This bill was last introduced in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session, which ended in August 2015.
Joe Oliver Conservative
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill.
Part 1 implements income tax measures and related measures proposed in the February 11, 2014 budget. Most notably, it
(a) increases the maximum amount of eligible expenses for the adoption expense tax credit;
(b) expands the list of expenses eligible for the medical expense tax credit to include the cost of the design of individualized therapy plans and costs associated with service animals for people with severe diabetes;
(c) introduces the search and rescue volunteers tax credit;
(d) extends, for one year, the mineral exploration tax credit for flow-through share investors;
(e) expands the circumstances in which members of underfunded pension plans can benefit from unreduced pension-to-RRSP transfer limits;
(f) eliminates the need for individuals to apply for the GST/HST credit and allows the Minister of National Revenue to automatically determine if an individual is eligible to receive the credit;
(g) extends to 10 years the carry-forward period with respect to certain donations of ecologically sensitive land;
(h) removes, for certified cultural property acquired as part of a gifting arrangement that is a tax shelter, the exemption from the rule that deems the value of a gift to be no greater than its cost to the donor;
(i) allows the Minister of National Revenue to refuse to register, or revoke the registration of, a charity or Canadian amateur athletic association that accepts a donation from a state supporter of terrorism;
(j) reduces, for certain small and medium-sized employers, the frequency of remittances for source deductions;
(k) improves the Canada Revenue Agency’s ability to provide feedback to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada; and
(l) requires a listing of outstanding tax measures to be tabled in Parliament.
Part 1 also implements other selected income tax measures. Most notably, it
(a) introduces transitional rules relating to the labour-sponsored venture capital corporations tax credit;
(b) requires certain financial intermediaries to report to the Canada Revenue Agency international electronic funds transfers of $10,000 or more;
(c) makes amendments relating to the introduction of the Offshore Tax Informant Program of the Canada Revenue Agency;
(d) permits the disclosure of taxpayer information to an appropriate police organization in certain circumstances if the information relates to a serious offence; and
(e) provides that the Business Development Bank of Canada and BDC Capital Inc. are not financial institutions for the purposes of the Income Tax Act’s mark-to-market rules.
Part 2 implements certain goods and services tax/harmonized sales tax (GST/HST) measures proposed in the February 11, 2014 budget by
(a) expanding the GST/HST exemption for training that is specially designed to assist individuals with a disorder or disability to include the service of designing such training;
(b) expanding the GST/HST exemption for services rendered to individuals by certain health care practitioners to include professional services rendered by acupuncturists and naturopathic doctors;
(c) adding eyewear specially designed to treat or correct a defect of vision by electronic means to the list of GST/HST zero-rated medical and assistive devices;
(d) extending to newly created members of a group the election that allows members of a closely-related group to not account for GST/HST on certain supplies between them, introducing joint and several (or solidary) liability for the parties to that election for any GST/HST liability on those supplies and adding a requirement to file that election with the Canada Revenue Agency;
(e) giving the Minister of National Revenue the discretionary authority to register a person for GST/HST purposes if the person fails to comply with the requirement to apply for registration, even after having been notified by the Canada Revenue Agency of that requirement; and
(f) improving the Canada Revenue Agency’s ability to provide feedback to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada.
Part 2 also implements other GST/HST measures by
(a) providing a GST/HST exemption for supplies of hospital parking for patients and visitors, clarifying that the GST/HST exemption for supplies of a property, when all or substantially all of the supplies of the property by a charity are made for free, does not apply to paid parking and clarifying that paid parking provided by charities that are set up or used by municipalities, universities, public colleges, schools and hospitals to operate their parking facilities does not qualify for the special GST/HST exemption for parking supplied by charities;
(b) clarifying that reports of international electronic funds transfers made to the Canada Revenue Agency may be used for the purposes of the administration of the GST/HST;
(c) making amendments relating to the introduction of the Offshore Tax Informant Program of the Canada Revenue Agency;
(d) permitting the disclosure of confidential GST/HST information to an appropriate police organization in certain circumstances if the information relates to a serious offence; and
(e) clarifying that a person cannot claim input tax credits in respect of an amount of GST/HST that has already been recovered by the person from a supplier.
Part 3 implements excise measures proposed in the February 11, 2014 budget by
(a) adjusting the domestic rate of excise duty on tobacco products to account for inflation and eliminating the preferential excise duty treatment of tobacco products available through duty free markets;
(b) ensuring that excise tax returns are filed accurately through the addition of a new administrative monetary penalty and an amended criminal offence for the making of false statements or omissions, consistent with similar provisions in the GST/HST portion of the Excise Tax Act; and
(c) improving the Canada Revenue Agency’s ability to provide feedback to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada.
Part 3 also implements other excise measures by
(a) permitting the disclosure of confidential information to an appropriate police organization in certain circumstances if the information relates to a serious offence; and
(b) making amendments relating to the introduction of the Offshore Tax Informant Program of the Canada Revenue Agency.
In addition, Part 3 amends the Air Travellers Security Charge Act, the Excise Act, 2001 and the Excise Tax Act to clarify that reports of international electronic funds transfers made to the Canada Revenue Agency may be used for the purposes of the administration of those Acts.
Part 4 amends the Customs Tariff. In particular, it
(a) reduces the Most-Favoured-Nation rates of duty and, if applicable, rates of duty under the other tariff treatments on tariff items related to mobile offshore drilling units used in oil and gas exploration and development that are imported on or after May 5, 2014;
(b) removes the exemption provided by tariff item 9809.00.00 and makes consequential amendments to tariff item 9833.00.00 to apply the same tariff rules to the Governor General that are applied to other public office holders; and
(c) clarifies the tariff classification of certain imported food products, effective November 29, 2013.
Part 5 enacts the Canada–United States Enhanced Tax Information Exchange Agreement Implementation Act and amends the Income Tax Act to introduce consequential information reporting requirements.
Part 6 enacts and amends several Acts in order to implement various measures.
Division 1 of Part 6 provides for payments to compensate for deductions in certain benefits and allowances that are payable under the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act, the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Civilian War-related Benefits Act.
