Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 15 - Evidence - June 17, 2014
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 17, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, to which was referred Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, met this day at 9:31 a.m. to give clause-by-clause consideration to the bill.
Senator Joseph A. Day (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I call this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance to order.
I'm informed by our clerk that this will be a public meeting. However, if we get bogged down at any time on any observations that we want to discuss, then we can go in camera at that time.
It was intended that we would take a look at Bill C-31 this morning to determine whether we wish to proceed to clause-by-clause consideration. I should tell you that Bill C-31 was passed by the House of Commons on June 12, last Thursday, which means that if we hadn't done a pre-study, we would just be starting right now, with at least 100 witnesses. This is winding down all the work we've done with the pre-study.
The first thing I should ask is: Does anyone feel that we should have any other witnesses on the part that we did? I presume not, but there are five other parts that were done by five other committees. We have the reports of each of those committees, and we've listened to the chair and deputy chair of each one; they have appeared before us. I'm not inclined to believe that we need any other witnesses, but I'm in your hands.
Seeing none, are we ready to proceed with clause-by-clause consideration at this time?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: This bill is organized into six parts and I would propose that we deal with Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 as individual parts. If anyone has an issue they wish to discuss or bring to the attention of the group at any time, just raise your hand and we'll discuss it. If not, then we'll proceed to the next part.
When we get to Part 6, because it is such a diverse part, there are 30 sub-parts or divisions. I would propose that we go through each of the divisions in Part 6 as separate divisions. Each of those divisions has a number of clauses and I'll try to read out how many clauses or which clauses are involved. If at any time you feel that you would like to propose an amendment or, alternatively, an observation or a statement on the record, which you may or may not follow up on with a statement at third reading, then please feel free to intervene at any time. We want to make sure everybody knows where we are and what your point of view is.
Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: We'll come back to that.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Clause 1?
The Chair: Yes.
[English]
I will be back to that in due course. We're just postponing it at this time. You're not on division in terms of postponing?
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I agree.
The Chair: Thank you.
Is it agreed, with leave, that the clauses be grouped according to the parts of the bill as described in the Table of Provisions of Bill C-31? That's the way I've just described it: Parts 1, 2, until we get to Part 6.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Thank you.
Part 1: Amendments to the Income Tax Act and to Related Legislation. Shall this part, which contains clauses 2 to 39, carry?
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: On division. Thank you.
Part 2, Amendments to the Excise Tax Act (GST/HST measures), involves clauses 40 to 61. I can give you the pages as well, and in the English version that's pages 30 to 47.
Shall Part 2 carry?
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: On division.
Part 3: Amendments to the Excise Act, 2001, the Excise Tax Act (other than GST/HST measures) and the Air Travellers Security Charge Act, pages 48 to 71, and clauses 62 to 90. Shall Part 3, which contains these clauses 62 to 90, carry?
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Carried.
Part 4: Customs Tariff. These are all in groups. I'm at pages 71 and 72. Those are Customs Tariff groupings. Shall Part 4, which contains clauses 91 to 98, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
You let me know if you wish them to carry on division and that will be noted.
I'm now at Part 5: Canada-United States Enhanced Tax Information Exchange Agreement Implementation Act, pages 72 to 74. Shall Part 5, which contains clauses, 99, 100 and 101, carry?
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Now we'll get into more detail in Part 6, entitled "Various Measures." Part 6, Division 1.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: What page does that start?
The Chair: It starts on page 84 of the English version. It is the same number in the French version.
[English]
I'm at clauses 102 to 107, Payments — Veterans Affairs. Shall Part 6, Division 1, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Part 6, Division 2, page 88, clauses 108 and 109. This is the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation. Shall that division carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Part 6, Division 3, Regulatory Cooperation Council Initiative On Workplace Chemicals, page 88 to page 131, clauses 110 to 162. Shall Part 6, Division 3, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. I don't know what committee dealt with that. Banking? Thank you.
Part 6, Division 4, Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act which is at page 131. Shall Division 4, which contains clause 163, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Thank you.
