Tax Act, and the second is changes to how Canada delivers and tracks its international assistance.
CCIC wholeheartedly welcomes the amendment of section 149.1 of the Income Tax Act to accept and acknowledge the public policy role of Canadian charities. As we indicated in our submission to the finance committee during the 2019 pre-budget consultations, Canada's competitive advantage includes ensuring that we have a strong non-profit sector. A precondition of this is a legislative and policy environment that is fully conducive to civil society organizations realizing their full potential. It is therefore good to see that the substance and language of the amendments in Bill reflect the recommendations of the independent consultation panel on the political activities of charities.
We support the continuation of a prohibition on partisan activity by registered charities. However, existing guidance is vague, and these amendments do not clarify, for instance, what exactly is meant by “public policy dialogue and development” or “indirect support of, or opposition to, any political party or candidate”.
We recommend that these terms defining partisan activity be clarified to ensure that charities can maximize their contribution to Canada's society and economy. We also recommend that these and any other further improvements to the legislation and regulations governing Canadian charities be developed in dialogue with Canadian charities. In this vein, it is worth noting that the amendments proposed in Bill result from the very public policy dialogue the Income Tax Act now limits.
CCIC and other civil society organizations are keen to keep working with the government and parliamentarians to develop a modern regulatory and legislative framework for Canada's non-profit and civil society sector.
My colleague, Fraser Reilly-King, will now turn to the delivery of and accountability for Canada's international assistance.
:
Thank you also for inviting us to appear.
For the past ten years, since June 2008, Canada’s official development assistance, or ODA, has been governed by the ODA Accountability Act. This act ensures that Canada’s international development and humanitarian assistance focuses on poverty reduction, considers the perspectives of poor people, and upholds human rights—and that it is, perhaps most importantly, accountable to Parliament and the public.
As written, Bill amends the ODA Accountability Act in two problematic ways.
First, it repeals the current definition of ODA under the act. The current definition is largely aligned with that of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the institution responsible for defining and monitoring ODA globally.
The OECD is currently considering potential changes to the global definition of ODA. Until this review is concluded, Canada should not change its domestic definition under the act. Doing so would prejudge the outcomes of this multilateral review and could put Canada out of line with its global peers.
Second, Bill would delay the release of a report required under the ODA Accountability Act. Currently, the act's report provides preliminary whole-of-government information six months after the end of a given fiscal year, and six months ahead of the final annual statistical report. The report provides access to provisional numbers on Canada’s ODA. It is an important and timely report for parliamentarians and the Canadian public. By delaying the release of this report by a further six months, there would be no official data on Canadian ODA until a year after the fact, and timing it with the release of the statistical report would make these numbers redundant.
We therefore recommend that the current definition of official development assistance and the current reporting schedule under the ODA Accountability Act be maintained.
Bill also introduces the International Financial Assistance Act, allowing the Minister of Foreign Affairs or the the Minister of International Development to offer sovereign loans.
We recommend that Bill be amended to indicate that only sovereign loans that are concessional, with a minimum grant element of 25%, and which aim to reduce poverty and support economic development, will be counted as ODA, as per the current definition under the ODA Accountability Act.
Finally, we want to comment briefly on three additional measures in Bill .
We commend the creation of the department for women and gender equality and the gender budgeting act, which will enhance gender analysis in the policy process. This will ensure that Canada’s actions support implementation of sustainable development goal 5 on gender equality, both at home and abroad.
The poverty reduction act represents another important step toward aligning the global sustainable development agenda with Canada’s domestic action. However, here we urge the government to aim higher. Our goal in Canada and overseas should be to eradicate poverty, not merely reduce it.
With that, we'll close.
Thank you again for your attention.
I look forward to any questions.
:
Thank you, Chair and committee members. Good afternoon.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. Of course, Bill contains many provisions that are important to working people. I welcome any questions you may have in any aspect of the bill. However, I will confine my opening remarks to pay equity provisions and the amendments to the federal labour standards, the pay equity bill.
We're glad to see the federal pay equity bill finally being tabled. Of course, working women have been calling for this legislation for decades. This historic legislation will hold employers accountable for proactively identifying and correcting systemic wage discrimination. It will put working women in the federal sector on a path towards equal pay for work of equal value.
We also want to commend the government upon repealing the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act brought forward by the previous government. We're pleased that the bill provides for pay equity committees to both develop and review pay equity plans. The bill also establishes a pay equity commissioner to administer and enforce the bill. We hope the commission and their team will have the resources and capacity required to implement the legislation effectively.
There are some parts of the bill that we need to change in order to reinforce pay equity as a human right and to ensure the process works to accomplish the goals of ending systemic wage discrimination.
First, the “Purpose” clause must be amended to remove the qualifying phrase “while taking into account the diverse needs of employers”. This language in this part of the bill undermines the intent of the bill, as well as the human rights of equal pay for work of equal value.
Second, language on voting in pay equity committees states that the decision of the employee groups must be unanimous or they will forfeit their right to vote. We suggest that a majority agreement is sufficient, as in the case of the Quebec legislation.
Finally, the language on maintenance provides for retroactivity when wage gaps have arisen in the interim between the posting of the original pay equity plan and the five-year review. However, it is retroactive to when the revised pay equity plan was posted, not to when the gap first occurs. A similar provision in the Quebec legislation was recently struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada. The federal act should not replicate this unconstitutional language.
On federal labour standards, Bill makes a variety of changes to the federal labour standards. In our opinion, these changes are overdue and much needed. Since the comprehensive Arthurs commission report was published in 2006, the federal labour standards have lagged behind provincial improvements. Many improvements have failed to keep up with significant changes in work and the world of employment.
We're pleased that the victims of family violence will now be entitled to five paid days for domestic violence leave. We welcome the prohibition on pay discrimination on the basis of employment status. Equal treatment protections in the code will reinforce the new pay equity legislation. They will benefit low-income workers, women of colour and newcomers to Canada who are more likely to be employed in part-time, temporary, casual or seasonal work. Temporary agency workers will also be entitled to equal treatment.
We also welcome the onus on employers to prove that they are not misqualifying employees as self-employed workers or independent contractors. These changes help bring the federal labour standards into the 21st century.
I do want to say that Canada's unions are not satisfied with the provision to end contract flipping at airports and federal workplaces. Bill provides some protection for non-unionized workers in contract retendering; however, we feel the government missed the chance to stop employers from terminating bargaining rights and cutting the wages and benefits of unionized workers by flipping contracts. We urge the government to take steps to ensure that all workers are treated fairly in such a situation.