Division 2 of Part 6 amends the Bank of Canada Act and the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act to authorize the Bank of Canada to provide banking and custodial services to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Division 3 of Part 6 amends the Hazardous Products Act to better regulate the sale and importation of hazardous products intended for use, handling or storage in a work place in Canada in accordance with the Regulatory Cooperation Council Joint Action Plan initiative for work place chemicals. In particular, the amendments implement the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals with respect to, among other things, labelling and safety data sheet requirements. It also provides for enhanced powers related to administration and enforcement. Finally, it makes amendments to the Canada Labour Code and the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act.
Division 4 of Part 6 amends the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act to authorize individuals to transport beer and spirits from one province to another for their personal consumption.
Division 5 of Part 6 amends the Judges Act to increase the number of judges of the Superior Court of Quebec and the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta.
Division 6 of Part 6 amends the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act to prohibit parliamentarians from contributing to their pension and accruing pensionable service as a result of a suspension.
Division 7 of Part 6 amends the National Defence Act to recognize the historic names of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force while preserving the integration and the unification achieved under the Canadian Forces Reorganization Act and to provide that the designations of rank and the circumstances of their use are prescribed in regulations made by the Governor in Council.
Division 8 of Part 6 amends the Customs Act to extend to 90 days the time for making a request for a review of a seizure, ascertained forfeiture or penalty assessment and to provide that requests for a review and third-party claims can be made directly to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.
Division 9 of Part 6 amends the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Act to provide for the dissolution of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Board and to repeal the requirement for the President of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency to submit a comprehensive report every five years on the Agency’s activities and on the impact those activities have had on regional disparity.
Division 10 of Part 6 dissolves the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation and authorizes, among other things, the transfer of its assets and obligations, as well as those of its subsidiaries, to either the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency or Her Majesty in right of Canada as represented by the Minister of Public Works and Government Services. It also provides that the employees of the Corporation and its subsidiaries are deemed to have been appointed under the Public Service Employment Act and includes provisions related to their terms and conditions of employment. Furthermore, it amends the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency Act to, among other things, confer on the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency the authority that is necessary for the administration, management, control and disposal of the assets and obligations transferred to the Agency. It also makes consequential amendments to other Acts and repeals the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation Act.
Division 11 of Part 6 provides for the transfer of responsibility for the administration of the programs known as the “Online Works of Reference” and the “Virtual Museum of Canada” from the Minister of Canadian Heritage to the Canadian Museum of History.
Division 12 of Part 6 amends the Nordion and Theratronics Divestiture Authorization Act to remove certain restrictions on the acquisition of voting shares of Nordion.
Division 13 of Part 6 amends the Bank Act to add regulation-making powers respecting a bank’s activities in relation to derivatives and benchmarks.
Division 14 of Part 6 amends the Insurance Companies Act to broaden the Governor in Council’s authority to make regulations respecting the conversion of a mutual company into a company with common shares.
Division 15 of Part 6 amends the Motor Vehicle Safety Act to support the objectives of the Regulatory Cooperation Council to enhance the alignment of Canadian and U.S. regulations while protecting Canadians. It introduces measures to accelerate and streamline the regulatory process, reduce the administrative burden for manufacturers and importers and improve safety for Canadians through revised oversight procedures and enhanced availability of vehicle safety information.
The amendments to the Railway Safety Act and the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992 modernize the legislation by aligning it with the Cabinet Directive on Regulatory Management.
This Division also amends the Safe Food for Canadians Act to authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting activities related to specified fresh fruits and vegetables, including requiring a person who engages in certain activities to be a member of a specified entity or organization. It also repeals the Board of Arbitration.
Division 16 of Part 6 amends the Telecommunications Act to set a maximum amount that a Canadian carrier can charge to another Canadian carrier for certain roaming services.
Division 17 of Part 6 amends the Canada Labour Code to allow employees to interrupt their compassionate care leave or leave related to their child’s critical illness, death or disappearance in order to take leave because of sickness or a work-related illness or injury. It also amends the Employment Insurance Act to facilitate access to sickness benefits for claimants who are in receipt of compassionate care benefits or benefits for parents of critically ill children.
Division 18 of Part 6 amends the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act to provide that fees fixed under that Act for the use of a facility provided by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency under the Safe Food for Canadians Act as well as fees fixed for services, products and rights and privileges provided by the Agency under that Act are exempt from the application of the User Fees Act.
Division 19 of Part 6 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to, among other things, enhance the client identification, record keeping and registration requirements for financial institutions and intermediaries, refer to online casinos, and extend the application of the Act to persons and entities that deal in virtual currencies and foreign money services businesses. Furthermore, it makes modifications in regards to the information that the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada may receive, collect or disclose, and expands the circumstances in which the Centre or the Canada Border Services Agency can disclose information received or collected under the Act. It also updates the review and appeal provisions related to cross-border currency reporting and brings Part 1.1 of the Act into force.
Division 20 of Part 6 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2 to, among other things,
(a) require certain applications to be made electronically;
(b) provide for the making of regulations regarding the establishment of a system of administrative monetary penalties for the contravention of conditions applicable to employers hiring foreign workers;
(c) provide for the termination of certain applications for permanent residence in respect of which a decision as to whether the selection criteria are met is not made before February 11, 2014; and
(d) clarify and strengthen requirements related to the expression of interest regime.
Division 21 of Part 6 amends the Public Service Labour Relations Act to clarify that an adjudicator may grant systemic remedies when it has been determined that the employer has engaged in a discriminatory practice.
It also clarifies the transitional provisions in respect of essential services that were enacted by the Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2.
Division 22 of Part 6 amends the Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006 to clarify how payments to provinces under section 99 of that Act are to be determined.
Division 23 of Part 6 amends the Budget Implementation Act, 2009 so that the aggregate amount of payments to provinces and territories for matters relating to the establishment of a Canadian securities regulation regime may be fixed through an appropriation Act.
Division 24 of Part 6 amends the Protection of Residential Mortgage or Hypothecary Insurance Act and the National Housing Act to provide that certain criteria established in a regulation may apply to an existing insured mortgage or hypothecary loan.
Division 25 of Part 6 amends the Trade-marks Act to, among other things, make that Act consistent with the Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks and add the authority to make regulations for carrying into effect the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks. The amendments include the simplification of the requirements for obtaining a filing date in relation to an application for the registration of a trade-mark, the elimination of the requirement to declare use of a trade-mark before registration, the reduction of the term of registration of a trade-mark from 15 to 10 years, and the adoption of the classification established by the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks.