Part 6, Division 5, the Judges Act, at page 131. Shall Part 6, Division 5, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Part 6, Division 6, pages 131 and 132, Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act. Shall this particular division carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Thank you.
We're now at Division 7, the National Defence Act, at page 133. Shall Part 6, Division 7, which contains clauses 168 to 171, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Part 6, Division 8, the Customs Act, at page 134. Shall Part 6, Division 8, which contains clauses 172 to 174, carry?
Senator Hervieux-Payette: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Part 6, Division 9, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. This is the one that does away with their board. Shall Part 6, Division 9, which contains clauses 175 to 178 found at page 135, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
Part 6, Division 10, Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation, which can be found at pages 135 to 140. Shall Part 6, Division 10, which contains clauses 179 to 192, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Part 6, Division 11, the Museums Act. This can be found at pages 140 to 143. Shall Part 6, Division 11, which contains clauses 193 to 205, carry?
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: On division. Lack of consultation.
Part 6, Division 12, Nordion and Theratronics Divestiture Authorization Act. This is the one that allows Nordion to have foreign investors. Shall Part 6, Division 12, which contains clauses 206 to 209, carry?
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: On division.
Part 6, Division 13, the Bank Act. That's clause 210 at page 144. Shall Part 6, Division 13, which contains clause 210, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Division 14, the Insurance Companies Act. Would this be the divestiture one? I will tell everybody where it is, and then I'll call on Senator Bellemare. It's clause 211 at page 145.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: I would like us to add a few observations to this division. First, it is difficult to vote against it, because the government is required by law to bring in regulations for mutual insurance companies that want to demutualize. The litigation that is under way between principal parties does not have to do with the demutualization per se, but rather with the appropriation of the surplus accumulated by a mutual insurance company.
In this case, we are dealing with a company, the Economical, that has applied for demutualization and wants to become a corporation, but, since 1870, it has accumulated a surplus of $1.6 billion.
First, there is a conflict within the company itself, since the 943 voting members say that the surplus belongs to them, whereas 800,000 other insured say they have a share in the surplus as well.
The second conflict comes from the entire community of mutual cooperatives, and even the association of mutual and private insurance brokers, which took a stand in favour of the idea that the surplus does not belong to the Economical as such or to the voting members, or to the other insured members, but rather to the community in general, because it has been accumulated over time, since 1870, and it is indivisible, representing a common good instead. That is what Quebec ruled in the case of cooperatives and credit unions, just like France in the case of mutual insurance companies; the surplus therefore must not be divided, but must rather be treated as a common good.
Here we have two clauses that give the power to the Minister of Finance to regulate the demutualization and to govern the ownership of shares of a mutual company that has been converted.
When we look at these clauses, there is a part missing. First, principles of ownership in the conversion of a mutual company are missing. In this case, it is like stating beforehand that property rights on any surplus are divisible and belong either to the voting members or to the non-voting members, but the debate is much broader.
I took the liberty of making an observation so that we can vote on this division; I will read it in English and in French.
The Chair: Could we make this observation at the end instead? The explanation is very important when we talk about the clause, but the actual wording of the observation will appear at the end, once we have reviewed all the clauses of the bill.
Senator Bellemare: Okay; so we are not going to read the observations right away?
The Chair: Later. But it is important for everyone to know that there will be a proposal.
Senator Bellemare: Mr. Chair, I would just like to add that the mutual insurance company community is worried, even the provincial mutual insurance companies are worried, because when they were created, it never crossed their minds that the accumulated surplus could reach astronomical amounts, as it has for the Economical. A number of them have accumulated surpluses, which — as mentioned before — allows them to provide services to farmers at very affordable prices. A number of mutual companies in rural regions are afraid that dividing the surplus might eventually encourage people to take over mutual insurance companies, register them federally and then privatize them.
It is a fear that has been expressed because it would create a precedent for property damage insurance, which is different from a previous life insurance case. I mention this, because it is a complex case that may end up in court.
The Chair: So you have an observation and we can discuss the wording later. Is there a general discussion on the proposal?