I want to thank the committee for the opportunity to present here today. We'll take any questions you may have in regard to my presentation.
I will be speaking in French.
Thank you for inviting me to appear to speak to you on behalf of the 665,000 members of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE).
Of course we welcome Canada’s pay equity legislation, which we hope will have a significant impact on 23,000 to 25,000 of our members who work in federally regulated industries. These members work mainly in the private sector, such as airlines, telecommunications, ground transportation and ports. We also represent civilian employees at the RCMP.
At CUPE, we have four decades of experience with various pay equity regulatory regimes, and we believe that the federal government should be setting a high standard for the provinces to emulate.
Let me also mention that CUPE has successfully challenged the constitutionality of certain provisions of pay equity legislation, particularly in Quebec. I was the lawyer representing CUPE in the class action Mr. Yussuff talked about and which lead to a Supreme Court judgment in May. As a result, if you have any questions about this, I would be pleased to answer them.
We completely agree with the remarks of the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC), and I will move to page 2 of my notes right away, so that there's no repetition.
From the outset, we have noticed a major shortcoming in the bill with respect to its compliance with constitutional obligations. It lacks an overall standard of non-discrimination applied to all of the elements of pay equity plans and their application. It will be very simple to implement it. Section 2 will just have to be amended by adding a few words to make permanent the obligation to ensure that no element of the pay equity plan shall discriminate on the basis of gender. In our written brief, we will recommend the wording to this effect.
Once again, we agree with the CLC's comments on the functioning of committees and the unanimity in the employee vote. From our experience, we can tell you about the challenge with that. All it would take is for one employer to convince a single member of the pay equity committee—such as a bargaining agent representing a predominantly male group—to adopt the position of the employer to stifle the voice of the women around the table. That's just one example. However, when there are multiple bargaining agents on a committee, it is essentially unrealistic to believe that decisions will be unanimous. So there needs to be a majority, not unanimous, vote.
I will now turn to the compensation comparison methods described in section 50 of the legislation. We can tell you right away that the method set out in the bill—the equal line method—will be inapplicable in most cases. We cannot understand in the slightest why the bill has not kept the comparison method recommended in the 2004 final report of the pay equity task force, generally known as the Bilson report. Our written brief will elaborate on this shortcoming, but it's important that you are now aware that it's quite a major problem.
As the CLC mentioned, the bill lacks clarity with respect to retroactive pay adjustments in the maintenance phase. It provides no guarantees, which may well affect its constitutionality. I hope that you have taken note of this.
Finally, the pay equity legislation being proposed would give the pay equity commissioner a significant degree of responsibility. So that the legislation is not a burden for businesses, the commissioner will need to have the resources necessary to support them, but also to quickly and effectively resolve workplace disputes. So the Human Rights Commission will need to receive a whole host of additional resources so that everything works out for everyone.
The dispute resolution mechanisms found in part 8 should not distinguish between the remedies provided to employees and those provided to bargaining agents. Bargaining agents—and unions, of course—must be able to exercise all the rights of their members on their behalf. The possibility of being represented by an association to exercise one's rights is part of the freedom of association, and this must be provided for in the act. Furthermore, the legislator recognizes that there may be reprisals after a complaint is filed, but is taking away the main buffer against those reprisals, the protection of the union. So please review the remedies provided for in part 8.
My final comment for today is on clause 451 of the bill, which amends the Canada Labour Code, relating to equal treatment by adding sections 182.1 to 182.4. I invite you to read the written brief that will be submitted by Friday, in which we recommend, among other things, that the interpretation—made by regulation—of employment status be supplemented with protection against discrimination on the basis of the date of hiring.
That concludes my remarks. Thank you very much. I am ready to answer any questions you may have.
Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to address this committee.
My name is Harriett McLachlan. I'm deputy director of Canada Without Poverty, and I'm joined today by Canada Without Poverty's executive director Leilani Farha, who is also the UN special rapporteur on the right to adequate housing.
CWP is a non-partisan, not-for-profit and charitable organization dedicated to ending poverty in Canada. For nearly 50 years, Canada Without Poverty has been championing the human rights of individuals experiencing poverty, and since our existence, the board of directors has been made up entirely of people with a lived experience of poverty.
This committee should know that although I'm an educated professional, I lived for almost 35 years in poverty, 19 years as a single parent.
Canada Without Poverty has long called for a national anti-poverty strategy to be secured in legislation. As members of this committee may be aware, United Nations authorities—for example, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights—have urged Canada to secure in legislation its efforts towards the rights to an adequate standard of living, housing, and food.
We support the entrenchment of the Opportunity for All strategy within as critical to the fulfillment of Canada's international human rights obligations.
While the strategy and legislation reference the sustainable development goals, the target and timeline invoke the minimum threshold of a reduction in poverty by 50% by 2030. The reality is that when we only commit to reducing poverty, we create opportunity for some and not opportunity for all, especially those who are the most marginalized.
For a country as wealthy as Canada, which should be leading other countries in the implementation of the SDGs, we are disappointed that the legislation does not commit to the spirit of SDG 1, which is to end poverty.
I'll pass it over to Leilani.
:
Thank you, Harriet, and thank you, Chair.
Good afternoon.
My comments are going to focus on part 1 of Bill , particularly the provisions related to political activities and purposes of charities at section 17 of the bill.
Let me begin by saying CWP is pleased to say to the committee that we support the proposed amendments. We do so for the following three reasons.
First, and perhaps most obviously, these provisions actually strengthen our democracy. They ensure robust public debate and discussion and that the voices and lived experiences and experiences of persons living in poverty can be heard in the public domain.
Second, and as Katherine Scott has already said, the amendments support recommendation 3 of the consultative panel that deliberated on these issues. I'd add to this that the amendments also are consistent with the Ontario Superior Court's ruling in the case that my organization brought on the very issue of restrictions on political activities of charities.
For those of you who've read it, you'll know, and for those of you who don't, I'll tell you, that Justice Morgan in that case ruled that restrictions on non-partisan political activities curtail CWP's ability to engage with our members and the public in pursuing our charitable purpose of relieving poverty, and that unlike old models of almshouses and soup kitchens, CWP's work to relieve poverty by sharing ideas, achieving attitudinal changes, and engaging in public policy dialogue to identify the causes of poverty and the necessary changes to laws and policies to relieve poverty are necessary for the achievement of our purpose, which is charitable.
