DOCSLIB.ORG

How Canada, the EU, and the U.S. Can Work Together to Promote ICT Development and Use

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
How Canada, the EU, and the U.S. Can Work Together to Promote ICT Development and Use How Canada, the EU, and the U.S. Can Work Together to Promote ICT Development and Use BY NICK WALLACE, ALAN MCQUINN, STEPHEN EZELL, AND DANIEL CASTRO | JUNE 2018 Governments in Europe and North America want to harness information Greater transatlantic cooperation in the and communications technology (ICT) to boost productivity and development and use innovation, but uncoordinated strategies and incompatible regulations of information and make it difficult for them to benefit fully from the mutual gains that communications would come from greater transatlantic cooperation in the development technology would allow Europe and North and use of ICT. This report analyzes key policies shaping ICT innovation America to increase in Canada, the European Union, and the United States, and identifies productivity. opportunities for policymakers to ensure policies maximize productivity and innovation. The report describes four policy areas: intellectual property rights (IPR), data protection, the wider regulatory environment, and support for digital innovation.1 IPR—including rules on copyright, patents, and trade secrets—fosters much of the research and development that leads to innovation in the digital economy, as well as the creative content that consumers enjoy on digital platforms. Differences in IPR between different jurisdictions can create challenges as companies scale globally. Data protection laws and regulations set the rules on how organizations can collect, share, and reuse data, and impact important new technologies such as data analytics and artificial intelligence. Data protection laws can be extremely complex, and are interpreted in divergent ways by different courts. Not only does this make it harder for data-driven firms to manage compliance in multiple markets, attempts to apply such laws extraterritorially can force firms to choose between competing legal environments. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION FOUNDATION | JUNE 2018 PAGE 1 The broader regulatory environment determines the legal environment in which businesses must operate. Divergent approaches to questions of anti-trust policy and technical standards threaten to create trade barriers by preventing companies with particular structures or standards from operating effectively across different markets, regardless of how they behave. Furthermore, regional variations within ostensibly single markets— whether they be American states, Canadian provinces, or EU countries—increase complexity and cost. Government support, such as research grants and support for digital startups, can spur digital innovation. Moreover, cooperative policies, such as issuing joint calls for proposals for research and establishing cross-border research alliances, help deepen ties between the science and technology communities of countries. To build a strong and competitive shared environment for ICT development and use, Canada, the EU, and the United States need the right combination of policies, including: strong yet flexible IPR laws; interoperable data-protection regimes that enable innovation while also protecting privacy; policies that support digital trade; intergovernmental science and technology cooperation related to digital innovation and research; and robust international cooperation to manage policy differences. This combination will be especially important as all three regions face increasing challenges from ICT competitors in other parts of the world, particularly China. Policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic should take the following measures: Intellectual Property Protect the free movement of knowledge, such as by allowing companies. participating in pre-competitive research to freely transfer ownership and access rights for IP to affiliates across and among Canada, the EU, and the United States. Agree on common protections for trade secrets on both sides of the Atlantic. Data Protection Adopt data protection rules that reduce barriers to collecting and sharing data while also protecting consumers from harm. Avoid harmful restrictions on artificial intelligence, such as the so-called “right to explanation”. This would impose significant costs while failing to achieve its intended goals. Support the free flow of data by enshrining it in international agreements between governments: privacy protection of data does not depend on its physical location. Support strong encryption, and do not weaken cybersecurity through mandatory “backdoors.” Wider Regulatory Environment Establish institutions and agree on rules for resolving conflicts that arise from policy differences between countries. Support free trade in ICT. