Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 106 - 120 of 40658
View Guy Caron Profile
NDP (QC)
As I mentioned previously, we are strongly opposed to income splitting for all of the economic reasons that have been mentioned. However, we support enhancing the universal child care benefit, even though the government regrettably chose not to be transparent about the fact that it eliminated the child tax credit to fund the bulk of the improved benefit.
We will, of course, support the enhanced universal child care benefit, even though it should be renamed given that it's for children between the ages of 6 and 17. It can hardly continue to be called a universal child care benefit when it's for children older than 6. The measure would be combined with the NDP's proposed $15-a-day national child-care program. The plan would be negotiated with the provinces, with Quebec having the right to opt out given that it already has a program in place.
For these reasons, we intend to support the enhanced universal child care benefit, provided for in clauses 35 to 40.
View Raymond Côté Profile
NDP (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
What I'm about to say probably won't come as much of a surprise since I've complained about this in relation to previous omnibus budget bills. Unfortunately, these kinds of legislative changes are buried in a massive bill, the study of which falls on the shoulders of the Standing Committee on Finance. I am even more outraged by the fact that when I sat on the Standing Committee of Industry, Science and Technology throughout all of 2014, we had to engage in a bogus study of parts of an omnibus budget bill that made amendments to the same pieces of legislation. We heard from witnesses with major concerns, including the Law Society of Upper Canada.
Mr. Chair, it's quite shocking that, this morning, we are hearing from just a single witness who is directly affected by the amendment. We have, unfortunately, not heard any opposing points of view. The witness did, however, make a very interesting point, and I'm going to ask our public officials a question about it.
This morning, a cornerstone of solicitor-client privilege between patent or trademark agents and their clients was tied to what the witness referred to as a large number of decisions where that privilege would not apply. I was a bit taken aback. I assumed that the judges had made an informed decision. That was something I asked the witness about this morning. His view was that the evidence may not have been sufficient for solicitor-client privilege to apply to the communications between the agents and their clients.
I find it very disturbing that amendments are being made without the benefit of other opinions or an analysis of the consequences. It's akin to a vote of non-confidence in the bench. Judges are being contradicted for the wrong reasons. Basically, I'd like to know what led the government to believe that the judges were wrong or that solicitor-client privilege had not been granted for the right reasons. Could you please explain that to me?
View Raymond Côté Profile
NDP (QC)
Very well.
We aren't necessarily against the principle of extending the privilege, but the relevant committee should have had the opportunity to participate in a genuine debate on the matter.
My other concern has to do with the consultations that were conducted prior. The committee received a letter from an organization by the name of The Advocates' Society, according to whom, not all potential stakeholders were asked to participate in the consultation process, mainly law societies.
I'd like you to explain how those much talked-about consultations were handled by Industry Canada.
View Raymond Côté Profile
NDP (QC)
Are there plans to make any other amendments to the act or other related acts? In fact, the Standing Committee on Finance may have to study them if, heaven forbid, we end up with another majority Conservative government.
View Raymond Côté Profile
NDP (QC)
I would just like to end by saying that the amendments being made to these three significant pieces of legislation should really have been subject to a comprehensive decision-making process involving the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. I cannot stress that enough. This is a breakdown or, rather, a deliberate failure to follow the basic legislative process, as the Canadian Bar Association pointed out in describing omnibus bills.
That is why we are not going to support these provisions.
View Raymond Côté Profile
NDP (QC)
I want to comment on the changes to the Patent Act, specifically.
You will recall, Mr. Chair, that, in the past, the NDP has tried to make the government listen to reason by calling on it to split omnibus budget bills. Obviously, the government has systematically refused that request, flying in the face of the conditions needed to put the public interest first. I just wanted to make perfectly clear how appalling that is.
Thank you.
View Raymond Côté Profile
NDP (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Everyone will recall that the previous amendments to the Trade-marks Act, further to the last omnibus bill, faced strong opposition from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, as well as a large swath of Canada's private sector. It was quite a problem. Clearly, they were condemning a process that resulted in amendments that weren't necessarily in their best interest at the time or, at the very least, the fact that an in-depth study had not been done. The amendments before us could easily be detrimental to Canadian business.