He determined in fact that subsection 149.1(6.2) of the Income Tax Act “violates s. 2(b) of the Charter”—that's the free expression article in the charter—and that such a provision was not reasonably justified and that the provision is of no force and effect, and that henceforth charitable activities must be understood to include non-partisan political activities in furtherance of a charitable purpose. That's exactly what the proposed act is saying as well, and is consistent with.
The third reason we support the amendments is that like Justice Morgan's decision, they do not in any way allow groups that do not have an accepted charitable purpose to claim charitable status for political activities; rather, the changes simply recognize that freedom of expression and participation in public policy dialogue are critical components of the effective pursuit of accepted charitable purposes, such as the relief of poverty.
Before I close, I just want to note something for the committee. The government has not yet indicated an intent to withdraw its appeal in the decision of Canada Without Poverty v. Canada and has not recognized yet publicly that the sections of the act are in fact a charter violation. In fact, the government has chosen to frame the issue as one that's simply a matter of policy.
For our sector, it is critical that the sections of the Income Tax Act that are being amended remain recognized as a violation of the charter. Otherwise similar measures could be implemented on a political whim by future governments, leaving the sector exactly where it was prior to the suggested amendments in Bill . We ask, therefore, and in closing, that the government withdraw its appeal in this case.
Thank you, and we're happy to take any questions.
Good afternoon, fellow members of the panel and honourable members of the Standing Committee on Finance. We thank you for the invitation to appear here before you today.
Once again, my name is Anjum Sultana, and I am the manager of policy and strategic communications at the YWCA Canada. We are the nation's oldest and largest women-serving organization. For nearly 150 years we have been working with women and girls and their families at critical turning points in their lives and providing them with the necessary services and resources to thrive and succeed.
Last week on November 1, over 100 members of the YWCA Canada were here on Parliament Hill and met with over 65 members of your fellow parliamentarians. We advocated for women's economic security. Today we will comment on the contents of Bill . We are encouraged by many of the developments that have occurred in this particular bill, because we see that there is an opportunity to advance women's economic security here in the country.
What we also wanted to share was that we currently work in nine provinces and two territories, and we work with over 330,000 women and girls every year. We're anticipating that by 2020, our 150-year anniversary, we will be working also in our tenth province, which is Prince Edward Island.
What we want to do today is talk about three particular divisions of part 4 of Bill , in particular division 9 of part 4, which pertains to the Canadian gender budgeting act to promote gender equality and inclusiveness by taking gender and diversity into consideration in the budget process. We would encourage, as others have testified to this committee before, that to follow this landmark legislation, it would be critical to ensure that as future standing committees on finance consider pre-budget consultations, there be a target of gender parity. Specifically, others have testified before this committee to the importance of ensuring that at least 15% of future witnesses to this committee be from feminist and women-serving organizations.
The Canadian gender budgeting act marks an important milestone that can be further enhanced by ensuring that at least 15% of the witnesses to this committee come from feminist and women-serving organizations to truly ensure that women's voices are heard in the budget-making process as well as future decision-making processes.
We're also pleased to see inclusion in this bill of division 14 of part 4, which enacts the pay equity act, a call that women-serving organizations have been pushing for for many years, including colleagues from the Equal Pay Coalition, Janet Borowy and Fay Faraday, who appeared before this committee earlier for its consideration of Bill . We fully support their recommendations, and in our brief to this committee we will delineate the specific recommendations, but we fully recommend their calls.
One that we want to draw your attention to is the specific point around the “Purpose” clause, clause 2, which has current language around ensuring that “the diverse needs of employers” are kept in mind. We would encourage that this be deleted, because what we have seen is that this undermines women's experiences in the labour workforce and also undermines the act's purpose and intent of addressing systemic gender bias and discrimination.
We were also pleased to see that in part 4 of this bill, division 18 was the piece of legislation to enact the department for women and gender equality. We were pleased to see that there were many other considerations of diverse social locations and diversities that were embedded in this particular piece of Bill .
We would encourage that there be further inclusion of another identity, which is citizenship. We saw that there was indication that there was an understanding that the diverse experiences of women that are complicated by different aspects of social location such as age, ethnic origin and sexual orientation were considered. We would also encourage that citizenship be another addition to that list. This is consistent with other provincial human rights codes such as Ontario's, which includes citizenship.
Finally, we wholeheartedly agree and support the recommendations of our colleagues at the Canadian Labour Congress with respect to recommendations around leave. We see this in the over 330,000 women we serve every year, many of whom are from working class backgrounds and experience challenges in accessing their entitlement. We would encourage that these recommendations put forward by the Canadian Labour Congress also be considered.
I'd like to thank you again for your attention. We look forward to any questions that you might have.
Thank you.
:
We have been waiting for proactive federal legislation for a long time.
There are proactive laws in some provinces and they work relatively well, except in some problematic cases, which we have had to take to court.
We have known for decades that the pay equity dispute resolution mechanism before the courts does not work for employers or employees. Clearly, proactive legislation was needed. As we say, it was long overdue.
Overall, this piece of legislation is a step in the right direction, but there are still many grey areas in its design. It gives employers loopholes and it will ensure that we will end up in court again.
This is what we want to avoid by adopting proactive legislation. We want to avoid costly litigation for all parties. Unfortunately, the proposed legislation presents this possibility because not all the shortcomings have been adequately addressed. It was poorly put together. It therefore leaves too much discretion or loopholes for employers.
There are also grey areas because a number of items still have to be specified in the regulations. If the regulations are well designed, that's great, but right now, it's difficult to express an opinion on future regulations.
The regulatory process should involve all partners. We will have to be consulted and the government will have to hear our views as experts, because we truly are experts in this field.
:
Thank you for the question.
YWCA Canada has been calling for a very long time—as have other women-serving organizations—for proactive pay equity legislation, so we were pleased to see this included in Bill . Our colleagues on the panel have spoken about some of the things that need to be addressed to make it even better, but on the whole we are happy with the spirit of the legislation, because this is something that will impact the lives of many of the folks we serve every day across the country.
Our stipulation, from our understanding of the bill before us, is that there are some exemptions for folks who are in part-time, seasonal or contract work or in non-standard employment. For many of the people we serve every day across the country, this would not help them. It's really important, then, that we address this when we consider the legislation before us, because that exemption impacts primarily—and disproportionately—women. That is something to consider as your committee considers this bill.