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION FOUNDATION | JUNE 2018 PAGE 2 Government Support for Digital Innovation Help the market develop voluntary ICT standards to support interoperability. Establish a tripartite partnership for technology research. Revive and revise the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Review major new global technology challenges to prevent unnecessary regulatory divergence. ICT POLICY IN CANADA, THE EU, AND THE UNITED STATES Canada, the EU, and the United States each have different approaches to ICT policy. For example, while the United States has largely created a light-touch, sector-specific data- protection regime, the European Union and Canada each have created a single set of general data-protection rules for all industries. These are strict in the EU, somewhat less so in Canada. All have similar and robust laws on copyright protection. This report analyzes the differences between policies on ICT goods and services in four main areas: intellectual property, data protection, the wider regulatory environment, and government support for digital innovation. Intellectual Property Intellectual property rights (IPR) safeguard the incentive to innovate, as they guarantee innovators a limited period when they alone can profit from the products of their often substantial investments in R&D. Cooperation on IPR policy forms an important part of international ICT cooperation, as it allows innovators to operate seamlessly across borders and invest in R&D with confidence. However, overzealous IPR laws can inhibit innovation by restricting harmless uses of lawfully-accessed intellectual property, such as text and data mining. Canada Patents Federal patent law in Canada dates back to the British North America Act of 1867.2 Since that time, Canadian patent law has evolved through numerous iterations into the modern Canadian Patent Act of 1985.3 The Canadian Patent Act protects products, compositions, machines, processes, or any new improvement to an existing invention4. To receive a patent, the inventor must prove the invention is novel (first of its kind), useful (the invention must work), and inventive (not obvious to the relevant profession). Patents are granted for a maximum of 20 years from the day of the application.5 Canada has a first-to-file patent system, whereby the patent application filing date is the priority reference for infringement claims.6 The Canadian Intellectual Property Office, which issues patents, does not have jurisdiction over patent infringements—this is the job of the courts.7 Canada also does not have special courts dedicated to patent litigation. Inventors can bring infringement actions before a provincial superior court or the Federal Court of Canada.8 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION FOUNDATION | JUNE 2018 PAGE 3 Copyright Parliament passed the Copyright Act in 1921 and amended it substantially in 1988, 1997, and 2012.9 The 2012 version is frequently referred to as Bill C-11 or the Copyright Modernization Act. It came into force in 2015. Canadian copyright law protects literary, musical, and other artistic works, including computer programs, performances, and communications signals.10 A copyright applies if the work was published in Canada regardless of whether the author is a Canadian citizen or resident. Regardless of merit or commercial value, the Copyright Act protects all original creative works and establishes the legal framework to do so.11 Many of the updates to Canadian copyright law were prompted by technological developments that challenged previous versions of the law. Portions of the Copyright Modernization Act sought to reduce digital piracy.12 Like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in the United States, the Copyright Modernization Act prohibits circumvention of “digital locks”, measures installed in digital media to block piracy attempts. That includes removing such locks for personal use, and the law also bans the making, selling or using of technology to circumvent anti-piracy protections.13 The law does permit the reproduction of copyrighted works for satire, parody, and educational purposes. There is also an exemption for user-generated content, such as sampling music in order to create a mashup or new musical work.14 But the Copyright Modernization Act remains controversial in Canada, with critics arguing that it weakens rights the right to personal use, the ability to back-up files, and the ability to convert copyrighted works from one format into another.15 Enforcement of copyright law in Canada comes through the courts. The Copyright Act empowers the courts to charge civil penalties of "a sum of not less than $100 or more than $5,000 as the court considers just" for non-commercial infringement, and up to $20,000 for each count of commercial infringement.16 The court can also impose a criminal penalty of a fine up to $1 million, or a prison sentence of up
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sanatçıların Sosyal Haklara Ulaşımındaki Güçlükler
    Sanatçıların Sosyal Haklara Ulaşımındaki Güçlükler Sanatçıların Sosyal Haklara Ulaşımındaki Güçlükler Selcan PEKSAN* Fatma TOSUN** Özet: Bu çalışma, sanatçıların sosyo-ekonomik durumlarını, sosyal haklar açısından incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Sanatçıların çalışma hayatlarına ilişkin genel özellikler incelendiğinde, aralıklı ve düzensiz çalıştıkları ve bu sebeple ücretleri ile eserlerinin satışlarından veya telif haklarından elde ettikleri gelirlerinin genellikle yetersiz ve öngörülemez olduğu görülmektedir. Ayrıca sanatçılık uzun bir eğitim sürecini gerektirdiği gibi, kariyerlerinin gelişmesi de uzun yıllar içinde mümkün olur. Üstelik sanatçıların başarıları, toplum tarafından beğenilmelerine bağlıdır. Bu beğeninin sürekli yenilenmesi gerektiğinden sanatçıların kendilerini yenilemeleri gerekir. Buna karşın sanatsal faaliyetlerinin karşılığında yeterli gelir elde edemedikleri; çoğu sanatçının ikinci işte çalıştıkları bilinmektedir. Dahası, aynı düzeyde eğitim alan diğer mesleklere göre gelirlerinin daha düşük olduğu; sanatçıların kendileri arasındaki gelir eşitsizliğinin de diğer mesleklere oranla daha yüksek olduğu belirtilmektedir. Diğer taraftan, sanatçıların, işlerinin işçi tanımına uygun bir bağımlılık unsurunu taşımamakla birlikte, aslında birçok yönden menajerlere, yayımcılara, yapımcılara, galeri sahiplerine ve diğer aracılara bağlılıklarının olması; tanımsal farklılık sebebiyle yüksek oranda serbest meslek sahibi olarak çalışmaları ve dolayısıyla sosyal politikanın temel aracı olan iş hukuku korumasından faydalanamamaları; işçi