A huge number of economic interests come into play when trademarks are involved. Significant amounts of money are at stake. Amending these provisions without first giving the committee directly responsible an opportunity to conduct a detailed study could very well end up costing us dearly. Above all, these changes could jeopardize the survival of countless businesses by putting them at a competitive disadvantage, especially small businesses.
In the new economy, holding a trademark without overly easy challenges from abroad is probably one of the biggest concerns of small businesses.
As in the case of the other acts being amended, I condemn the process. The Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology should have had the opportunity to study the amendments from top to bottom. As was the case in the previous omnibus bills, our party's calls to split the legislation out into sections for further study were flatly rejected without serious consideration by the government. I just wanted to point that out.
Thank you.
View Raymond Côté Profile
NDP (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's very kind of you to let me speak.
As you know, the NDP voted against the Green Party of Canada's proposed amendments quite simply because we support the principle of extending the term of protection from 50 to 70 years.
But, on Monday, I was at the ceremony honouring former parliamentarians and had the tremendous pleasure of hearing a timeless classic by Raymond Lévesque, who at the age of 86, can barely sing his greatest hits anymore. And one of those greatest hits, which is one of the best Quebec songs of all time, if not the best, is “Quand les hommes vivront d'amour”. Similarly, other major artists, composers and authors will lose the ability to perform or promote their works. Unfortunately, these proposals simply amount to helping those who record their works and record companies. We would have liked to see this protection extend to authors and composers as well.
That leads me to underscore how shameful it is that these two provisions weren't subject to adequate scrutiny by the appropriate committee, rather than the Standing Committee on Finance.
Be that as it may, we support the two provisions because they improve upon the existing situation, at least. Nevertheless, it's necessary to go further and, above all, to extend this protection to those who are responsible for composing the works that make up our venerable audio and theatrical heritage.
Thank you.
View Raymond Côté Profile
NDP (QC)
Mr. Chair, point of order.
My apologies, Mr. Rankin. Unfortunately, the French translation isn't coming in. I'm not sure where the problem is.
Now it's back. Thank you.
View Guy Caron Profile
NDP (QC)
View Guy Caron Profile
NDP (QC)
I will be brief, Mr. Chair.
We understand why the Green Party has proposed this amendment. However, we believe that there is an immediate and pressing need to be able to amend and repair the review process so as to ensure that projects, such as natural gas projects, will be studied thoroughly and considered on their merit.
This is not a matter of the duration of licenses, but of whether an export license should in fact be granted to a project. A more thorough process in the future would help resolve this issue.
We will vote in favour of the amendment.
View Guy Caron Profile
NDP (QC)
I would like to discuss all the clauses, up to clause 152, including the two previous ones we have already voted on.
The argument is the same one we used when the government introduced its motion in the House, but what is happening with the security services is clearly unacceptable to us. We were not opposed to a consolidation of services, especially considering what happened on October 22. However, there are obviously some privileges associated with this House and the Senate. It was provided that the authority of the House of Commons and Senate security guards would always be subject to the authority of Parliament and its two Houses. Since the RCMP now reports directly to the government and no longer directly to Parliament, we feel that this is a significant departure from what used to be the responsibility of those of two Parliamentary services.
Therefore, we cannot accept this proposal. It would have been completely acceptable for the three bodies, including the RCMP, to work together, but under the authority of the House and the Senate.
This is not a superficial provision. It really changes the essence of what used to be separate bodies and responsibilities. Responsibilities are not trivial things. They stem from the essence and the role of Parliament, and from its role in terms of protection. Let's remember that the Parliament security officer bodies—of the Senate and the House of Commons—were created at the same time as the RCMP. However, their roles have been kept separate for constitutional reasons and because of Parliamentary privilege. That is why we cannot support the government's proposal.
Results: 106 - 120 of 40658 | Page: 8 of 2711

|<
<
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data