Division 26 of Part 6 amends the Trade-marks Act to repeal the power to appoint the Registrar of Trade-marks and to provide that the Registrar is the person appointed as Commissioner of Patents under subsection 4(1) of the Patent Act.
Division 27 of Part 6 amends the Old Age Security Act to prevent the payment of Old Age Security income-tested benefits for the entire period of a sponsorship undertaking by removing the current 10-year cap.
Division 28 of Part 6 enacts the New Bridge for the St. Lawrence Act, respecting the construction and operation of a new bridge in Montreal to replace the Champlain Bridge and the Nuns’ Island Bridge.
Division 29 of Part 6 enacts the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada Act, which establishes the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada (ATSSC) as a portion of the federal public administration. The ATSSC becomes the sole provider of resources and staff for 11 administrative tribunals and provides facilities and support services to those tribunals, including registry, administrative, research and analysis services. The Division also makes consequential amendments to the Acts establishing those tribunals and to other Acts related to those tribunals.
Division 30 of Part 6 enacts the Apprentice Loans Act, which provides for financial assistance for apprentices to help with the cost of their training. Under that Act, apprentices registered in eligible trades will be eligible for loans that will be interest-free until their training ends.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Keeping personal tax information confidential is a principle of the tax system. That's the reason so many Canadians are reluctant to share their personal tax information. Bill C-31 will allow CRA to use its own discretion to give confidential tax information to police.
Who at CRA will make the final determination in each case on whether information should be shared under this provision?
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I call the meeting back to order. This is meeting number 37 of the Standing Committee on Finance. We are dealing with Bill C-31.
Colleagues, we dealt last with clause 24. We have an amendment on clause 27. Is there any discussion on clauses 25 or 26?
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I call this meeting to order.
This is meeting 37 of the Standing Committee on Finance. The orders of the day, pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, April 8, 2014, are dealing with clause-by-clause study of Bill C-31, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014, and other measures.
Colleagues, as you know, we have both today and Thursday for clause by clause. My hope as chair is that we get through parts 1 to 4 today. We'll see if we can. Obviously, it will depend on members' input.
We do have a notice of motion in the name of Mr. Cullen, and he's indicated he would prefer to move that at the outset of the meeting.
Mr. Cullen, if you're ready, I'll go to you to move your motion, please.
James Moore ConservativeMinister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, the changes to trademark are very important for small and medium-sized businesses across Canada.
What we are doing in Bill C-31 is enacting three international protocols that protect the interests of small businesses on the international scene. These three treaties will allow Canadians who work in the IT sector and those who are dependent on their intellectual property on the world stage not to have to hire 50 and 60 lawyers around the world but to hire one.
When a patent is registered in Canada, it will be recognized on the world stage so that Canadians who are investing in intellectual property will be protected on a global level, not just a Canadian level.
I understand that the Canadian Bar Association does not like it, but it is because it is good for small business.
Yes. What we're looking at under PIPEDA is that with regard to the information disclosed for the purposes of law enforcement, there's no necessity to disclose to the person who you're talking about, who the information pertains to. Bill S-4 takes it a step further, of course, and says it's not just law enforcement or the government, but it's other organizations as well. We see in Bill C-31 that no longer are there strict controls over the sharing of information between Revenue Canada and other organizations.
This is a pattern, and it's a concerning pattern. To that extent, if would be very useful if this issue could be studied in depth in relation to the other issues that impact it as well.
Michael Spratt Member and Criminal Defence Counsel, Criminal Lawyers' Association
Thank you. It's always a pleasure to be here.
As you may know, the Criminal Lawyers' Association is a not-for-profit organization comprising more than 1,100 criminal defence counsel from across Canada. One of our objectives is to educate not only our membership but also the public on issues relating to criminal and constitutional law. The CLA has routinely been consulted and invited by various parliamentary committees to share its views on proposed legislation pertaining to these issues. The CLA supports legislation that is fair, modest, constitutional, and supported by the evidence.
To cut to the chase, the CLA is simply unable to support Bill C-13. Quite simply, Bill C-13 is not only overly broad but is also likely unconstitutional.
Bill C-13 purports to be concerned with tackling cyberbullying by stopping the spread of intimate images that are disseminated without the subject's consent. The real tragedy of Bill C-13 is that those provisions are necessary, laudable, and should be proceeded with; however, in reality that aspect takes up only a small percentage of the bill. Bill C-13, in the balance, sacrifices privacy in favour of expanded police powers and liberal disclosure standards.
Bill C-13, along with Bill S-4 and Bill C-31, represents a dangerous and in our opinion unconstitutional pattern of erosion of privacy.
Let me speak of the cyberbullying provisions. They are important, are laudable, should be proceeded with, and are indeed necessary in the modern world that we live in. Largely, I don't have any objection to the small percentage of the bill that deals with those provisions.
Having said that, I would add that there is a legitimate argument that those provisions in and of themselves may be overly broad, in that the standard imposed for the mens rea is “recklessness”. That standard of recklessness may go too far, in that it may make individuals potentially liable who don't know or could not have found out the circumstances to which the images that are the subject of that provision relate. To that extent, the problem with the cyberbullying provision is not necessarily its aim but rather its execution in that one small regard.
The bill's aim is to punish those who transmit intimate photos sent to them, when the person who took those images has an expectation of privacy. That is likely to have significant public support, as it should; however, the scope of the provision is potentially overly broad, because it expands the mens rea element. By making “recklessness” one of the potential mens rea standards for that offence, the provision may catch not only the individual who was the original recipient of the image but also those down the line—the second-hand recipients of that image—who may have no knowledge of the circumstances in which that picture was taken or made.
Some caution comes from Don Stuart, a pre-eminent expert in the field of criminal law. As he points out in Canadian Criminal Law, the fifth edition, there is a risk that the recklessness standard can devolve into a far broader conception of fault than is desirable, and a more nuanced approach would involve defining recklessness as knowledge both of the risk and that that risk was likely.
That provision can be seen in other aspects of the code; for example, in item (a)(ii) of section 229, which deals with murder.
A modified recklessness standard in the cyberbullying provision would target the so-called “revenge porn” conduct, without drawing to the net those who simply pass on the photos without context and may not necessarily be as morally culpable.
If the provision is allowed to remain there without a clearer definition of recklessness, the section may attract some charter scrutiny. At that point, the issue would become one of over-breadth: does that section capture individuals who may not be morally blameworthy, but may nonetheless be captured under the recklessness standard? As I said, this is a minor issue with that aspect of the bill.