    [Show full text]
  • A Canadian Model of Proportional Representation by Robert S. Ring A
    Proportional-first-past-the-post: A Canadian model of Proportional Representation by Robert S. Ring A thesis submitted to the School of Graduate Studies in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Political Science Memorial University St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador May 2014 ii Abstract For more than a decade a majority of Canadians have consistently supported the idea of proportional representation when asked, yet all attempts at electoral reform thus far have failed. Even though a majority of Canadians support proportional representation, a majority also report they are satisfied with the current electoral system (even indicating support for both in the same survey). The author seeks to reconcile these potentially conflicting desires by designing a uniquely Canadian electoral system that keeps the positive and familiar features of first-past-the- post while creating a proportional election result. The author touches on the theory of representative democracy and its relationship with proportional representation before delving into the mechanics of electoral systems. He surveys some of the major electoral system proposals and options for Canada before finally presenting his made-in-Canada solution that he believes stands a better chance at gaining approval from Canadians than past proposals. iii Acknowledgements First of foremost, I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to my brilliant supervisor, Dr. Amanda Bittner, whose continuous guidance, support, and advice over the past few years has been invaluable. I am especially grateful to you for encouraging me to pursue my Master’s and write about my electoral system idea.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Theory of Copyright Contracts
    2010 (04) The Relationship Between Copyright and Contract Law Research commissioned by SABIP Providing Government with strategic, independent and evidence-based advice on intellectual property policy Research commissioned by the Strategic Advisory Board for Intellectual Property Policy, and carried out by Martin Kretschmer Professor of Information Jurisprudence, Director, Centre for Intellectual Property Policy & Management (www.cippm.org.uk), Bournemouth University, [email protected] Estelle Derclaye Associate Professor & Reader in Intellectual Property Law, School of Law, University of Nottingham, [email protected] Marcella Favale Postdoctoral researcher, University of Nottingham, [email protected] Richard Watt Associate Professor, Department of Economics, Canterbury University (NZ), [email protected] CONTENTS SUMMARY CHAPTER ............................................................................................................ 1-15 THE DIGITAL SHIFT ........................................................................................................................... 1 STRUCTURE AND METHODOLOGY OF THE REPORT .................................................................. 2 FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................................ 3 CREATOR CONTRACTS ............................................................................................................ 3 Creator contracts .......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • An Unconventional Approach to Reviewing the Judicially Unreviewable: Applying the Dormant Commerce Clause to Copyright Donald P
    Kentucky Law Journal Volume 104 | Issue 1 Article 5 2016 An Unconventional Approach to Reviewing the Judicially Unreviewable: Applying the Dormant Commerce Clause to Copyright Donald P. Harris Temple University Beasley School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits you. Recommended Citation Harris, Donald P. (2016) "An Unconventional Approach to Reviewing the Judicially Unreviewable: Applying the Dormant Commerce Clause to Copyright," Kentucky Law Journal: Vol. 104 : Iss. 1 , Article 5. Available at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj/vol104/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Kentucky Law Journal by an authorized editor of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. An Unconventional Approach to Reviewing the Judicially Unreviewable: Applying the Dormant Commerce Clause to Copyright Donald P. Harris' "[B]y virtually ignoring the central purpose of the Copyright/Patent Clause ... the Court has quitclaimed to Congress its principal responsibility in this area of the law. Fairly read, the Court has stated that Congress' actions under the Copyright/Patent Clause are, for all intents and purposes, 2 judicially unreviewable." INTRODUCTION On July 15, 2014, the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, held one of a number of hearings reviewing the Copyright Act.3 This particular hearing focused, among other things, on the copyright term (the length over which copyrights are protected).4 While it is not surprising that Congress is again considering the appropriate term for copyrights- Congress has reviewed and increased the copyright term many times since the first Copyright Act of 1791 5-it is troubling because Congress has unfettered discretion in doing so.