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I understand how Senator Bellemare feels; however, we will not be able to solve the problems with comments.
It will be prima facie illegal. First, the minister must actually be granted the powers through the legislation. However, those powers are not set out in the legislation. A minister cannot invent powers for himself through regulations. To create regulations, the powers granted through the regulations must come from an act. That is fundamental.
In terms of the way things have been, there has been no general consultation with the cooperative community in Canada.
In other words, this piece of legislation does not affect one company only, even though one company, the Economical, would benefit. It will apply to all the other companies, and since the regulations are, in my view, legally invalid, there will be an unbelievable mess in the cooperative community.
As a result, if we pass this bill and leave the issue entirely to the discretion of the minister, that would be contrary to the very spirit of a legislator. He must receive his orders from Parliament, and Parliament, in this case, is giving him no powers that he can assume through the regulations. I understand the issue of the common good, the surplus that would not be divided, that there is a part missing in the sense that the principles are not there, although they should be, and that regardless of the minister's decision, either 933 or 800,000 people will go to court. When we say "go to court" with $1 billion at stake, we are talking about millions of dollars in fees and delays of up to 10 years, because the case will end up in the Supreme Court of Canada. We could fix the problem right away by simply deciding to suspend this part of the legislation; we do not pass it, we ask the minister to hold consultations in September and to come back with a solution that complies with the legislative process.
As a legislator, I am absolutely opposed — even with the recommendations —to us being able to do anything about this issue. The problem has not been fixed, and if we proceed in this way, we will be doing Canadians a disservice, and we are talking about a million people.
As far as I am concerned, these clauses should simply be repealed and we should wait for the minister to hold consultations and come back with a process that includes principles and terms that will apply to all the cooperatives in Canada from now on.
The Chair: Any other comments?
[English]
Senator Callbeck: I'm opposed to this section of the bill and I'll be voting against it. I think that through the years these surpluses have built up, and people have kept the surpluses there to keep the company strong. I don't think it's fair that the company should be able to demutualize and distribute the money. I think the money is there for the common good, and that's the way it should be. I agree with most of the comments that have been said here, and I will be voting against it.
The Chair: Any other comments?
Senator Gerstein: Mr. Chair, perhaps I might just repeat some of the comments I made when I appeared as chair of the Banking Committee when we studied this. Again I'd like to emphasize that not one witness who came before us questioned the right of a mutual company to demutualize. The issue was how to deal with the surplus.
Again, the passage of this bill does not allow companies to demutualize immediately. The Minister of Finance made it clear, when he was before us on May 1, that the government is preparing draft regulations, and Finance officials emphasized that the passage of this legislation is necessary to allow the government to publish those draft regulations and engage in consultation with the industry.
The Chair: Thank you.
Can I take it that we agree to accept this clause on division and that we will discuss the observations at the end of the bill?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I'll read it formally. Shall Part 14, which contains clause 211, carry on division?
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: On division.
On to Division 15 of Part 6, Regulatory Cooperation, pages 146 to 158. Shall Part 6, Division 15, which contains clauses 212 to 238, carry?
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: On division again.
Part 6, Division 16, Telecommunications Act, at page 158 to 160, clauses 239 to 241. Shall Part 6, Division 16, clauses 239 to 241, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Next is Sickness Benefits found at page 160 to 163. It's Part 6, Division 17. Shall that division carry, which contains clauses 242 to 251?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Thank you.
Part 6, Division 18 can be found at pages 163 and 164, Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act. Shall Part 6, Division 18, which contains clauses 252 to 253, carry?
Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division. Thank you.
The next one is Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing, and that's found at pages 164 to 197. Shall Part 6, Division 19, which contains clauses 254 to 298, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Part 6, Division 20, Immigration, found at page 197 to 201. Shall Part 6, Division 20, which contains clauses 299 to 307, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Part 6, Division 21, found at page 201 to 204, Public Service Labour Relations. Shall Part 6, Division 21, which contains clauses 308 to 310, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Thank you.