More troubling is the “lawful disclosure” aspect of Bill C-13. The bill announces itself as being about cyberbullying and protecting Canadians from online crime, but certainly it far exceeds those parameters.
I will start by saying that of course the most controversial aspects of Bill C-30 have been removed—the mandatory warrantless disclosure of basic subscriber information. However, there are still some serious concerns. I'll deal with two issues.
The first is that there is simply insufficient judicial oversight in obtaining those orders.
Now, the Supreme Court of Canada has recently considered the standard for reasonable suspicion, which is the standard we're dealing with in the legislation, in the case R. v. Chehil. The court made it crystal clear that the standard of reasonable suspicion falls well below the normal requirement of reasonable and probable grounds. That's the normal standard we usually deal with. Specifically, the Supreme Court said that the state's interest in detecting and preventing crime begins to prevail over the individual's interest in being left alone at the point where credible-based probability replaces suspicion.
The data, which is the subject matter of the searches contemplated in Bill C-13, contains a great deal of personal information. It's a misnomer to simply call it metadata. That dilutes the importance and impact of that data.
I understand that a pre-eminent expert in this area, Dr. Michael Geist, will be testifying at this committee later this week, and I think he will agree that metadata is deserving of an increased level of protection. And indeed he's not alone in that view. When we look at reports in 2013 from the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, both reports reveal the heightened expectation and the intimate information that can be revealed through metadata. I would commend you to read those reports. It's quite shocking what can be discerned about an individual's communications and basic information about the individual through simply an IP address or some of the other metadata that's discussed.
Metadata as a starting point has a heightened expectation of privacy, and that is something that has been echoed by the Supreme Court, which agrees seemingly with Dr. Geist and with the privacy commissioners. In the recent case of Vu, which dealt with metadata found on a personal computer, the Supreme Court of Canada adopted the Criminal Lawyers' Association's submissions—we intervened in that case—finding that ordinarily this information, metadata, can help a user retrace his or her cybernetic steps. In the context of a criminal investigation, however, it can also enable investigators to access intimate details about a user's interests, habits, identities, drawing on a record that the user created unwittingly. Of course, in modern times there's a capacity to store, catalogue, and cross reference this information, revealing more and more.
The Supreme Court's comments about the heightened privacy inherent in this type of data is simply incompatible with the proposed reasonable suspicion standard that's found in Bill C-13. That incongruity exposes this proposed legislation to charter scrutiny, and in my opinion supports a conclusion that there's not only charter scrutiny here but indeed charter infirmity. There's simply no principled and justifiable reason that the new warrant provisions contained in Bill C-13 should not be based on the traditionally and judicially approved standard of reasonable and probably grounds.
Next, moving to the issue of the incentives for non-judicially supervised disclosure, Bill C-13 will also likely lead to an increased request for a telecommunications company to disclose information without court oversight and the corresponding protections. Privacy in this regard should be strengthened and not abandoned. Falling back on section 25 in the current Criminal Code is no answer to this problem. If you read section 25 carefully, you will see that section 25 requires reasonable grounds, and no comfort can be found in the appeal legislation as it offers no protection.
Of course as we see with that existing provision in Bill C-13, it broadens the scope of disclosure. No longer will the requesting organization be under an obligation to actually be enforcing or administering an act. The room for those requests is greatly increased. And indeed we see codification of the civil and criminal immunity which isn't in section 25, and as I said, section 25 requires reasonable grounds, which is completely absent in this section.
The real concern is that the expansion of police power and limiting liability for the party agreeing to disclose will result in increased police fishing expeditions, and of course we have seen from some reports some very alarming information about current practices in that regard.
Indeed, it would have been preferable to have discrete legislation on both the cyberbullying and on the lawful access legislation. However, given the current formulation of Bill C-13, the CLA recommends that the standards for obtaining those warrants be strengthened and brought in line with what the current Supreme Court case law would suggest is appropriate. No one wants to see evidence excluded. No one wants to get it wrong at the outset, and years later find out that the constitutionally suspect legislation was passed, evidence was excluded, and prosecutions were jeopardized because things weren't done right the first time. The provisions respecting the voluntary disclosure should be reconsidered to ensure both fairness, respect of privacy, and ultimately, constitutionality.
James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC
I just want to say I appreciate the concerns that have been raised. As the official opposition you're doing your job and being a megaphone for the concerns that have been raised, but frankly we don't agree. These are IP treaties that make perfect sense, and I can understand why some, particularly the Canadian Bar Association, aren't terribly big fans of this.
By the way, there's a reason why these protocols are also consolidated in our Digital Canada 150 plan, because if you're a Canadian innovator and you want to get a patent and you have to hire a patent lawyer and it costs between $3,500 and $5,000 to secure a patent for your idea, you want to make sure a patent troll doesn't sit on your idea and steal it, because information is instantly global.
If you file a patent in Canada, we want it to be protected around the world. Patent lawyers who can charge you $3,500 to register a patent in every country in the world are going to be upset, but guess who benefits? Small businesses that have to register patents and protect their IP are going to benefit greatly from these reforms. The idea here, of course, is very simple, which is why all other countries that are signatories have ratified these agreements. They're ahead of the game. We're behind the game. We need to ratify these agreements, so Canadians whose livelihoods are dependent upon the protection of their intellectual property have the capacity to protect it internationally, and not make it impossible for them to protect themselves.
Colleagues, as Bill C-31 moves forward—and I guess it's considered over at the finance committee and not this committee—if the NDP has suggestions on how we might amend this, bring them forward. First, I think it's a pretty straightforward idea to protect Canadians' IP on an international level and not just domestic. Second, I think it's pretty easy to understand why those who are opposed to it are opposing it: their self-interest.
James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC
We are always listening. Do not forget that this treaty was signed in 2001. Many discussions have been held about this. We have held discussions, and we have definitely consulted people on the issue.
We think that those international protocols and treaties are very important for helping small and medium-sized businesses because they are the ones taking a hit owing to this.
I think it's appropriate, if I may, just to go through the three treaties in Bill C-31 that you are referring to. The Madrid protocol allows for the registration of trademarks in multiple jurisdictions through a single international application that is filed with the international bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization.
