Evidence of meeting #87 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was ministers.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
MP Morantz, I think we're just over a minute into your time.
Go ahead.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Marty Morantz Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
What types of fees does this affect? I have a lot of questions about this. Maybe just give a few examples of what types of fees this would affect.
12:45 p.m.
Executive Director, Costing, Charging and Transfer Payments, Treasury Board Secretariat
Thank you for the question. I'm Nicole Thomas, executive director in the financial management sector of the Treasury Board Secretariat.
There's a broad range of government services for which fees are charged. Some of them are for families visiting our national park system. Others are for testing of prescription drugs, ensuring safe foods for Canadians and providing import permits for goods that are sold in Canada.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Marty Morantz Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
You are amending the way government services.... Basically, your briefing note says:
As part of its efforts to minimize costs to Canadians, the Government is proposing to amend the way fees for government services are administered. It will do this by making changes to the legislative framework governing fees for government services.
Does this mean it is the intention of the government to raise an array of fees?
12:45 p.m.
Executive Director, Costing, Charging and Transfer Payments, Treasury Board Secretariat
Essentially, when the Service Fees Act came into effect in 2017, we received feedback from departments as they implemented the requirements. What we are trying to do is streamline certain processes and introduce flexibilities to make it more cost-effective to provide these services.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Marty Morantz Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
I'm having trouble putting my eyes on it, but there's something in your briefing notes about making sure that taxpayers don't carry the brunt of these costs. To me, what you are saying is that you want the costs to be borne by the people who are paying the fees.
Would that not mean it's your intention to raise certain fees, rather than having the cost subsidized out of general revenues?
12:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Costing, Charging and Transfer Payments, Treasury Board Secretariat
No, the intent is to streamline certain processes. As an example, in the way the legislation is currently written, departments are required to do an annual adjustment for CPI. We had an experience when that adjustment was a reduction of 0.2%, so one of the proposed changes is to reduce the burden of applying that by deferring if it doesn't hit a 1% threshold in any given year.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Marty Morantz Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
I want to go back to the sanctions legislation. The official is still in the room. I thank you for that.
Again, in terms of Bill C-47, if it's adopted, how would the Government of Canada's interpretation of “deemed ownership” of property by a sanctioned person compare to the way that Canada's allies determine ownership of property held or controlled by an entity?
12:50 p.m.
Director General, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
Thank you very much.
As before, I am Marie-Josée Langlois, director general in the strategic policy branch at Global Affairs Canada.
In terms of the provisions on ownership and control in the sanctions legislation, those provisions have been there from the beginning. The dealing ban talks about the fact that Canadians cannot deal with property that is owned or controlled directly or indirectly by listed entities.
The amendments that are proposed at this time are meant to clarify those provisions. They clarify that the properties of the subsidiaries or related companies are deemed to be the property of the listed entities, and that there are tests or criteria that Canadians can use to assess whether they can deal with an entity or not.
This is similar to what is found in other countries' sanctions legislation, for example, in the U.S. or the U.K.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Marty Morantz Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
Are we out of time? Is that it?
Okay. Thank you very much.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Yes, thank you.
Now we're going to the Liberals and MP Chatel, please, for five minutes.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a question about the Canada growth fund, which is in division 32 of Bill C‑47, but it looks like we're missing a group today. I don't think we have anyone available to answer that question. It's fine. I have other questions. I'll turn to division 26 and the Patent Act.
Mr. Chhabra, much has been made of how long it takes to issue patents, which are crucial to support Canadian business innovation. I was speaking with Mr. Turcot earlier about the importance of innovation. Can you tell us more about division 26? How will the proposed changes expedite the issuing of patents?
May 2nd, 2023 / 12:50 p.m.
Samir Chhabra Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Department of Industry
Thank you for your question.
I am Samir Chhabra, director general of marketplace framework policy at Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada.
I'm going to answer your question in English. It's a little bit technical.
The changes that are being proposed to the Patent Act are really to implement changes that were agreed to under the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement, CUSMA. The nature of the changes is regarding the availability of an additional patent term when an unreasonable delay occurs. CUSMA holds that an unreasonable delay occurs when a patent applicant has to wait for longer than three years after their examination begins or more than five years after they initially file.
This allows for the extension of a patent term to accommodate for any delays that might have been on the part of the Canadian Intellectual Property Office during the administration of it.
What that means is that, if CIPO takes longer than the prescribed amount of time, which will be worked out through regulations to follow, the applicant would be enabled to have an extension of their patent term that is equal to the amount of time that was taken on the part of CIPO that was beyond what's considered a reasonable amount of time in the CUSMA.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC
Do you think those measures will stimulate innovation, or is it more technical than that?
12:55 p.m.
Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Department of Industry
That's a good question.
I think it's fair to say that what it will do is provide the appropriate incentives to maintain a well-functioning patent application and review system, which certainly could be supportive of innovation.
It also ensures that those who put in the research and development effort and the resources required to support research and development are better assured of having an appropriate amount of time under the law to take advantage of that innovation, which, of course, would be supportive of continued investment.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC
After spending some time with Mr. Turcot, they turn to you and they are well served. Thank you, Mr. Chhabra.
Mr. Chair, I'm going to give the remainder of my time to Ms. Dzerowicz, for her 42 questions.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
I have 44.
My question is about modernizing the National Research Council, so this is for whoever is able to respond to that.
It says, as part of our notes here, that budget 2023's proposed legislative amendments to the NRC Act provide flexibilities that are critical to ensuring that the NRC has the flexibility it needs to speed up capital purchases to match the speed of business and provide its partners with the timely access to specialized facilities and expertise they need to succeed.
I have two questions there. The $962 million that we're investing in this, what problem is it seeking to solve and how are we defining the speed of business, since that is what we're targeting to match?
12:55 p.m.
Director General, Policy, Strategy and Performance, National Research Council of Canada
Regarding your first question, it's the result of a four-year study we undertook at the NRC that included a panel of peer reviewers of Canadian international experts in academics that looked at our current facilities footprint and the state of those facilities across the country. What it found was that there was deferred maintenance of upwards of $700 million because of an underinvestment over time in our facilities.
The $962 million, which was announced in the fall economic statement, is meant to revitalize those facilities to bring them up to modern standards and to better allow them to work with innovators.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Go ahead, MP Beech. I apologize to the witness who was in the middle of an answer there.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC
Mr. Chair, I'm very glad that we were able to get some more witness testimony, but according to the UC motion that we passed, I'd like to return back to the motion if we can, please.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Members, we are going to be returning back to the motion so at this time—
12:55 p.m.
Liberal