Evidence of meeting #86 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was rcmp.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:35 a.m.
Deputy Commissioner, Specialized Policing Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
We have no comments on that. We have no information and no comment.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
9:35 a.m.
Deputy Commissioner, Specialized Policing Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
We have no comment on the investigation and no information on it.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
If there were an OPP investigation into the RCMP at this time, what impact would there be on that investigation if this law were passed? If there were an OPP investigation, which we understand there may be or is, what would be the impact on that investigation if this division 18 were to pass?
9:35 a.m.
Deputy Commissioner, Specialized Policing Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
You would have to ask our colleagues from Justice on that. I'm not a lawyer and I'm not in a position to comment on that.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
So you can't comment on whether this legislation would effectively terminate that investigation.
9:35 a.m.
Deputy Commissioner, Specialized Policing Services, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
I don't think I'm in a position to provide that kind of advice.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Thank you.
I have a question with regard to the sick leave issue. We know there is a razor-thin budget surplus on the eve of an election, created by a number of unusual steps, including one-time asset sales. What cost savings is the government alleging? I forget how many millions of dollars it is.
9:35 a.m.
President, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada
It's $900 million.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
It's $900 million.
Mr. Lee, notwithstanding your position on the sick leave issue, as somebody who follows fiscal situations of governments, would you agree that putting a $900 million figure on this saving, notwithstanding whether or not you are in favour of it, seems to be at least a bit on the optimistic side, to be gentle, and that it does not represent good budgeting practices to actually consider it to be a legitimate cost saving for the next fiscal year?
9:35 a.m.
Assistant Professor, Carleton University, As an Individual
I understand where you're going. I listened very carefully to Ms. Daviau's explanation, which I thought was excellent. It is an accounting entry under accrual accounting. I'm very familiar with accrual accounting, I teach it in my classes and I also came from a bank, where we certainly dealt with this sort of issue.
I wouldn't use it as a justification for this bill. As I've said over and over again, I think the real savings, per the Mercer study, are the savings in productivity—the indirect costs. But in terms of the legitimacy of the accounting, it's legitimate, but I just don't think it's a compelling argument.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
But the issue here is that as the government is scurrying on the eve of an election try to create a budget surplus, it is not usual to book this kind of savings when it has not even implemented the changes.
9:35 a.m.
Assistant Professor, Carleton University, As an Individual
Because of past Auditor General's recommendations to move the Government of Canada to accrual accounting, which was long overdue, the government is moving through the Treasury Board and the OCG, the Office of the Comptroller General, and so I think that it is legitimate. Even though to many people accrual accounting seems very strange, it is legitimate. I just wouldn't use it as the justification or the argument for this bill.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Brison.
Ms. Bateman, please, for your round.
June 4th, 2015 / 9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Joyce Bateman Conservative Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank all of our witnesses, and I'm going to start with Mr. Astle, but I hope I get to all of you because I have lots of questions.
Mr. Astle, you practised in this field and now you have one client, but you're clearly very involved in your professional organization. You represent not only the large business but the small business perspective, too, on intellectual property. Is that right?
9:40 a.m.
Past President, Intellectual Property Institute of Canada
Yes. The institute that I represent represents agents and lawyers, who represent clients across the spectrum.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Joyce Bateman Conservative Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Across the spectrum. Okay, good, that's important.
I'm just curious, is the extension of time allowed under the Industrial Design Act, the Patent Act, and the Trade-marks Act positive for the industry—for all the clients who are served by your organization, small business and big business?
9:40 a.m.
Past President, Intellectual Property Institute of Canada
Yes, absolutely. Regardless of the size of your business, if you're unable to respond to a patent office request in a timely manner, you may lose your rights, absolutely. By granting an opportunity for the commissioner to declare a force majeure event and extend the time to respond—for example when you're office is flooded and you can't get to your materials—it preserves those rights for those companies.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Joyce Bateman Conservative Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Does it make your colleague lawyers more effective and efficient?
9:40 a.m.
Past President, Intellectual Property Institute of Canada
Make them more efficient? I think it grants them the ability to deal with situations, if the commissioner were to declare a date of that kind, to be able to respond on behalf of their clients in a manner they would not otherwise be able to do.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Joyce Bateman Conservative Winnipeg South Centre, MB
That's good.
Could you just speak briefly about how these proposed changes in Bill C-59 bring us in line with other countries?
9:40 a.m.
Past President, Intellectual Property Institute of Canada
As I mentioned in my testimony, countries such as the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand, for example, have established laws to extend privilege to communications between intellectual property advisers and their clients. Intellectual property rights, such as patent and trademark rights, are international in scope. One needs to rely upon a network of those rights in various countries to be able to be secure in protecting those rights internationally. Those rights only exist in the countries that issue them. A patent in Canada is only good in Canada; a patent in New Zealand is only good in New Zealand. By being on a level playing field with respect to protecting such communications, there's not one jurisdiction that will undermine the rights in other jurisdictions, so that is how by—
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Joyce Bateman Conservative Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Hopefully, having that level playing ground will help us with productivity and entrepreneurship.
9:40 a.m.
Past President, Intellectual Property Institute of Canada
Absolutely. If you can appreciate, Canadian innovators are most likely to seek advice from Canadian intellectual property advisers. Therefore, without these changes, their communications are subject to being revealed in litigation in other counties. So it puts Canadian innovators at risk relative to innovators in other countries where these protections exist.