The Singapore treaty, the second of the three, establishes standards and rules related to procedures in national trademark offices to clarify what they can and cannot require from applicants. The third, the Nice agreement, governs the Nice classification, a list of different types of goods and services for which businesses may use a trademark and is required for accession to the Singapore treaty and the Madrid protocol, which are also—
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC
At the same time, Minister Moore, it is clear that a quick response is needed because things are moving increasingly fast. I hope to have an opportunity to talk to you about the report on digital issues that was published in 2011. The reaction time is extremely long.
I would now like to discuss intellectual property. In the omnibus bill on budget implementation—Bill C-31—you made amendments to the Trademarks Act under the pretext of wanting to align the efforts while respecting treaties like the Madrid Protocol.
A number of stakeholders have come to talk to us about this. They testified before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology and before the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce.
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that the commissioner found that Mr. Lynn seriously breached the code of conduct when he hired Nancy Baker, Allan Murphy, Ken Langley, and Robert MacLean based solely on political ties to the Conservative Party. All were hired to executive positions and all were appointed without a competitive, merit-based process. These tainted political appointments will become permanent in a matter of weeks when Bill C-31 makes them part of the public service.
In 2012, the Public Service Commissioner revoked two rigged appointments at ACOA P.E.I. Will the minister show leadership and do the same with these rigged appointments at Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation?
Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
moved:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, commencing upon the adoption of this Order and concluding on Friday, June 20, 2014:
(a) on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be 12 midnight, except that it shall be 10 p.m. on a day when a debate, pursuant to Standing Order 52 or 53.1, is to take place;
(b) subject to paragraph (d), when a recorded division is demanded in respect of a debatable motion, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 61(2), but not including any division in relation to the Business of Supply or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57, (i) before 2 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of oral questions at that day’s sitting, or (ii) after 2 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of oral questions at the next sitting day that is not a Friday;
(c) the time provided for Government Orders shall not be extended pursuant to Standing Order 45(7.1);
(d) when a recorded division, which would have ordinarily been deemed deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on a Wednesday governed by this Order, is demanded, the said division is deemed to have been deferred until the conclusion of oral questions on the same Wednesday;
(e) any recorded division which, at the time of the adoption of this Order, stands deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on the Wednesday immediately following the adoption of this Order shall be deemed to stand deferred to the conclusion of oral questions on the same Wednesday;
(f) a recorded division demanded in respect of a motion to concur in a government bill at the report stage pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(9), where the bill has neither been amended nor debated at the report stage, shall be deferred in the manner prescribed by paragraph (b);
(g) for greater certainty, this Order shall not limit the application of Standing Order 45(7);
(h) no dilatory motion may be proposed, except by a Minister of the Crown, after 6:30 p.m.; and
(i) when debate on a motion for the concurrence in a report from a standing, standing joint or special committee is adjourned or interrupted, the debate shall again be considered on a day designated by the government, after consultation with the House Leaders of the other parties, but in any case not later than the twentieth sitting day after the interruption.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the government's motion proposing that we work a little bit of overtime over the next few weeks in the House.
I have the pleasure of serving in my fourth year as the government House leader during the 41st Parliament. That is, of course, on top of another 22 months during a previous Parliament, though some days it feels like I am just getting started since our government continues to implement an ambitious agenda that focuses on the priorities of Canadians. We still have much to do, and that is the basis for Motion No. 10, which we are debating today. Regardless of what other theories that folks might come up with, our objective is simple: to deliver results for Canadians, results on things Canadians want to see from their government.
As government House leader, I have worked to have the House operate in a productive, orderly, and hard-working fashion. Canadians expect their members of Parliament to work hard and get things done on their behalf. We agree, and that is exactly what has happened here in the House of Commons. However, do not take my word for it. Let us look at the facts.
In the previous session of the 41st Parliament, 61 government bills received royal assent and are now law. In 2013 alone, which was a shorter parliamentary year than normal, the government had a record-breaking year with 40 bills becoming law, more than any other calendar year since we took office, breaking our previous record of 37 new laws in 2007 when I also had the honour to be the leader of the House. That is the record of a hard-working, orderly, and productive Parliament. With more than a year left in this Parliament, the House has accomplished so much already, handing many bills over to the Senate for the final steps in the legislative process.
Just as we had a record year for legislative output, Canadian grain farmers experienced a bumper crop with a record yield in 2013. Understanding the real challenges faced by grain farmers, our government acted quickly on Bill C-30, the fair rail for grain farmers act, moving the bill through three readings and a committee study before handing it over to the Senate. This bill would support economic growth by ensuring that grain is able to get to market quickly and efficiently. The House also passed Bill C-23, the fair elections act, which would ensure that everyday citizens are in charge of democracy, ensuring the integrity of our electoral system and putting rule breakers out of business.
Two supply bills received royal assent, thereby ensuring that the government has the money it needs to continue providing services to the people.
When we passed Bill C-25, the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act, we fulfilled our promise to protect the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation's enrolment process, making it fair and equitable while ensuring that only eligible individuals will be granted membership.
Earlier this spring, royal assent was also given to Bill C-16, the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation Governance Act, making the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation the first self-governing nation on the prairies and the 34th aboriginal community in Canada to achieve self-governance.
Next on the agenda is Bill C-34, the Tla'amin Final Agreement Act, which will implement the agreement with the Tla'amin Nation. Bill C-34 will give the Tla'amin increased control over their own affairs. They will have ownership of their land and resources and will be able to create new investment opportunities and make decisions determining their economic future.
We considered and passed through all stages of Bill C-5, the Offshore Health and Safety Act, which will enhance safety standards for workers in Canada’s Atlantic offshore oil and gas industry to protect Canadians and the environment while supporting jobs and growth.
Bill C-14, the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, became law just a few weeks ago. This act will ensure that public safety should be the paramount consideration in the decision-making process involving high-risk accused found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.
Also, this spring, our government passed Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories Devolution Act, which honoured our government's commitment to giving northerners greater control over their resources and decision-making and completing devolution all before the agreed-upon implementation date of April 1, as well as Bill C-9, the First Nations Elections Act, which supports the Government of Canada's commitment to provide all Canadians with strong, accountable, and transparent government. Bill C-9 provides a robust election framework, improves the capacity of first nations to select leadership, build prosperous communities, and improve economic development in their communities.
However, despite these many accomplishments, there is more work to be done yet before we return to our constituencies for the summer, let alone before we seek the privilege of representing our constituents in the 42nd Parliament.
During this mandate, our government's top priority has been jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity.