We are now at Division 22, Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, pages 204 to 206. Shall Part 6, Division 22, which contains clauses 311 and 312, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Thank you.
Division 23, Budget Implementation Act, 2009, at page 206. Shall Part 6, Division 23, which contains clause 313, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Thank you.
Next, Division 24, Securitization of Insured Mortgage or Hypothecary Loans, page 206 and 207. Shall Part 6, Division 24, which contains clauses 314 to 316, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Division 25, Amendments Relating to International Treaties on Trademarks, pages 207 to 259.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: I have prepared observations for this division as well. In this case, we are talking about an important, major division that seeks to align our practices with treaties, the Singapore, Nice and Madrid treaties.
That being said, it is not a national emergency, but these treaties were drawn up a long time ago and have been signed by many countries. In terms of the agreements with Europe, it would be best to sign them to standardize trade; the U.S. has in fact signed them.
That being said, there are five or six clauses in this division that deal with the trademark registration process in Canada.
In the current process, the government requires people who want to register trademarks to fill out a form, a declaration of use of the trademark or to declare the intention to use the trademark in the next three years. This has been the case since the 1950s.
Industry Canada said that it would like to eliminate this bureaucratic form. It said that it would like to remove the administrative part, the written declaration, from the trademark registration process.
According to Industry Canada, the idea of removing the form does not mean removing the requirement of using or intending to use a trademark. However, since the declaration will not need to be made, no one will know whether the person who registers a trademark is using it or intends to use it. The burden of proof, in legal disputes over the use of a trademark, will fall on those who want to register trademarks that they are already using and, all of a sudden, realize that someone else has registered them first, without using them, and are now asking for money to be able to use the already registered trademarks.
Among the intellectual property experts who came to give testimony, we heard from a group representing 240 lawyers. There is also the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters. All those witnesses have told us that they are not opposed to division 25. They agree with signing the treaties in question. However, a few clauses bother them, which are very important for them. These are the clauses that amend sections 16, 30 and 40 of the Trade-marks Act. The witnesses would like the written declaration to be kept. They said that it is good to keep it as an intent, but since the intent is not clear, problems will ensue. Removing it will cause problems, and the burden of managing it will be harmful to the Canadian economy. Their criticism goes very far.
No one from the business community came to tell us that they were in favour. The government should perhaps address this issue. The observations recommend that the government address this issue, especially since it also has constitutional consequences, since the federal responsibility for registering a trademark relies on the fact that this trademark is used for trade. If registering a trademark is simply having ownership, without using it, these experts point out that it would be easy to say from now on that the responsibility for registration falls under provincial jurisdiction. However, heading toward provincial jurisdiction would once again be harmful.
My observations are asking the government to take a closer look at this issue.
The Chair: Have you prepared an observation?
Senator Bellemare: Yes.
The Chair: Let us study it at the end, once again.
Senator Bellemare: Absolutely.
The Chair: Are there any other comments?
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Let me repeat what I said earlier about the division on cooperatives. No immediate consultation has been held on this proposal for such a radical change. No one said that they have been consulted. Consultations have been conducted in the past. However, when such a major change is being made, we should expect people from the business community and people from the bar to have a say in it. The entire Canadian business community will have to pay the price, and we are talking about millions of dollars. The fact that there were no consultations to begin with damages the credibility of these clauses.
My colleague says that United States signed the agreement. She forgets to mention that they signed it, but that they nevertheless kept the registration process and the declaration of use. It is a little like wearing a belt and suspenders at the same time. In this case, we need both if we do not want the business sector to be penalized. There is a real reversal of the burden of proof. Before, the public servant could make sure, after a certain time, that the trademark was being used, otherwise people lost the right to use it. Now, whoever wants to use it will have to undertake a whole process with an administrative tribunal. That whole procedure is totally unfair and goes against the interests of our business sector. It is going to cause useless costs and delays.
As my colleague said, no one is in favour of the changes. Not one witness came to tell us that these provisions are going to improve things for Canadian enterprises. We know that our big companies already have this possibility. Giving them access to the Treaty of Madrid or others will not change, for instance, Bombardier's way of doing business. Very few players in Canada will want to have access to all world markets.
