Interventions in Committee
 
 
 
RSS feed based on search criteria Export search results - CSV (plain text) Export search results - XML
Add search criteria
View Joyce Bateman Profile
CPC (MB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First, on this, the government's approach is to align Canada's rules with those of the many other jurisdictions that recognize confidential communications between IP agents and clients as privileged. The approach in the bill does that, ensuring that Canada is not a weak point in the context of global litigation. The proposed amendment would incorporate conditions that are not found in foreign privilege rules and would undermine the objective of international alignment.
The second point I think is important to make is that the proposed amendments would undermine business certainty by making privilege subject to two additional conditions, making it very difficult for businesses and agents to know whether their confidential information would be protected against disclosure. This amendment would create a chilling effect that would undermine the benefits of privilege that it's intended to achieve.
Thirdly, the proposed amendments would undermine the objectives that providing privilege to the clients of IP agents is intended to achieve. Those objectives are to remove confusion around the type of communication that is privileged to avoid exposing Canadian companies in international litigation, to give assurances that Canada is indeed a safe place to invest in IP and R and D, and to promote open and frank discussions with IP agents and higher quality IP advice.
I think the final point I want to make, Mr. Chair, is that the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada—an institute that, by the way, is the professional organization and association for not only patent agents and trademark agents but also lawyers specializing in intellectual property—came and spoke to this very committee this morning giving testimony that not only had there been wonderful consultation to their community in this instance, but they were fully supportive and thought that this was getting us on a competitive footing with the world.
With respect, we do not support this amendment.
View Joyce Bateman Profile
CPC (MB)
Mr. Chair, for exactly the same reasons that I gave previously for clause 54, the government does not support this amendment. Indeed, the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada met with us this morning at this committee and they are fully in support of the inclusion of this.
We are not supporting this amendment.
View Joyce Bateman Profile
CPC (MB)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
The government does not support this proposed amendment, for the following reasons.
This provision, as originally drafted, provides the mechanism by which the Speakers of the Senate and the House of Commons will enter into an arrangement with the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. Under this arrangement, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police will be a service provider to the office of the parliamentary protective service and will lead an integrated security force.
This service agreement must be executed by two main parties: first, the houses of Parliament as represented by the two Speakers, as the party that is procuring services; and second, the executive as represented by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Commissioner of the RCMP as the party that is providing the service. It is important that this provision clearly identify both parties to the agreement and respect the minister's accountability for the RCMP as a government entity for which he is responsible as a steward of public resources.
This suggested amendment would not achieve this and would negatively impact the stability and effectiveness of the new integrated security service.
View Joyce Bateman Profile
CPC (MB)
Mr. Chair, I'd like to indicate that the government does not support this proposed amendment.
With respect to paragraph (a) of the proposed amendment, removing “for greater certainty” may actually raise doubt as to whether the privileges would have remained intact had this provision not been included. This could have a negative interpretive effect on other statutory schemes that engage the workings of Parliament but that do not include a statement regarding the integrity of parliamentary privilege.
With respect to paragraph (b) of the amendment, this proposed amendment is beyond the scope of division 10 and beyond the scope of the mandate of the parliamentary protective service. The parliamentary protective service and the RCMP members that support it will only be responsible for the provision of physical security throughout the parliamentary precinct and grounds of Parliament Hill.
RCMP members embedded in the integrated security force will not engage in core policing activities such as the execution of warrants. This will continue to be handled by the police of the relevant jurisdiction, depending on the matter in accordance with established protocols.
View Joyce Bateman Profile
CPC (MB)
Mr. Chair, the government does not support this proposed amendment for the following reasons. The suggested amendment would severely limit the job security of most members of the Senate protective service or the House of Commons protective service. Modifying the employment status of existing Senate protective service or House of Commons protective service staff to have them serve at the discretion of the Speakers would negate their current guarantee of tenure and would convert them to at-pleasure employees, which would be totally in violation of their collective agreements and contracts of employment.
This is contrary to what was contemplated by the motions, and may risk a violation of our security staff's constitutional right to freedom of association, so we will not support the amendment.
View Joyce Bateman Profile
CPC (MB)
Mr. Chair, the proposed amendment contemplates a scenario where there is a conflict between two different orders in council: one making an organization subject to PIPEDA, and another exempting an organization from the act because it is subject to a provincial privacy law.
This addition is unnecessary and contrary—
View Joyce Bateman Profile
CPC (MB)
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair.
I'm sorry. I have something in common with my colleague Mr. Hyer.
View Joyce Bateman Profile
CPC (MB)
May I have a response on division 10, clause 100?
The government does not support the proposed amendment.
View Joyce Bateman Profile
CPC (MB)
We've done this one. This is not the right one.
View Joyce Bateman Profile
CPC (MB)
Mr. Chair, the proposed amendment contemplates a scenario where there is a conflict between two different orders in council: one making an organization subject to PIPEDA, and another exempting an organization from the act because it is subject to a provincial privacy law.
This addition is unnecessary and contrary to the presumptions of statutory interpretation. The government is presumed to know and to respect the entire body of law and not make different orders that are contradictory to each other. In the unlikely event that a conflict does arise between different orders, the rules of statutory interpretation would apply to resolve the matter.
For that reason, Mr. Chair, the government is not supporting this amendment.
View Joyce Bateman Profile
CPC (MB)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank all of our witnesses, and I'm going to start with Mr. Astle, but I hope I get to all of you because I have lots of questions.
Mr. Astle, you practised in this field and now you have one client, but you're clearly very involved in your professional organization. You represent not only the large business but the small business perspective, too, on intellectual property. Is that right?
View Joyce Bateman Profile
CPC (MB)
Across the spectrum. Okay, good, that's important.
I'm just curious, is the extension of time allowed under the Industrial Design Act, the Patent Act, and the Trade-marks Act positive for the industry—for all the clients who are served by your organization, small business and big business?
View Joyce Bateman Profile
CPC (MB)
That's good.
Could you just speak briefly about how these proposed changes in Bill C-59 bring us in line with other countries?
Results: 1 - 15 of 150 | Page: 1 of 10

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|