It is worth saying that again. During this mandate, our government's top priority has been jobs, economic growth, and long-term prosperity. That continues. Through three years and four budgets since the 2012 budget, we have passed initiatives that have helped create hundreds of thousands of jobs for Canadians, as part of the one million net new jobs since the global economic downturn. We have achieved this record while also ensuring that Canada's debt burden is the lowest in the G7 and we are on track to balance the budget in 2015.
As part of our efforts to build on this strong track record, our government has put forward this motion today. Motion No. 10 is simple. It is straightforward. It would extend the hours of the House to sit from Monday through Thursday. Instead of finishing the day around 6:30 p.m. or 7 p.m., the House would, instead, sit until midnight. This would give us an additional 20 hours each week to debate important bills. Of course, the hours on Friday would not change.
Extended sitting hours is something that happens practically every June. Our government just wants to roll up its sleeves and work a little harder a bit earlier this year.
Productivity is not just a function of time invested, but also of efficiency. To that end, our motion would allow most votes to be deferred, automatically, until the end of question period to allow for all hon. members' schedules to be a bit more orderly.
Last year, we saw the New Democrats profess to be willing to work hard. Then, mere hours later, after the sun would go down and people were not watching, what would the NDP do? It would suggest we pack it in early and move adjournment, without any accomplishment to show for it.
In order to keep our focus on delivering results and not gamesmanship, we are suggesting that we use our extra evening hours to get something done, not to play idle, unproductive games. We are interested in working hard and being productive, and doing so in an orderly fashion. That is the extent of what Motion No. 10 would do. Members on this side of the House are willing to work a few extra hours to deliver real results for Canadians. What results are we seeking? Bills on which we want to see progress, that are of great significance to Canadians, are worth spending a little extra time to see them considered and, ideally, passed.
Of course, we have the important matter of passing Bill C-31, Economic Action Plan 2014, No. 1. This bill implements our government’s budget—a low-tax plan for jobs, growth and a stronger Canadian economy. It is also an essential tool in placing the government on track to balanced budgets, starting in 2015.
We have a number of bills that continue to build on the work we have done in support of victims of crime. Bill C-13, the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, is another essential piece of legislation that will crack down on cyberbullies and online threats by giving law enforcement officials the tools necessary to investigate and tackle these crimes. We are taking clear action to combat cyberbullying and I ask the opposition to join us in this pursuit.
Every day in Canada, our most vulnerable—our children—are the victims of sexual abuse. This is truly unacceptable and as a society we must do our part to better protect our youth. With Bill C-26, the Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, we are doing our part.
Our government's comprehensive legislation will better protect children from a range of sexual offences, including child pornography, while making our streets and communities safer by cracking down on the predators who hurt, abuse, and exploit our children.
Therefore, I ask the opposition to work with us, support this important piece of legislation by supporting this motion.
It is also important that we move forward with one of the most recent additions to our roster of other tackling crime legislation. Last month, we introduced Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights act, which will give victims of crime a more efficient and more effective voice in the criminal justice system. It seeks to create clear statutory rights at the federal level for victims of crime, for the first time in Canada's history. The legislation would establish rights to information, protection, participation, and restitution, and ensure a complaint process is in place for breaches of those rights on the part of victims. It would protect victims, and help to rebalance the justice system to give victims their rightful place. I hope we can debate this bill tomorrow night. By passing Motion No. 10, we will make that possible.
Our efforts to protect families and communities also extend to keeping contraband tobacco off our streets, so that the cheap baggies of illegal cigarettes do not lure children into the dangers of smoking. Bill C-10, the tackling contraband tobacco act, would combat this by establishing mandatory jail time for repeat offenders trafficking in contraband. Aside from protecting Canadian children from the health hazards of smoking, it will also address the more general problems with trafficking and contraband tobacco propelled by organized crime roots. With luck, I hope we can pass this bill on Friday.
Just before the constituency week, the Prime Minister announced Quanto's law. Bill C-35, the justice for animals in service act, would pose stiffer penalties on anyone who kills or injures a law enforcement, military, or service animal. I know that the hon. member for Richmond Hill, having previously introduced a private member's bill on the subject, will be keen to see the extra time used to debate and pass this bill at second reading before we head back to our constituencies.
Bill C-12, the drug-free prisons act, could also have a chance for some debate time if we pass Motion No. 10. This particular bill will tackle drug use and trade in the federal penitentiaries to make the correctional system a safer place, particularly for staff, but also for inmates, while also increasing the potential for success and rehabilitation of those inmates. As a former public safety minister, I can say that this is indeed an important initiative.
Delivering these results for Canadians is worth working a few extra hours each week. Our clear and steady focus on the strength of our Canadian economy does not simply apply to our budgets. We will also work hard next week to bring the Canada-Honduras free trade agreement into law. Bill C-20, the Canada-Honduras economic growth and prosperity act, would enhance provisions on cross-border trading services, investment, and government procurement between our two countries. It would also immediately benefit key sectors in the Canadian economy, by providing enhanced market access for beef, pork, potato products, vegetable oils, and grain products.
As a former trade minister, I can say first-hand that this government understands that trade and investment are the twin engines of the global economy that lead to more growth, the creation of good jobs, and greater prosperity. Trade is particularly important for a country like Canada, one that is relatively small yet stands tall in terms of its relationship and ability to export and trade with the rest of the world. If we are to enjoy that prosperity in the future, it is only through expanding free trade and seizing those opportunities that we can look forward to that kind of long-term prosperity.
Through Bill C-18, the agricultural growth act, we are providing further support to Canada's agriculture producers. This bill would modernize nine statues that regulate Canada's agriculture sector to bring them in line with modern science and technology, innovation, and international practices within the agriculture industry. The act will strengthen and safeguard Canada's agriculture sector by providing farmers with greater access to new crop varieties, enhancing both trade opportunities and the safety of agriculture products, and contributing to Canada's overall economic growth.
As the House knows, our government has made the interests of farmers a very important priority. We recognize that since Canada was born, our farmers in our agriculture sector have been key to Canada's economic success. As a result, Bill C-18 will be debated this afternoon. It would be nice to have the bill passed at second reading before the summer, so that the agriculture committee can harvest stakeholder opinion this autumn.
Over the next few weeks, with the co-operation and support of the opposition parties, we will hopefully work to make progress on other important initiatives.