On the whole, we are quite pleased with the introduction of a department for women and gender equality. We would encourage the committee to really put this forward in terms of resources in the upcoming budget 2019 to ensure that this department can do all of the great work that is set out in the bill itself.
This is a landmark moment. This is something that we should have in this country. YWCA Canada, with the over 330,000 people whom we serve across the country, is looking forward to seeing what impact this will make in a tangible way for women and girls and their families.
Thank you.
:
As you know, there are three jurisdictions now that will have proactive pay equity legislation—Ontario, Quebec and now the federal jurisdiction. In the federal jurisdiction, a little over a million workers will be covered by the code, because the federal government is also going to broaden the coverage to ensure that the federal contractors' program will also have to comply with proactive pay equity legislation. If you're seeking to do business with the federal government, you're going to have to meet that requirement.
I think all of this will have an extremely positive impact on women, but more importantly, this is about not just women's pay equality but also their economic equality.
Statistics have pointed time and time again to the fact that women live in poverty much more than men do comparatively. A large part of that is because we have been discriminating for generations and not paying them adequately. This is certainly going to raise the standard significantly. I think now we have to figure out a way in which we will continue to do it in our federations and our affiliates at the provincial level. How do we get other provinces to bring forth proactive pay equality legislation?
The other thing I would also say is that proactive pay equity legislation, as you know, deals with only one aspect of women's overall equality. I think a national child care system whereby women will be able to have their children in child care will be a tremendous boost to them really engaging, as we've seen with Quebec's history. Where they have the ability, they will be giving back to the economy far more than they take out with child care, but child care is an essential part of bringing women's equality in our society to a higher level.
I can't say enough about what this will do for the challenges. In one case we have noted consistently in our presentation, it took 28 years for women to achieve pay equity in one federal workplace, because that's how the litigation went on and on and on before we were able to kind of resolve this situation.
This legislation will end that history, but more importantly, I think the commission's role will be a tremendous part of this, because the commission can encourage the parties as to how to find solutions to their pay equity problem. I think some of the areas we identified that can be addressed would be a tremendous boost.
A lot of people are misqualified in the federal and provincial jurisdictions. It's critical that those loopholes will be now plugged in part III of the code, but equally we want to ensure that while employers may have diverse interests, they cannot evade their responsibility with regard to how they pay women who work within their jurisdiction.
:
Thank you, Chair and the standing committee, for the invitation to appear today. My name is James O'Hara, and I'm the president and CEO of Canadians for Fair Access to Medical Marijuana, commonly known as CFAMM. I'm a medical cannabis patient myself.
CFAMM is a national non-profit organization that has successfully represented medical cannabis patients since 2014. We speak on behalf of the approximately 350,000 medical cannabis patients in Canada today. Our organization has emerged as the thoughtful, legitimate grassroots voice for medical cannabis in the non-profit advocacy space today.
Let me begin, Mr. Chairman, by saying “25%”. That's the average amount of tax that has been applied on medical cannabis: 25%. In many cases, that's low. Fully a quarter of the cost of a patient's medicine is consumed by tax today.
It's essential to understand that affordable and reasonable access to medical cannabis is absolutely critical to a patient's health and well-being, and ultimately their lives, but that's not what we have today. In fact, we have the complete opposite, in the form of a significantly tax-burdened medicine.
Let me take some time to recap some of this government's rationale for taxing cannabis. The has stated many times that non-medical users will flock to the medical system and abuse it. Given that cannabis legalization was implemented last month, this is no longer a valid reason.
He has also stated many times that legalization has been put in place in order to defeat the black market. This is also no longer a valid reason. This is because these burdensome taxes now do the complete opposite, and that is to encourage a black market, not defeat it. In fact, there's more reason than ever before for a black market to exist.
Let me give you a measure of that. I can honestly sit here today and tell you categorically that I've never, ever, in my life, heard so many patients tell me they will no longer support the industry but instead will go to the black market—the very black market that Mr. Trudeau is trying to eliminate. It has also been stated by many sitting members of this government in written form to their patient constituents that medical cannabis patients need to pay the costs for legalization and enforcement.
Mr. Chairman, let me remind you that we've already paid. We've been paying for almost 20 years. We've paid that bill and then some. This was before legalization even existed, so it was a very long time ago.
Let me add a lesser-known fact here: Medical cannabis patients do more than pay. They save costs for this country and companies through less medication, fewer doctor and hospital visits, and fewer sick days.
Members of this government have also stated that there's an excise tax exemption for medical cannabis patients. The bar for this so-called exemption is anything less than or equal to 0.3% THC. That is not medical cannabis; that's the THC level of hemp. In the end, this is a political defensive measure simply put in place to confuse people, and is effectively no exemption for patients at all.
The latest version of the medical tax justification appears to be the DIN argument. There already are tax-exempt products today that have no DIN. The reality is that this is just another stall tactic on the part of this government in order to continue to collect taxes from health-challenged and economically challenged Canadians as long as possible.
Whether it's the story of non-medical users cheating the system, black market elimination, medical users having to pay a bill, false exemptions, or DINs, these all lead to a single obvious truth: This government desires the tax revenue at any cost. Let me tell you something about that cost. These taxes come at a far greater cost than any one of us, including me, is capable of ever imagining. For literally hundreds of thousands of Canadians each and every day, it's paid for in pain, suffering and death.
I'd like to say to the members of this committee and to the MPs who have supported these taxes that each and every time you state another reason as to why taxes on medical cannabis should exist, please remember who you're saying this to. You're saying this to your ill mother, father, grandmother, grandfather, uncle, brother, sister, whomever, and your constituents. Medical cannabis patients are all around you. They are among us. Realize that you can justify this practice only if you either are seriously misinformed or have no compassion whatsoever for the daily struggles of health-challenged and economically challenged Canadians.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, it's on these very compassionate grounds that I call on this government to end all taxes on medical cannabis immediately.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and this committee, for your time. I'll be happy to answer questions you may have.
Thank you.
Good evening, honourable members of this committee. My name is Robert Louie, and I am chairman of the lands advisory board. My Okanagan Syilx name is Seemoo. Seemoo is our ancestral name, which means connected to the land.