These processes are costly. You have to register, pay the fees and go through the whole process. I have a lot of admiration for the lawyers who practise in this area and who came to tell us that this made no sense, all the more so since the adoption of this measure would serve their interests. They would make even more money because of the additional litigation that would be the outcome of this. The bar has also shared their views on this topic.
Which brings me to the constitutional impact of this measure; Europe has a civil law system. In Canada, for the most part we have a common law system. In order to avoid any constitutional crisis, the United States decided to require that the declaration of use be made to their government, in order to maintain federal jurisdiction. The same goes for Canada. Trade is a matter of federal jurisdiction. As soon as we reverse the burden of proof, there is no reason to believe that we will not see legal challenges.
By proceeding in this way, the legislators are confusing everything, and furthermore, people will not be getting better service. When you legislate and change laws, normally you do so to offer better service to taxpayers and businesses.
The reasoning is the same for the cooperatives. The minister should have consulted people. Perhaps he did not have time, given that he only took up his position a short time ago. The fact remains that his predecessor tabled a bill and should have carried out consultations. Consequently, we must oppose this, as we know full well that the topic was examined in-depth during discussions on the free trade agreement with Europe. We must not sign an agreement that goes against the interests of all Canadian businesses. The trademark is a part of a business's goodwill. Very often that mark is worth millions of dollars.
In my opinion, this section cannot be approved. My colleagues share this opinion and can make their comments.
The Chair: Are there any other comments?
[English]
We can take the same approach as obviously there is no unanimity on this. Part 6, Division 25, which contains clause 317 to 368, carries on division. We will discuss the wording of the observation after dealing with the clauses. Carried on division; thank you.
Part 6, Division 26, Reduction of Governor in Council Appointments at page 259. Shall Division 26, which contains clauses 369 and 370, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Part 6, Division 27, Old Age Security Act at pages 259 and 260. Shall Part 6, Division 27, which contains clauses 371 to 374, carry?
An Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: On division.
Part 6, Division 28, New Bridge for the St. Lawrence Act, page 260.
Senator L. Smith: New replacement bridge.
The Chair: Clause 375.
Shall Part 6, Division 28, which contains one clause, 375, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Thank you.
Part 6, Division 29, Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada Act. These are the 11 tribunals, at pages 266 to 297.
Shall Part 6, Division 29, which contains clauses 376 and 377 to 482, carry?
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: On division.
I move to Division 30 of Part 6, Apprentice Loans Act, at page 297. Shall Part 6, Division 30, which contains clauses 483 and 484 to 486, carry? Page 307. I'm told there is a piece of it back at 297. Clause 483 is at page 297 and clause 484 is at page 307. Shall those clauses carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
We have to go through the various schedules attached hereto.
Shall Schedule 1 carry? I don't have a page, but it will be at the back.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Can you wait a second?
The Chair: Page 310. Shall that carry?
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Schedule or annex?
Senator L. Smith: Page 310 in English. It's the same page in French.
Senator Callbeck: What page?
The Chair: It's page 310, and the other schedules will follow from that. Right now I'm dealing with Schedule 1. Shall that carry?
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I have a comment.
The Chair: Yes? A comment.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I did not draft a document on this, but we were expecting that only Canadian companies, be it for maintenance or Canadian products, would be exempted from tariffs, but that they would be subject to them if the maintenance was done by a multinational.
When I read this text, I have to tell you that I do not find it easy to understand, because it talks about offshore ships and there are a lot of acronyms. Perhaps our researcher could explain the content of page 311.
[English]
The Chair: You have to tie the schedule into sections.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Section 96, yes, I know.
[English]
The Chair: You would have to look at the section. It talks about most favoured nation or preferential tariffs. It lists the various countries that are under those different tariff regimes.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Yes, but when you look at the tariffs, you don't know if they will apply only to Canadian companies.