My good friend, the President of the Treasury Board, will be happy to know that these extra hours would mean that I can find some time to debate Bill C-21, the red tape reduction act. This important bill should not be underestimated. It would enshrine into law our government's one-for-one rule, a successful system-wide control on regulatory red tape that affects Canadian employers. Treasury Board already takes seriously the practice of opining that rule, but we want to heighten its importance and ensure that it is binding on governments in the future. We want to ensure that Canadians do not face unreasonable red tape when they are simply trying to make a better living for themselves, and creating jobs and economic growth in their communities.
Another important government initiative sets out to strengthen the value of Canadian citizenship. For the first time in more than 35 years, our government is taking action to update the Citizenship Act. Through Bill C-24, the strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, we are proposing stronger rules around access to Canadian citizenship to underline its true value and ensure that new Canadians are better prepared for full participation in Canadian life. This legislation will be called for debate on Wednesday.
The health and safety of Canadians is something that our government believes is worthy of some extra time and further hard work in the House of Commons.
Tomorrow evening, we will debate Bill C-17, the protecting Canadians from unsafe drugs act. Under Vanessa's law, as we have called it, we are proposing steps to protect Canadian families and children from unsafe medicines. Among other actions, the bill would enable the government to recall unsafe drugs, require stronger surveillance, provide the courts with discretion to impose stronger fines if violations were intentionally caused, and compel drug companies to do further testing on a product. In general, the bill would make sure that the interests of individual Canadians are looked out for and become a major priority when it comes to dealing with new medications and drugs.
Bill C-22, the energy safety and security act, would modernize safety and security for Canada's offshore and nuclear energy industries, thereby ensuring a world-class regulatory system, and strengthening safety and environmental protections. This legislation, at second reading, will be debated on Thursday.
Bill C-3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act, could pass at third reading under the extended hours, so that we can secure these important updates and improvements to transportation law in Canada.
We could also pass the prohibiting cluster munitions act. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs explained at committee, the Government of Canada is committed to ridding the world of cluster munitions. Bill C-6 is an important step in that direction, but it is just the beginning of our work. Extending the relevant elements of the Oslo Convention into domestic law would allow Canada to join the growing list of countries that share that same goal. I hope members of all parties will support us in this worthy objective.
By supporting today's motion, the opposition would also be showing support for Canada's veterans. The extra hours would allow us to make progress on Bill C-27, the veterans hiring act. The measures included in this legislation would create new opportunities for men and women who have served their country to continue working for Canadians through the federal public service. As a nation, we have a responsibility to ensure that veterans have access to a broad range of programs and services to help them achieve new success after their time in uniform is complete. This initiative would do exactly that.
Of course, a quick reading of today's order paper would show that there are still more bills before the House of Commons for consideration and passage. I could go on and on, literally, since I have unlimited time to speak this afternoon, but I will not. Suffice it to say that we have a bold, ambitious, and important legislative agenda to implement. All of these measures are important, and they will improve the lives of Canadians. Each merits consideration and hard work on our part. Canadians expect each one of us to come to Ottawa to work hard, to vote on bills, to make decisions, and to get things done on their behalf.
I hope that opposition parties will be willing to support this reasonable plan and let it come to a vote. I am sure that members opposite would not be interested in going back to their constituents to say that they voted against working a little overtime before the House rises for the summer.
I commend this motion to the House and encourage all hon. members to vote for adding a few hours to our day to continue the work of our productive, orderly, and hard-working Parliament, and deliver real results for Canadians.
Sean Reid Vice-President, Federal and Ontario, Progressive Contractors Association of Canada
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We have covered a lot of ground on this panel already, I can see. I will cover a couple of topics, but I've also heard in previous sessions a lot of discussion around temporary foreign workers. I'd be happy to talk about that in the questions, if need be.
It's my pleasure to be here on behalf of the Progressive Contractors Association of Canada to share our perspective on Bill C-31.
PCA represents and supports progressive unionized employers in Canada's construction industry. Our member companies employ approximately 30,000 skilled tradespeople, unionized primarily by the Christian Labour Association of Canada.
In western Canada, where we account for about 40% of all natural resource industry construction and where provincial regulations best support the hiring and training of young workers, registered apprentices comprise over 35% of the total PCA workforce. Despite our leadership in the recruitment and development of new tradespeople, PCA member companies, like most companies in Canada's construction industry, continue to struggle to find enough workers to meet growing demand. This is particularly pronounced in B.C., Alberta, and Saskatchewan.
It's in this context that l want to express PCA's strong support for the measures within part 6 of Bill C-31, and to share our thoughts on how these measures fit into a broader plan for addressing Canada's workforce development challenges both today and into the future.
It starts with promoting and enabling skills training and apprenticeship in Canada. There are numerous barriers to entry for Canadians considering a career in the trades. These barriers include cost, proximity to employers and training providers, and family circumstances.
The Canada apprentice loan announced in the 2014 budget is a welcome step towards tackling some of these issues. For many of our prospective employees, the loan will help cover a variety of hidden costs of transitioning from a low-opportunity career path or occupation into the skilled trades—the cost of new tools and equipment, transportation costs, and income supplementation during technical training, just to name a few.
It's our hope that once implemented, this program will be flexible enough to accommodate someone who decides to change trades early on in their apprenticeship journey. At the same time, the program should maintain enough focus to facilitate improved completion rates.
While these sorts of investments in apprenticeship will help the longer-term landscape, they will not help our companies address the immediate acute skills shortages we are experiencing in certain regions and occupations. We must also look abroad to fill those gaps.
PCA supports the balanced approach of the federal government reflected in Bill C-31 pertaining to immigration. Our members are particularly excited about the potential of the express entry system, not only for recruiting high-demand tradespeople, such as heavy equipment operators and welders, but also hard-to-find corporate professionals, including engineers, project managers, and estimators. We'll continue to work closely with the federal government on the development and implementation of this new system.
I do want to highlight one other area around which we believe more can and should be done; namely, to better facilitate the mobility of workers in Canada from regions of high unemployment to regions of low unemployment. One solution that we believe the federal government should take a closer look at is the creation of a work travel grant or a lump sum training and mobility grant accessible through the EI system. Mobility grants allow a person who is unemployed in one area of the country to utilize future employment insurance benefits in the form of a lump sum payment in order to relocate to another area of the country where workers are needed. The funds advanced from the EI payments would then be used to fund job search, training, and relocation costs.