I am here with colleagues to speak to this committee in support of the amendments to the First Nations Land Management Act, which I will refer to as FNLMA, in Bill . We hope that all members of this committee will support these amendments as set out in division 11 of the bill, and that the legislation will be passed as soon as possible by Parliament.
This is the legislative step Canada takes to make the act conform to the most recent improvements of the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management, originally proposed to Canada in 1994 and signed in 1996.
Though we support the amendments to the FNLMA in Bill , we wish to raise with committee members the need for future reforms to replace the FNLMA with a more appropriate and efficient approach, one that better respects our government-to-government agreement.
I will begin with some background on this most important and historic accord, the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management.
I am a former chief of the Westbank First Nation, a self-governing community, and have worked for many years now to advance self-government over our lands. I have chaired the lands advisory board for close to 30 years, since its inception.
With me tonight is my colleague Chief Austin Bear, of the Muskoday First Nation in Saskatchewan, who is chair of the first nations land management resource centre. This is the technical and finance arm of our organization.
Both of us worked together as part of a group of 14 first nations in the 1980s and early 1990s seeking a way to escape the draconian laws and policies of the Indian Act. We were driven by a desire to obtain recognition for our inherent right to self-government of our reserve lands and resources.
After many years of negotiations, research, consultation and extensive discussion, we signed the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management with Canada in 1996. This framework agreement was ratified by Canada when the FNLMA was enacted in 1999. The old and grossly outdated Indian Act land system held our communities back and did not respect our decision-making and our traditions. The old system did not meet the needs of community members and harmed our ability to participate in the mainstream economy at the speed of business.
In accordance with the framework agreement, individual first nations have the recognized authority to make decisions regarding their own lands and can promote healthier and more vibrant communities with direct economic benefits for our first nations, and indeed for all Canadians.
Through the framework agreement, we are awakening and improving areas of the Canadian economy that were depressed by the outdated Indian Act. This is a win-win solution. Let me re-emphasize—a win-win solution.
Self-government over lands is not only practical and effective, but is also a step towards meeting Canada's commitments to self-government under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which I will refer to as UNDRIP.
I begin with this focus on the critically important issue of self-government over lands because it is vital for committee members to understand that the framework agreement is at the heart of the matter. The legislation to amend the FNLMA in Bill , and indeed the entire FNLMA, exists only because of the framework agreement.
Canada chose to ratify the framework agreement in Parliament through the FNLMA, but all the details of the agreement on self-government are found in the framework agreement. The purpose of the most recent FNLMA amendments is to reflect the amendments to the framework agreement that we developed in full partnership with Canada.
We are not FNLMA first nations exercising self-government under terms imposed or delegated by federal law; we are framework agreement first nations. The framework agreement is first nation-led, and it drives the FNLMA, not the other way around.
Under the framework agreement, first nations resume the independent exercise of self-government over their lands. First nations do not need any agreements with Canada or any federal legislation in order to exercise the inherent right to self-government.
However, part of the value of signing the framework agreement with Canada is the national recognition of this exercise of self-government combined with Canada's recognition of the need to dismantle the failed Indian Act in a measured and careful manner.
We see the framework agreement as a centrally important document in a new relationship with Canada and all Canadians regarding reserve land governance.
First nations sign a framework agreement to enter the process and first nations ratify the framework agreement to exercise self-government pursuant to their own laws. The framework agreement is not imposed on all first nations by Canada. Participation in the framework agreement is entirely voluntary. The framework agreement only applies to those first nations that choose to ratify the agreement.
The framework agreement is flexible to respect the particular conditions and priorities of individual first nations. In every case, it is up to the members of individual first nations to decide whether or not to leave the Indian Act land provisions and exercise their own self-government over lands.
Each first nation decides whether to ratify the framework agreement approach through their own land code. There is no one-size-fits-all approach, no single land code or set of laws imposed by Canada or by the framework agreement. This is good, and it's what first nations want.
We believe this to be one of the hallmarks of its success. The framework agreement is remarkably progressive and thriving. Now over 200 first nations have either ratified a land code or are in a process of developing a land code or have submitted official notice of their intent to participate. This means that approximately 30% of all first nations communities in Canada are involved today in this very important framework agreement and what we're doing in land management.
The framework agreement was developed by just 14 first nations but now, 22 years later, 81 first nations have resumed their land governance authority and 57 more first nations are actively considering this option right now. Budget 2018 envisions additional first nations over the next five years. We of course would like to see this number increased.
Although the framework agreement has been successful from the outset, we have also successfully worked with Canada on a number of improvements over the years. I think it would be beneficial to highlight these most recent amendments for committee members.
First, the framework agreement was developed before UNDRIP. Many first nations operating under the authority of the framework agreement see Canada's recognition of UNDRIP as an important step toward reconciliation respect for self-government and should be reflected in the framework agreement and in federal legislation.
First nations voters called upon to consider land codes want clarity. The new UNDRIP clause in the framework agreement will be important to voters considering whether to opt out of the Indian Act land system, because it signals Canada's commitment to an approach consistent with UNDRIP. With respect, I think the UNDRIP language in Bill could be improved. Right now, it says that Canada is committed to implementing UNDRIP; that is fine, but more explicit language might include words to the effect that the interpretation of the framework agreement and this act should be guided by the principles established in UNDRIP.
Second, we wish to emphasize to this committee the amendment to the voting process for land codes. In almost all the votes we have seen across the country, there has been overwhelming support for land codes. In two first nations communities votes, there was unanimous support among voters. On average, land codes are supported by 84% of voters.
However, in some cases when there has been an overwhelming majority vote in favour of the land code, it may be surprising to committee members that those land code votes have still failed. This is because the framework agreement does not only require a majority vote in favour but also that a minimum threshold of 25% of all eligible voters must vote in favour of the land code.
:
I guess I was just trying to make up time.
IPIC represents the views of our IP professionals in making submissions to government and other bodies. Our activities include a wide breadth of activities in education, continuing professional development and raising IP awareness in the business community. For the past several years, we've even created a voluntary code of conduct for our members in order to belong to our institute.
In the past few days since Bill was tabled, we’ve had about 160 of our members looking at the provisions with the proposed changes to the Patent Act, the Trade-marks Act and the Copyright Act. In that brief few days, we’ve been considering the wording, but we will no doubt want to put in a written submission, given the scope of the detailed proposed changes.
There are a few examples that immediately hit our members, and I’d just like to touch on those.