    [Show full text]
  • Chloe Geller
    Copyright and Related Rights: A Guide for Performance Librarians By: Chloe Geller © Chloe Geller, 2020 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (h ttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) . For uses beyond the conditions of this licence, contact: [email protected] Cover art by GDJ on Pixabay: https://pixabay.com/vectors/head-music-silhouette-avatar-5405115/, under a Pixabay licence ( https://pixabay.com/service/license/) Disclaimer This handbook does not constitute legal advice. For legal advice, please consult a lawyer. Most of the information presented in this document is centred on Canadian law and does not apply to other countries. This work is a revised version of the final project submitted in MUS 4924 - Research Project I at the School of Music at the University of Ottawa, August 2020. The project was supervised by Mélanie Brunet, Ph.D., Copyright Services Librarian, University of Ottawa. 2 Table of Contents Introduction 4 A Brief History 5 The Canadian C opyright Act and International Agreements 7 Canadian Copyright Act 7 The Berne Convention 9 The Rome Convention 10 Moral Rights and ‘Derivative Works’ 11 Performance Rights in Canada 14 Other Considerations 16 Conclusion 17 Resources for Further Investigation 18 Bibliography 19 3 Copyright and Related Rights: A Guide for Performance Librarians In Canada, we are subject to the Canadian Copyright Act as well as several international agreements which protect both the economic and moral rights of composers, and therefore affect the performance of their works. These laws and agreements regulate the activities performance organisations every day, especially in the library.
    [Show full text]
  • Tuesday, May 2, 2000
    CANADA 2nd SESSION • 36th PARLIAMENT • VOLUME 138 • NUMBER 50 OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Tuesday, May 2, 2000 THE HONOURABLE ROSE-MARIE LOSIER-COOL SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE This issue contains the latest listing of Senators, Officers of the Senate, the Ministry, and Senators serving on Standing, Special and Joint Committees. CONTENTS (Daily index of proceedings appears at back of this issue.) Debates and Publications: Chambers Building, Room 943, Tel. 996-0193 Published by the Senate Available from Canada Communication Group — Publishing, Public Works and Government Services Canada, Ottawa K1A 0S9, Also available on the Internet: http://www.parl.gc.ca 1170 THE SENATE Tuesday, May 2, 2000 The Senate met at 2:00 p.m., the Speaker pro tempore in the Last week, Richard Donahoe joined this political pantheon and Chair. there he belongs, now part of the proud political history and tradition of Nova Scotia. He was a greatly gifted and greatly respected public man. He was much beloved, especially by the Prayers. rank and file of the Progressive Conservative Party. Personally, and from my earliest days as a political partisan, I recall his kindness, thoughtfulness and encouragement to me and to others. THE LATE HONOURABLE Dick was an inspiration to several generations of young RICHARD A. DONAHOE, Q.C. Progressive Conservatives in Nova Scotia. • (1410) TRIBUTES The funeral service was, as they say nowadays, quite “upbeat.” Hon. Lowell Murray: Honourable senators, I have the sad It was the mass of the resurrection, the Easter service, really, with duty to record the death, on Tuesday, April 25, of our former great music, including a Celtic harp and the choir from Senator colleague the Honourable Richard A.