In conclusion, PCA thanks the committee for this opportunity to share our views on Bill C-31. I'd be happy to take any questions you have.
My name is Blair Campbell. I'm the general counsel and corporate secretary for Prince Edward Island Mutual Insurance Company. I come to you in this capacity, but I also sit on the executive committee of the Canadian Association of Mutual Insurance Companies.
I'm here today to address division 14 of part 6 of Bill C-31. It provides, in part, rules to enable the conversion of mutual insurance companies to capital stock companies, which is otherwise known as demutualization. I come to you to express grave concern over this decision and to explain the impact that these rules may have on our companies, and in particular on rural Canada.
Our company, Prince Edward Island Mutual Insurance Company, is one of 100 mutual insurance companies serving in the property and casualty insurance market in Canada. Our company, like many of our sister mutuals, was formed by farmers between 100 and 175 years ago out of need in the farming sector and for rural property owners to provide insurance that was not adequately serviced by stock companies. Mutuals are still relevant today in rural Canada. Most of our companies are based in small Canadian towns. We have boards that consist of local farmers and business people. We serve local residents, make decisions locally, and serve the needs of many rural Canadians.
Our companies were founded on principles of mutuality and sharing. They were not formed based on capitalistic principles or ideals of individual property rights. As mutualists, we believe the assets of a mutual insurance company are a common good. They are indivisible. The surplus of our companies has been built up as security for the policyholders over many generations. This surplus was not accumulated to become the property of a particular generation. Members of the company do not have any direct or even notional ownership rights in the assets of the company, as when they leave, there is no payment of a share in the company. The surplus is held for the policyholder's benefit while they are a mutual policyholder.
The best example of proper disposition of the surplus of a mutual is in Quebec with cooperatives. When they convert, the assets of the cooperative will stay in the cooperative federation or system. As well, in France, if we are looking for precedent, policyholders voting on a demutualization proposal must also vote on the disposition of the surplus, which must be to a continuing mutual company or companies, or charity.
A demutualization decision by the policyholders of the day will be made out of self-interest. It won't be made out of acknowledgement of the sacrifice or contribution of prior generations, or the interests of future generations that will be served by mutuals. If enabling laws are made, our companies will be at risk of conversion for the purpose of expansion of existing stock companies with predatory ambitions of growth. Mergers and acquisitions professionals will become skilled in lucrative practices, converting mutual companies to stock companies.
I would just give you the example of the life companies. When the rules were made, the life companies served 50% of the life insurance market—life companies are different from our property and casualty companies—but now they serve less than 5% of that market.
It may be impossible to monitor and defend against the predatory and greed-based motivation in the examples I've given you. We are at the precipice of a decision that may have the effect of gutting the mutual industry in Canada. This will have irreversible effects on our companies and the cost of insurance services provided to Canadians, especially rural Canadians.
John McAvity Executive Director, Canadian Museums Association
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In the interests of time and temperature, I will try to be under the five-minute line.
We are very pleased to be here. I'm John McAvity, the executive director of the association. We have approximately 2,000 not-for-profit museums and galleries all across Canada. They welcome about 60 million visitors each year, so they're enormously important and spread out, from large metropolitan cities to small rural communities. They're also extremely popular and are viewed very favourably by Canadians. In fact, according to studies, 96% of Canadians believe museums contribute to a better quality of life.
I believe I speak on behalf of all of our members when I say that we were very pleased with the federal budget of February 11, which protected the museum programs at the Department of Canadian Heritage and also at the Canada Council for the Arts, programs that are vital to the well-being of our country's museums. There are, however, two other issues that we would like to bring forward to you today.
The first is division 11, which amends the Museums Act of Canada in order to transfer responsibility for two programs, the virtual museum of Canada and online works of reference, to the Canadian Museum of History. Particularly, we are concerned that there was a lack of consultation. We did not see this decision coming, and there are a number of subsequent questions that we are awaiting clarity on.
As a national museum, the Canadian Museum of History is a world-class institution that adheres to the highest professional standards. We applaud its mandate of raising the profile of Canadian history and have no doubt about its capacity to deliver on these programs being transferred to it.
Our concern refers to clause 193, in which proposed subsection 9(3) states:
The Canadian Museum of History may support other museums or organizations that have a purpose that is complementary to its own
On the positive side, the transfer of these programs does represent an opportunity to renew and broaden these programs, integrating new forms of technology and helping the programs move forward. We do not want to see these programs be narrowed. We want to ensure that our nation's heritage is not restricted to historical artifacts or archival materials, as per the museum's role, but also through art, science, oral history, and other forms of culture. We argue for the very broadest definition possible.
I should also go on to talk a bit about the virtual museum of Canada, because it is an important program that supports museums across the country and teaches them the process of developing online exhibits as well as helping to digitize museum collections. We need to ensure that it and the other program being transferred are inclusive and accessible to the whole community.
A second matter of concern to our community is the recent changes to the cultural property review board in this budget. This is a very valuable program that assists in the protection of cherished historical items and encourages the growth of private giving in Canada. In the last two reported years, the board's permits and actions resulted in over 34,000 items of outstanding significance and national importance, valued at over $178 million in tax credits, being saved for the public good in our museums and galleries.
On February 11, the federal budget effectively closed down one donation model that some taxpayers had used. Some had used favourable tax treatments, fluctuations in values, and exemptions from capital gains to their advantage, all very legal activities. These shelters are now ineligible under the program. Some professionals are wondering what further changes may be coming.
The next part in Bill C-31 sees the authority of the cultural property review board being transferred from the Minister of Canadian Heritage to a new administrative tribunal. Again, there was no consultation. We were not aware of this change.
We are wondering where all of this is leading. Assurance is badly needed for the integrity, openness, and long-term stability of the cultural property review program.
We thank you for your time.
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I call this meeting back to order. This is meeting 36 of the Standing Committee on Finance. We're continuing our study of Bill C-31.
I apologize for the heat. We are endeavouring to address that.
I want to welcome our second panel. Speaking as an individual, we have Ms. Sandra Nelson. From the Canadian Museums Association, we welcome back Mr. John McAvity. From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, we have Mr. Gregory Thomas. From the PEI Mutual Insurance Company, we have Mr. Blair Campbell. From the Progressive Contractors Association of Canada, we have Mr. Sean Reid.
Thank you so much for being with us. You each have five minutes maximum for your opening statements, and then we'll have questions from our members.
We'll begin with Ms. Nelson, please.