One change in particular is a change in what’s known as file wrapper estoppel in the patent litigation field. This was introduced by the new proposed subsection 53.1(1) in the Patent Act, which is essentially the ability to introduce prosecution histories, the back-and-forth between the applicants for patents and the patent office, into judicial proceedings. This would change many years of our Canadian judicial precedent.
This provision was introduced with little notice or debate and was not mentioned as part of the national IP strategy. More specifically, though, our members felt that there was a lack of an appropriate transition period for this provision, especially with respect to active patent litigation and the fact that existing patents were prosecuted or obtained when this legal doctrine was not part of Canada’s patent laws. Based on this new provision, the doctrine would apply immediately if and when these patents are enforced.
In hearing from our committees that looked at Bill in the past few days, we can say that most amendments are supported by IPIC in principle, but there are many areas that when used in practice would create, in our view, unintended consequences.
To summarize those, some examples would include prior user rights and patents, a continuing lack of a requirement to show use of a trademark to obtain trademark registrations, and the statutory damages remedy for collective societies in the copyright, which appears to remove the availability of statutory damages in regard to sound recordings.
We’ll provide a detailed submission to the committee as soon as possible identifying these potential issues.
With that said, our priority in the remaining brief time we have is really to focus on some aspects of the bill that create the college of patent and trade-mark agents.
As many of you know, we’re happy to see this enabling legislation in Bill . IPIC has been advocating to have such a governing body for almost 23 years. Looking at the legislation, what I’d like to encapsulate is two items that struck us as issues of concern.
The first issue really relates to two provisions, paragraphs 14(c) and 14(d) of the enabling college legislation. Paragraph 14(d), in effect, prevents IPIC members who have sat on one of our 37 committees in the preceding 12 months from being eligible to sit on the college’s board of directors or other important committees of the future college. It would also exclude those who have been volunteers of other organizations representing our profession in Canada and internationally.
IPIC has a great membership of volunteers. We have more than 400 volunteers sitting on our committees, which is about one-quarter of our membership. These are the profession’s most engaged members and often the most senior and most knowledgeable people of the profession. Taking into account that these would be excluded, our view is that after that exclusion, you’re really left with an extremely small pool of candidates who have the necessary experience and knowledge to sit on the college board.
As an example, we have many committees that deal with professional development. We have members who deal with the Federal Court with regard to changes in Federal Court litigation. We have public awareness committees; one is actively advising on indigenous IP issues. All of these members, based on this provision, would be excluded from the leadership board positions of the college if they had sat on these committees in the preceding twelve months
We believe this provision is unnecessary. It’s also inconsistent with other professions. For example, the Law Society of Ontario does not have such a restriction on its board members, its benchers. In fact, they encourage the members to be actively involved in voluntary associations.
In our view, the emphasis should be to repeal paragraphs 14(d) and 14(c). Paragraph 14(c) would actually make a member ineligible for the board based on membership alone. Our view is that the legislation should not prevent the college from having the best chance possible to succeed. The college should have the most qualified pool of candidates available for its leadership.
The second and final issue I'll highlight in our remaining time pertains to subclause 33(1) of the college legislation. It requires the inclusion of a code of conduct in the regulations. The code of conduct should be a living, breathing document. There's a rapid pace of change in both business and the IP profession, and we believe it is very problematic for the code to be part of a regulation. The code is often written into the bylaws or it's referenced by regulations, but it should live outside the regulations.
We recognize that the code may be deemed to be a regulation under the Statutory Instruments Act, but allowing it to exist as a bylaw or in some form outside the regulations would give the college the flexibility to amend the code efficiently and react as a one-stop organization and a guardian of the public interest. To give an example, in the case of the Law Society of Ontario, the code of conduct for them is called the Rules of Professional Conduct, which are not embodied in the regulations under the Law Society Act. The board of directors, known as benchers, oversees and approves the Rules of Professional Conduct, but the rules are not actual regulations under the act. The authority to make the rules and bylaws comes from the Law Society Act by way of legislative delegation.
In our view—
:
[
Witness speaks in Nisga'a]
The English translation of my Nisga'a name means “pearly fin”, and I've said good evening to you all. It's good to see you all.
As Mr. Chairman has stated, my name is Corinne McKay. I am the elected secretary-treasurer of the Nisga'a Nation. We thank you for the opportunity to present to the Standing Committee on Finance.
I would like to start by noting that the Nisga'a Nation was the first indigenous nation in British Columbia to enter into a modern-day treaty, and I have a copy with me.
The Nisga'a treaty was also the first modern treaty to be constitutionally entrenched as self-government. I note, among the contents of Bill , amendments to the Income Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act, the introduction of the pay equity act, changes to the First Nations Land Management Act, and many other changes.
It's always positive to see budget implementation bills that acknowledge and seek to address the needs of indigenous peoples. This builds on the budget 2018 announcement about specific funding for self-governing indigenous governments. This was the first time that the needs of Canada's modern treaty partners were explicitly acknowledged in a federal budget document.
Future budget processes, including budget implementation, should continue to build on these positive developments in two ways.
First, the needs of self-governing indigenous governments should always be taken into account and be specifically addressed in the budget. For example, there should continue to be specific allocations to self-governing indigenous governments of any infrastructure or housing or gap-closing funds, and I note that there was a discussion on housing just prior to our presentation. Housing is a very real need in our communities, and the status of housing in our communities still leaves much to be desired to improve the housing conditions of our people.
The second is that future fiscal policies related to self-governing indigenous governments should be developed collaboratively. The Government of Canada acknowledged the failings of its pre-existing fiscal policies and invited self-governing indigenous governments to participate in the collaborative fiscal policy development process. It is important to note that this process is separate and apart from the government's engagement with the AFN, the Assembly of First Nations. It is engagement directly with self-governing indigenous governments.
In this collaborative process, indigenous government representatives and federal government representatives work closely to develop a shared understanding of the interests of both Canada and the indigenous governments. They build a new fiscal policy from the ground up. This has never been attempted before. It is important to recognize that the collaborative process for developing policy has resulted in a package of fiscal policy documents that, combined with the commitments Canada has made in modern treaties, are more respectful of the circumstances and needs of the indigenous governments than any previous federal fiscal policy.
This work is to be praised and to be emulated. All future fiscal policies should be developed collaboratively.
We thank you for taking the time to hear the support that we have for the collaborative process. We find it's respectful and it builds on the work that has been done, and we see that this is the start of a new dialogue that will improve the lives of our people, and as Canadians, improve the lives of Canadians.