[English]
The Chair: Tariffs are normally for products that are brought into Canada. It could be a company importing products or it could be a company from outside of Canada that's shipping the products here. This is when it crosses the border.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I agree with you, but that when I read the last columns, I do not understand. Perhaps our researcher could give us an explanation.
The Chair: Sylvain?
Sylvain Fleury, Analyst, Library of Parliament: I am not an expert, but I can say that these are basically tariff amendments as compared to what existed before. The general rule — and I think you already know it — is that when things are imported, there is always a part within the product that may be made up of parts coming from different countries.
This means that things can get complex quite quickly, but it always concerns imports, where something is transported from one country to another. Schedule 1 discusses amending percentages or tariffs.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Shall Schedule 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall Schedule 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Senator Smith can help with the pages, if somebody asks.
Shall Schedule 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall Schedule 4 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall Schedule 5 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall Schedule 6 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the title itself carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the bill carry?
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Agreed, on division.
Does the committee wish to discuss appending observations to the report? In general, do you wish to attach observations, assuming that the wording is to your liking? We will consider them. Let's look at the wording. Senator Bellemare?
Senator Buth: When do we decide if we want to go in camera?
The Chair: Right now.
Senator Buth: I would like to suggest that we go in camera for this discussion.
The Chair: Is it agreed to go in camera for the discussion on the wording and then come back to formally adopt?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
(The committee continued in camera.)
——————
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chair: Colleagues, we are now back in a public meeting. We have had a frank and open discussion with respect to possible observations. It has also been pointed out that there can be amendments to any section at third reading and we can all make our own verbal comments, but we're now at the stage where we've virtually finished our work on Bill C-31 at committee.
I have a request that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to approve the final version of the observations, which we have discussed and appended. I should call for a motion in the public forum to adopt those.
Senator Bellemare, I don't think it's necessary for you to read them again, unless you wish to on the public record? Why not do so and then it will be clear for us.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: I am going to read the observations on Division 14:
The Minister of Finance should consider, after consultation of the parties concerned, establishing principles concerning property rights on the rules for the demutualization of Economical or of any mutual property and casualty insurance company, because property rights on past surpluses are not clearly defined at this time. If the courts are asked to intervene, they will have to make sure that all stakeholders (among others, mutual property and casualty insurance companies, cooperatives, insurance brokers and their associations) are able to present their case on the divisibility or indivisibility of these surpluses since the community as a whole could be impacted by any such rulings.
The Chair: Thank you. That was with respect to Division 14.
Senator Bellemare: Now, for Division 25:
We want to underline the quality and quantity of concerns expressed by the business community and intellectual property rights experts on the withdrawal of the written declaration of use when registering a trademark in Canada, and on the absence of any positive testimony on this matter. It is therefore difficult to evaluate the overall benefit for Canada of the withdrawal of the written declaration of use.
Those are the two observations we would like to see attached to the report.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
Is it agreed that these observations will be attached to the report that I will be filing in the Senate chamber with respect to Bill C-31?
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: On division.
Is it agreed that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, the steering committee, be empowered to approve the final version of the observations? We'll have a chance to look at them, once our researcher has a chance to prepare them for us, before the report is filed, and make any editorial changes we feel should be made.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it agreed that we report back Bill C-31 without amendment but with those observations?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: At the earliest opportunity?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I wish to thank our clerk, Jodi Turner, for getting us through this spring madness and our researcher, Sylvain Fleury, thank you very much. We appreciate the work of our whole team, and the team back there. They are working away. We get into those. Please tell Raphaëlle that we appreciate the work she was doing helping out as well.
Colleagues, this is the last formal visit of Senator Callbeck on this committee. She will be retiring this summer. You've done a wonderful job for us.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
The Chair: Senator Buth will also be moving on. She is not retiring but moving on to other things. Thank you very much for the work you have done.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
The Chair: Colleagues, I hope everyone will take the opportunity to participate in this debate tomorrow. The plan is to have the bill go to third reading tomorrow, one day hence.
Thank you all very much for the serving on the committee and we will look forward to seeing you in the fall.
(The committee adjourned.)