Evidence of meeting #187 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendments.
A video is available from Parliament.
6 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
It's November 15? It's quite quick. There will only be five more days of consideration. On November 20, it's clause-by-clause consideration, so we have to get them in right away.
If I could just hear from you on the college—maybe I've totally missed this—is there a rampant issue of people pretending to be trademark agents?
6 p.m.
Past President, Intellectual Property Institute of Canada
No. If we talk about patent or trademark agents, no, and as you can imagine, we're a pretty conservative profession.
No, we don't have a history of bad behaviour at all. Our impetus, our motivation, for advocating for a college of this sort for 20-some years is to have a self-regulated profession that stands alone so that you have professional advisers for intellectual property for businesses.
We want to be part of that business cycle of developing intellectual property with all of our businesses. Part of that is to have a self-standing governing college akin to those of other professions, be it engineers, the medical profession or the legal profession. These advisers are experts in advising companies on how to acquire intellectual property rights in Canada and on dealing with those rights with corresponding people internationally—
6 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
I'm sorry to interrupt, but they're doing that already. Do they need a college?
A college also typically confers onto a person who registers a protected title. There are some disciplinary procedures that can be taken up against members, but you're saying that there hasn't been a rampant issue of people misrepresenting themselves or failing to meet certain professional standards.
You also mentioned that you have concerns about the way the legislation is going to structure the standards and the code of ethics and about where they are going to be located in terms of statutes versus regulations versus bylaws. Can you explain those concerns?
6 p.m.
Past President, Intellectual Property Institute of Canada
Sure. As a voluntary association, we're engaged in a lot of these activities already for our members, and we have been historically. Continuing professional education is a core part of what we do.
The aspect of a college really embodies all of the professional education requirements and elevates the view of patent and trademark agents to the public and businesses to show this as a self-standing governing profession that is expert at advising them on intellectual property rights. I think a self-standing college really elevates it in terms of governing the practices and the educational requirements so that you can say to businesses, “We are experts at doing this intellectual property rights advising with you and acquiring those rights.”
I think it really is a self-standing body akin to other jurisdictions in other countries in terms of saying, “These are our professional advisers and we're going to help you build your business, especially in intellectual property rights.”
6 p.m.
Conservative
6 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Where would it you locate it? Can you just repeat that concern?
6 p.m.
Past President, Intellectual Property Institute of Canada
Yes, absolutely.
You have an act and you have legislation under an act. The college is composed in the act. You're going to have regulations under the legislation. Our view is that absolutely there should be a code of conduct or a code of ethics. We have one ourselves; it's voluntary.
We believe the most appropriate place is in the bylaws or outside the regulations, and within the control of the board so that they can see how it should be amended over time. If it's in the regulations, you have the added hurdle of getting through the gazetting process and into the regulations if you feel it needs to be amended. It's more cumbersome.
We're not saying, “Don't have a code of ethics.” Absolutely, have a code of ethics or a code of conduct. We just think it's best placed outside regulations and in, for example, bylaws, where you can deal with it as a living document to show to the members and the public. If there are changes to it, then you bring it to the governing body of the board and propose amendments to the members.
6 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
I'll just mention that typically in professional associations, there are tier one and tier two associations. The model you're talking about would put you on a par with professionals such as engineers, accountants, physicians and surgeons. Tier two professionals are the ones that are typically smaller in scope, such as the Alberta shorthand reporters, for instance, or the Institute of Planners. There are a lot of these smaller associations. All of them typically will have their code of ethics and their standards in a regulation embedded into it. That's pretty common in Alberta. I used to be a registrar for a smaller profession. That's not atypical.
As much as I don't like defending what the government does and how they do it, it doesn't seem all that unreasonable to put it into a regulatory framework, especially for trademark agents. I'll leave it at that.
6:05 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thanks to our witnesses, particularly Mr. Louie, Ms. McKay and Mr. Mehaffey, who've come from the other side of the country to be here today. We appreciate your being present and being witnesses.
I'd like to start briefly with you, Mr. O'Hara.
We know that the last BIA was rushed through. There was a mistake made. That was the imposition of the excise tax on medicinal marijuana. I remember sitting around this table and asking this of officials, and the officials weren't even aware of the mistake. However, the government refused to amend the legislation and rammed it through.
What have been the impacts of the government's rush to ram through legislation, even with huge flaws? Are you suggesting that we amend this BIA so that we can remove that excise tax from medicinal cannabis?
6:05 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadians for Fair Access to Medical Marijuana
To start with your last question first, yes, we would like to see that removed.
The impact has been very significant, because you're now talking about compounding tax. You're talking about tax on tax. That has already put medicine, which was already very difficult for most patients to fund because they are economically challenged, out of reach even more.
Absolutely, we should rescind that.
6:05 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you very much.
As we have seen, those errors have not been corrected. A number of previous witnesses have mentioned that the proposed legislation on pay equity presents huge problems.
Mrs. Picard, if we want to make sure that pay equity holds up, are the amendments to the new legislation that have just been proposed essential?
6:05 p.m.
National Executive Vice-President, Public Service Alliance of Canada
They are absolutely essential. As I said, in its current form, the bill opens the door for employers to undermine the government’s objective, which is to eliminate pay equity problems. That said, we definitely want the bill to be passed. This is a historic bill that is extremely significant.
We want the amendments to be included, but if that is not the case, let us start by passing the bill and then we can work together to improve it. We have proposed two amendments only, but, in our opinion, they make for a bill that will be welcomed by the entire labour movement, and especially by women.
6:05 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
These amendments are essential, aren’t they? You are telling me that we cannot pass this bill with these shortcomings because it will lead to problems. Earlier this week, we heard witnesses tell us that, if the bill is adopted in its present form, women will still have to turn to the courts.
6:05 p.m.
National Executive Vice-President, Public Service Alliance of Canada
Let me try to be as clear as I can.
If you gave me the choice of not passing the bill without the amendments or passing it as is, I would prefer it to be passed and the amendments to be made later.
Honestly, I would be extremely scared to see a bill cast aside because amendments are needed. We have to start somewhere. We do not want this bill to be passed in 100 years. We have been waiting for it for an extremely long time.
The perfect situation would be for the amendments to be included before the bill is passed, but, if that is not the case, we prefer to see it passed in its current form and to work on the amendments afterwards.
I have our legal expert with me.
Do not hesitate, Helen, if you want to say something.
However, that's our approach.
6:10 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
As I understand it, you share the concern that women will still have to turn to the courts if the bill is passed as is, correct?
6:10 p.m.
National Executive Vice-President, Public Service Alliance of Canada
Absolutely.
6:10 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Okay.
There is also the so-called “scissors clause”, that allows the minister to make an exception for any employer or any category of employers from implementing any section of the bill. A number of witnesses have said the same as you about that provision. If I understand correctly, the current minister, or a minister in a future government, could decide to exempt sectors, like the banking sector, from the provisions on pay equity. So I assume that you want that provision removed from the bill. Is that correct?
6:10 p.m.
Helen Berry Legal Officer, Public Service Alliance of Canada
I agree with what Madame Picard said, that we don't want this to not be passed. PSAC has waited a long time for this legislation.
From a legal perspective, we don't know whether legal cases will be necessary in these provisions. We're thinking that will happen. However, there are also provisions in there, and in every other act, that we don't know how we're going to have to react to as the union for many federal public service workers.
I think moving forward with this act is very important to PSAC and to our members. It has been a long time coming, so we are very supportive of it. We do encourage you to look at the amendments. We've made two simple—well, reasonably simple—recommendations for the amendments, and we'll be following up with written submissions with a few more details on those amendments that we're requesting.