Thank you.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC).
My presentation will be about the new pay equity legislation in division 14 of part 4 of Bill .
Overall, PSAC is pleased with the proposed act. For decades, our union has been at the forefront of fighting for women’s right to equal pay for work of equal value.
While we have had successes, the time it took to get results through a complaint-based process often meant that the women who should have received the pay died before they saw a penny.
PSAC believes this act is a good step towards redressing existing pay inequities while at the same time creating a culture where pay equity can flourish and become the norm.
We are also pleased to see the provisions on appointing a pay equity commissioner. However, we caution that she must have sufficient resources to be able to fully implement the act.
But PSAC has two very important concerns to point out.
Let's start with section 2, according to which the purpose of the act is “to achieve pay equity through proactive means by redressing the systemic gender-based discrimination” in compensation. However, this laudable language is undermined by the following phrase: “while taking into account the diverse needs of employers”.
PSAC is concerned that the inclusion of this statement, may give employers significant legal weight to be able to challenge decisions of the commissioner.
They can argue that the needs of the employer are equal to the advancement of pay equity as they are both articulated in the purpose of the act.
Legal scholars and the Supreme Court of Canada have weighed in on the legal significance of the purpose clause in legislation.
We do not believe it was the government's intention to undermine the objectives of the new, proactive law. For this reason, PSAC recommends that the committee delete the following: “while taking into account the diverse needs of employers” from the purpose of the act.
While we recognize that responsibility to achieve pay equity resides with the employer, there are multiple provisions in the act allowing an employer to request flexibility, extensions and exemptions that will support the employer's diverse needs.
Our second concern has to do with section 20, which deals with decision-making on joint employer-employee pay equity committees. This provision requires all employee representatives on a committee to come to a unanimous decision or forfeit the employee-side vote, allowing the employer's decision to prevail.
In practice, this would give non-unionized employees a veto over the preferences of unionized employees, and vice-versa, while also giving bargaining agents vetoes over each other's proposals.
It is conceivable that this system would most significantly disadvantage representatives of female-predominant classes over those who may not have the same interest in having a robust pay equity plan.
Again, PSAC does not believe that this was the intention of the government in an act that is trying to redress systemic gender wage discrimination. PSAC asks the committee to amend section 20 by removing:
A decision of a group counts as a vote only if it is unanimous.
And replacing it with:
A decision of a group counts as a vote if a majority of the group agrees.
The following sentence will also need to be removed from the section:
If the members who represent employees cannot, as a group, reach a unanimous decision on a matter, that group forfeits its right to vote and the vote of the group of members who represents the employer prevails.
We believe these two amendments are essential to the effective implementation of the new law and we urge the committee to amend the bill accordingly.
PSAC looks forward to working with the government on the development of the regulations and assisting in any way we can with the expertise many of our staff and union members have in pay equity in the federal sector.
Ms. Berry and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you.
:
Good evening. My name is Michael Geist. I am a law professor at the University of Ottawa, where I hold the Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law, and I am a member of the Centre for Law, Technology and Society. I appear today in a personal capacity, representing only my own views.
I'm pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the intellectual property provisions found in Bill . As you know, budget 2018 prioritized a national IP strategy, and while aspects of that strategy involve investment in issues such as IP education, there were several legal and policy commitments that required legislative reform.
Many aspects of Bill C-86's IP provisions, I would argue, are both long overdue and welcome. Since abusive intellectual property rights may inhibit companies from innovating or discourage Canadians from taking advantage of the digital market, crafting rules that address misuse can be as important as providing effective IP protection.
There are several examples of how the bill addresses the issue of IP misuse. For example, misuse of Canada's copyright notice and notice system, which was formalized in 2012 to allow rights holders to forward allegations of copyright infringement to Internet users through their internet service provider, has been an ongoing source of concern. The bill amends the Copyright Act to ensure that settlement demands are excluded from the notice and notice process, thereby restoring the original intent of the system.
Patent changes to address patent trolling provide another important reform, I would argue. The bill seeks to combat patent trolls by creating new minimum requirements for patent demand letters, which should discourage the sending of deceptive letters. The rules also include the right for a recipient of one of those letters to pursue damages or injunctions at the Federal Court.
The bill also includes provisions that expand prior use rights, address standard essential patents and create safeguards for research, with a rule that deals with acts committed for the purpose of experimentation not being an infringement of the patent. In doing so, I think the bill restores a better balance to support innovation within the patent system.
Bill C-86 also includes notable reforms to the Copyright Board, including an important reference to considering the public interest in the decision-making process. That's something that the board would say that it would do. Making it explicit in the legislation, I think, is the right thing to do.
It also rightly does not include an expansion of statutory damages among the extensive reforms. Arguments in favour of expansion were unconvincing and would have usurped the role of the industry committee, which is currently engaged in a detailed review of copyright. I think that issue will still be hotly debated as part of the copyright review, but that committee is the appropriate place for discussion of statutory damages, not within a package of largely administrative and governance reforms to the board.
While this represents the positives in the bill, I think there is still some room for improvement. I want to quickly touch on three recommendations.
First, the implementation of some of the reforms, including the patent reforms that I've just described, is likely to be delayed for years, since they are structured to require regulations to define issues such as the requirements to be contained in a patent demand letter. Officials on a call just last week indicated they already know what they'd like to see included. The long delays undermine the likely success of the government's IP policy and innovation strategy. I see little reason not to include those requirements within this bill, as I don't see any reason for the issue to be left to the regulation-making process.
Second, the notice and notice copyright fix is good, but we can still do better. There should be penalties for sending abusive notices. We know that many Canadians, thousands of Canadians, have unknowingly paid hundreds or even thousands of dollars in these cases, and we need penalties for those who abuse the law in this way. There should be common standards established to make it easier for Internet providers to identify compliant notices.
Third, budget 2018 includes several references to artificial intelligence, AI, one of Canada's most important innovative sectors, yet despite the prioritization of both AI and the IP strategy, it leaves a major AI copyright barrier untouched. Several of the world's leading AI companies, including Canada's Element AI, Microsoft and members of the Business Software Alliance, have pointed to the need for an exception for text and data mining or informational analysis. Without such an exception, Canada trails badly behind competitor jurisdictions such as the United States, Europe and Japan, which have already addressed this issue by allowing for data mining without the risk of copyright liability.