    [Show full text]
  • EU Harmonisation of the Copyright Originality Criterion (Pdf)
    NEWS June 2012 EU harmonisation of the copyright originality criterion As a consequence of a number of copyright rulings from the CJEU, the Swedish threshold of originality requirement is being superseded by an EU originality criterion. In this article, Henrik Bengtsson, IP expert at Delphi in Stockholm, reports on the development and the possible impact on the harmonisation of Swedish copyright law. Less than two years ago, the Swedish Supreme Court rendered its judgment in the Mini Maglite case (NJA 2009 s 159) and ruled that the Mini Maglite flashlight was copyright protected. The Mini Maglite case concerned the pre-requisites under which a work of applied art meets the threshold of originality. The Supreme Court’s view on the threshold of originality concept vis-à-vis “the author’s own intellectual creation” One of the legal issues in the Mini Maglite case was whether the judgment should be based on a Swedish originality requirement or on the EU originality criterion enshrined in the EU copyright directives. The Supreme Court found that the EU harmonisation of copyright law was limited to computer programs, photography and database directives, and was not applicable to industrial designs; “Under two EC directives, computer programs and photographs could be covered by copyright protection, inter alia, on the condition that the work is original in the sense that it is the author’s own intellectual creation; it is added that no other tests shall be applied as regards the right to protection (Directive 91/250/EEC and Directive 93/98/ EEC). A directive regarding legal protection for databases has been drafted in a similar way in this respect (96/9/EC).
    [Show full text]
  • In-Depth Analysis
    TITLE V (INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY) OF THE TRADE AND COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE UNITED KINGDOM INTA BREXIT The INTA Brexit position is set out in the following: POSITION • INTA Brexit position paper • INTA letter on exhaustion of rights • INTA comments on international registration • INTA’s input to the UK public consultation on the new proposed UK GI Scheme • INTA paper on enforcement • INTA paper on .eu domain names • INTA’s position on the UK’s Draft Trademarks (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulation 2018 Article Provision Consistency with UK and EU legislation Consistency with INTA Brexit position Chapter 1: General provisions Article IP.1: The objectives of this Title are to: N/A N/A Objectives (a) facilitate the production, provision and commercialization of innovative and creative products and services between the Parties by reducing distortions and impediments to such trade, thereby contributing to a more sustainable and inclusive economy; and (b) ensure an adequate and effective level of protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights. Article IP.2: 1. This Title shall complement and further N/A N/A Scope specify the rights and obligations of each Party under the TRIPS Agreement and other international treaties in the field of intellectual property to which they are parties. 2. This Title does not preclude either Party from introducing more extensive protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights than required under this Title, provided that such protection and enforcement does not
    [Show full text]
  • Hansard 33 1..154
    CANADA House of Commons Debates VOLUME 137 Ï NUMBER 108 Ï 1st SESSION Ï 37th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Friday, November 2, 2001 Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) All parliamentary publications are available on the ``Parliamentary Internet Parlementaire´´ at the following address: http://www.parl.gc.ca 6871 HOUSE OF COMMONS Friday, November 2, 2001 The House met at 10 a.m. Rights Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee. Prayers Hon. Don Boudria (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in. GOVERNMENT ORDERS (Motion agreed to) The Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read the third time? Ï (1000) By leave, now? [English] Some hon. members: Agreed. MISCELLANEOUS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, Hon. Don Boudria (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and 2001 Northern Development) moved that the bill be read the third time Hon. Don Boudria (for the Minister of Justice) moved that Bill and passed. C-40, an act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies and errors Mr. John Finlay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of and to deal with other matters of a non-controversial and Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I uncomplicated nature in the Statutes of Canada and to repeal certain am pleased to speak to the bill at third reading because it is of very provisions that have expired, lapsed, or otherwise ceased to have great importance to the people of Nunavut.
    [Show full text]
  • BAAC Conference 2016, 2-11-2016 Vilnius
    Copyright reform for Heritage: where are we now BAAC conference 2016, 2-11-2016 Vilnius LISETTE KALSHOVEN (@LNKalshoven / [email protected]) Why we need to talk about copyright • Through the rise of the digital information society copyright has come to plays a more central role in our societies • Copyright law has great influence on subjects like access to knowledge and culture, education, research and innovation • To function properly Copyright law needs to balance the interests of makers (exclusive rights) and the society at large (exceptions and limitations to exclusive rights). International Berne convention (1896) Rome convention (1961) TRIPS (1994) WIPO copyright treaty (1996) European Union Orphan works directive (2011) Copyright term directive (2006) Copyright/InfoSoc directive (2001) Database directive (1996) SatCab, Rental, Computer programs, etc… The Netherlands Auteurswet (1912) Wet Naburige rechten (1993) Databankenwet (1999) Wet auteurscontractenrecht (2015) Wet Toezicht collectief beheer (2013) Giving online access to heritage is hard (and this is ‘only’ about copyright) • CHI can’t always make digital copies of their collections for preservation • Even if they can digitise, they can only make available through dedicated terminals on the premises of the institution • Getting permission from rightsholders for online publication is time confusing and expensive: • Orphan Works are time consuming and expensive • No solution of out-of-commerce works • ECL does not work (well) cross border European Union Orphan works directive (2011) Copyright term directive (2006) Copyright/InfoSoc directive (2001) Database directive (1996) SatCab, Rental, Computer programs, etc… What the Commission proposes (broad strokes) • A mandatory preservation exception (to make internal copies). • An EU law that would require Member States to implement (extended) collective licensing mechanisms for the making available of Out Of Commerce works.