Canada should not wait years to address this commercialization barrier. Given the budget's inclusion of both AI and intellectual property as priority areas, Bill is an obvious place to fix the problem.
I look forward to your questions.
:
The issue with the first nations finance act is that, like many of the institutions Canada has set up for indigenous people, it leaves out self-governing nations. It deals with Indian bands on Indian reserves and it doesn't provide for access to the bonds for self-governing nations. The amendments that have been developed, again, deal only with Indian bands. All the changes exclude self-governing nations.
This has been a challenge that indigenous governments with self-governing agreements and comprehensive land claims have faced since the very first modern treaty. While Canada is entering into these agreements, it's not changing any policies or processes. The government is not looking at the institutions it's developing and ensuring that this is done in a way that addresses the commitments and changes that have been brought about by these new agreements. Self-governing nations are falling through the cracks when Canada is developing solutions.
The First Nations Finance Authority and the processes that are set up there are important. It's an important tool for indigenous governments, but the way it's been established and the way these amendments have been developed again eliminates access for self-governing nations. This means those nations either have to borrow funds at a much higher rate or save the money before they can spend it.
The challenge there is that when you save that money, it has been used as a challenge in negotiations with Canada. You've saved that money and you have a big surplus in the bank, but it's because you don't have access to financing, so that's the only way you can accumulate the capital you need to develop infrastructure in your communities.
The only way programs and services designed to eliminate the gaps between indigenous Canadians and non-indigenous Canadians are going to be successful is if we have the kind of infrastructure necessary to ensure there's clean water, safe housing and a community that's equal to what other Canadians take for granted.
We need the federal government to work with us. This is a topic we're dealing with in the collaborative fiscal process, which consists of all but one of the self-governing nations in Canada working collectively in an effort to develop a comprehensive fiscal arrangement with Canada. That is what we need.
One of the challenges is that everything to date has been done in silos and in isolation, so it limits the benefits of each of those things. We need it to be done in a comprehensive way, so that we can access the resources we need, but we also need it to be done in conjunction with a fiscal relationship that ensures that indigenous governments get the appropriate share of the wealth that's generated from their territory and are able to then use that to provide services to their communities.
We can't be expected to borrow our way out of poverty, but we need access to financing in order to deal with large expenditures that will then be amortized over many years. We need all of these pieces to come together, and we need the federal government to ensure that when it's developing laws and policies, comprehensive land claims and modern treaty nations are not left behind.
:
Thanks for the question.
As you may know, the notice-and-notice approach was adopted in 2012 as a better mechanism to try to educate Canadians on the boundaries of copyright and to provide rights holders with a mechanism to raise that awareness while still safeguarding the privacy of the users.
The problem that emerged almost immediately was that because there were no regulations or limitations on what could be included in a notice and because Internet providers were required to forward whatever they got, under potential penalties for failing to do so, we saw certain companies sending out settlement demands to unsuspecting users. They were sending out literally hundreds of thousands of these demands, with unsuspecting people simply clicking and paying hundreds of dollars when there was no requirement to do so.
The bill makes a very important step by saying that an ISP won't be required to forward a notice if it includes any of those kinds of settlement demands.
That's great, but I don't think it goes quite far enough. What it does, in a sense, is to put all the obligation on an Internet provider to fully examine whether or not there is a notification or a settlement demand. Hopefully, they won't forward those notifications. However, given the volume, there are still risks that some of these may go through, and costs may accrue.
I think we could improve this situation by making it clear that there is a penalty for violating the rules for using the system to send along notifications. At the moment, there is no penalty for doing so. The worst that someone who does that faces is the possibility that their notification won't be sent along.
If they send out hundreds of thousands of these, some may get through, and there's no penalty for doing so. I think it would be fairly easy to say that there would be the prospect of some sort of violation or penalty if they've actually violated the rules in that way.
The other thing we could really benefit from is that because of the volume, creating a standard form of what is to be included would allow for greater automation, reducing costs and making it simpler for end-users to receive it. We don't have a clear-cut form either.
In a sense, it's really fine tuning, but allowing the intent of what I think the government is trying to achieve, which takes us back to that original intent. It could improve what is a good first step in trying to get back to what was intended in the first place.
:
We have the bells going, so I need to ask the next question.
In here, there is protection provided for the title of the profession, but not an acronym for the profession.
From my experience, the accounting profession is a good example. In their colleges, their regulations, law, their statutes, typically they will protect the word “accountant” and variations of the word “accountant”. As well, they'll protect CPA, CA, CMA, and all the old varieties of accountants.
If this bill passes the way it is right now, because there is no acronym in here, to the best of my knowledge, you will have people who will want to pretend to be trademark agents and will simply use an acronym. I don't know if that's ever been noticed by members of the institute.
It goes back to the question of whether you have current members who perhaps engage in the provision of services that they're not supposed to provide or are not qualified for. Are there people out there pretending to be trademark agents?
:
I would appreciate that, and thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I certainly understand the patience here of the committee and the time delays.
I just want to sum up with this. We are in support of the amendments here.
When we're talking about UNDRIP, these are very important provisions, and I think all of the federal legislation needs to reflect this.
We're certainly very supportive of the majority vote, because in this particular case, while we've had two first nations that have unanimously passed their land codes—both of them in British Columbia, in Lake Cowichan and Yakweakwioose—we've had 33 first nation votes across Canada that didn't achieve the threshold, despite community votes ranging from 51% to 90% approval. They didn't pass on the first go-round.
I want to emphasize that only seven votes in the past 20 years were outright “no” votes, so having this amendment here for the majority vote is absolutely necessary, and I applaud the committee members and Parliament for this.
On Yukon lands, having land set aside is very important. We want Yukon involved. Yukon is there, so having inclusion for Yukon first nations is great.
Having the ratification officer replace the verifier will save a lot of money, and this is good. The administrative use of electronic votes is very desirable.
Having not only revenue monies transferred to a first nation when it passes a land code, but also capital monies that are held in the Ottawa trust account through the Department of Indian Affairs, is very, very important.
On enforcement provisions, there are some good aspects in that regard.
Of course on the additions to reserves, for example, my own community spent 17 years to get one particular reserve added to the reserve when we had full provincial support, so anything that can expedite that through ministerial order, as proposed here, is certainly going to help.
Things of that nature we applaud, and we thank you very much, Mr. Chair and the honourable members, for having us here.