    [Show full text]
  • Ads Canadian Bank 343 Amex Bank of Canada 303 Bank Of
    SECTION I NUMERIC LIST / LISTE NUMÉRIQUE 1 ADS CANADIAN BANK 343 Routing Numbers / Numéros d'acheminement Electronic Paper(MICR) Électronique Papier(MICR) Postal Address - Addresse postale 034300012 00012-343 20 Queen Street West - Suite 2600, Toronto, ON M5H 3R3 034300092 00092-343 20 Queen Street West - Suite 2600, Toronto, ON M5H 3R3 AMEX BANK OF CANADA 303 Routing Numbers / Numéros d'acheminement Electronic Paper(MICR) Électronique Papier(MICR) Postal Address - Addresse postale 030300012 00012-303 101 McNabb Street, Markham, ON L3R 4H8 030300022 00022-303 101 McNabb Street, Markham, ON L3R 4H8 030300032 00032-303 101 McNabb Street, 101 McNabb Street, Markham, ON L3R 4H8 BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 241 Routing Numbers / Numéros d'acheminement Electronic Paper(MICR) Électronique Papier(MICR) Postal Address - Addresse postale 024101312 01312-241 Main Branch, 200 Front St. W., Suite 2700, Toronto, ON M5V 3L2 024156792 56792-241 Main Branch, 200 Front St. W., Suite 2700, Toronto, ON M5V 3L2 BANK OF CANADA 177 Routing Numbers / Numéros d'acheminement Electronic Paper(MICR) Électronique Papier(MICR) Postal Address - Addresse postale 017700000 00000-177 Banking Services, 245 Sparks Street, Ottawa, ON K1A 0G9 017700006 00006-177 Banking Services, 245 Sparks Street, Ottawa, ON K1A 0G9 BANK OF CHINA (CANADA) 308 Routing Numbers / Numéros d'acheminement Electronic Paper(MICR) Électronique Papier(MICR) Postal Address - Addresse postale 030800012 00012-308 50 Minthorn BLVD-Suite 600, Markham, ON L3T 7X8 030800022 00022-308 Toronto Downtown
    [Show full text]
  • Members' Office Budget and Support Provided by the House
    House of Commons INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS' EXPENDITURES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS FINANCIAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES SERVICES DIRECTORATE JUNE 2001 Introduction • The Speaker of the House of Commons, on behalf of the Board of Internal Economy (BOIE), tables the report on Individual Members' Expenditures on an annual basis pursuant to BOIE By-laws. Prior to tabling, Members receive a copy of their Individual Expenditures report. • Seats held by former Members are identified as "vacant" followed by the constituency name. Following the resignation or death of a Member, the Whip of the former Members' party maintains services to constituents until the date of a by-election. Prior to tabling, reports for vacant seats are sent to the Whip of the former Members' party. • Expenditures in the report reflect the fiscal year 2000-2001, covering both the 36th and 37th Parliaments. Information reflects the following three reporting periods: 8 months for Members of the 36th who did not return to the 37th Parliament (April 1, 2000 to November 26, 2000), 4 months for newly-elected Members to the 37th Parliament (November 27, 2000 to March 31, 2001), 12 months for Members re-elected to the 37th Parliament (April 1, 2000 to March 31, 2001). • The Individual Members' Expenditures are presented in two main categories: Members' Office Budget and Support Provided by the House. All budgets and related expenses are for the fiscal year April 1, 2000 to March 31, 2001, except for those who resigned during the fiscal year: Jim Hart (July 19, 2000) and Scott Brison (July 24, 2000).
    [Show full text]