Jerry Pickard

[Technology Partnerships Canada, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, that is utter nonsense. When we look at the kinds of programs that we have funded, every person in the House has a BlackBerry in their pockets. We were in the early stages in that program. We put money in there, and as a result we will get payback on that. I look at a business in my riding, International Harvester. We put money there to upgrade technology, and a thousand more jobs in southwestern Ontario. The program is working.

[Technology Partnerships Canada, February 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Technology Partnerships Canada invests in research in technology that leads off into the future and helps institutions in Canada be successful. Paybacks only come when they can develop those products, market them and have the profits come back in. It takes a long time for that to happen, and our opposition should be well aware that this program is only eight years old. In fact, we are looking forward at this point to large paybacks coming forward.

[Patent Act, December 13th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I have to say that at this point in time there was a real urgency at the last election to get this bill put in place. Obviously, the minister will appoint a committee of experts who will look at how we can deliver those services and deal with it.

At this point in time the obvious answer is that we have not implemented the actions of the bill. We have some technical issues, obviously, with the Senate not being involved in the bill as well.

This being the first sitting of the House after the election, we are attempting to get everything in place so that we can get that expert panel in place, and then we can make the decisions on how this should move forward and we can move it forward as expeditiously as possible.

However the obvious first step is to get the bill right, the legislation right and the technical amendments corrected.

[Patent Act, December 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to begin the second reading of Bill C-29, a bill that makes technical amendments to the Patent Act. The changes provided in this bill are strictly technical and narrow in scope. I am hopeful that the House and the other place will have no problem passing this bill expeditiously.

It is very important that we move quickly on this bill for, although it deals with details that are of a technical nature, the jobs of many Canadians and the competitiveness of Canadian companies in a global marketplace could be stake if we delay.

Canada's reputation as a good place to invest and perform leading edge research and development may also be hurt if we do not move quickly to clear up the technical issues covered by the bill.

First, what the bill represents is a response to an unexpected court decision that has raised uncertainties about the status of some patents. It is designed to clear up the confusion about the patent fees and potentially the status of a significant number of patents. It is a measure to avoid clogging the courts with patent infringement lawsuits, and the sooner we pass the bill the sooner we can remove the element of uncertainty regarding Canada's patent regime.

I want to provide the House with some of the background that made these technical amendments necessary. The Patent Act is designed to protect the intellectual property of investors. The patent offer the investor a monopoly on the creation for a specific period. In this way we provide incentive for research and development so that people will invest the time and money it takes to devise and perfect a new product.

In order to apply and maintain a patent application or patent, a set of fees must be paid and these fees vary according to several factors. One of the variables today is the reason that we have a problem.

The fees paid for patent protection vary according to the size of an entity. If one is a small entity defined as an individual, a university or a business with 50 employees or less, the fees will generally be half of those of a large entity.

This distinction between small entities and large entities gave rise to the technical amendments that we seek to address. Those who filed patents and paid their fees always had to ask themselves whether they should be filing as a small entity or a large entity. On the surface, the definitions are straightforward, but over time the situation became much less clear.

What happens, for example, if a person starts off as a single individual inventor and his or her company grows quickly so that it becomes a large entity? What happens when, for instance, a person is a large entity with more than 50 employees but decide to break up into a company of smaller components, one of which maintains the patent? What happens when a person is a small entity but enters into an agreement with a large entity for exclusive use of one's invention?

Above all, with respect to the technical amendments before us, what happens if a person makes a mistake? What happens if a person files as a small entity and then realizes that he or she should have filed as a large entity instead?

Those are important questions for innovators, especially for individuals and small businesses who have the opportunity to use their ingenuity and innovation to grow a business.

The Commissioner of Patents is responsible for addressing the system and setting collective fees. In the past, in the case of small and large entities related fees, the commissioner acted on the principle that an entity that had made an honest mistake in determining the level of the fees should be given the benefit of the doubt. If the entity had submitted the incorrect amount in good faith and it was later determined that the amounts submitted was incorrect, the entity could top up the fees to maintain their rights in accordance with the act.

That was the practice and many individuals, small businesses and universities maintained their protection under the system that allowed for corrective measures, or so they believed.

However all this has changed as a result of a court case know as the Dutch case. In patent infringement suit brought against Dutch Industries by Barton No-Till Inc. and Flexi Coil Ltd., Dutch Industries successfully maintained that the patent had been abandoned because the proper fees were not paid. Moreover, the judge found that the Commissioner of Patents had no legal authority to accept top up payments.

The court decision means that the top up practice is no longer accepted. This opens a Pandora's box of potential legal trouble. It has created the possibility of a Dutch defence against patent legislation if a company is found to have used the top up policy in order to correct and oversight.

This case was appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal and on March 7, 2003 the court rendered its decision. The Federal Court of Appeal agreed with the lower court that late top up fees could not be corrected.

Furthermore, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the determination as to whether an applicant would be considered a small or a large entity is to be fixed at the time of entry into the patent regime. That interpretation by the court was inconsistent with the long-standing practice of fees varying over the life of a patent if the entity changed size.

This new interpretation meant that any applicant who had entered as a large entity and later became a small one, and paid commensurate fees, suddenly found themselves in the position of having underpaid the prescribed fees. These applicants and patent holders risk invalidation of their rights.

This creates a very difficult situation for holders of patents who may not have paid the right fee. We want to end this confusion. We want to remove the uncertainty as it relates to those who have used the flexibility as described. In fact, in August 2003 the government announced that it would amend the Patent Act to clarify the payment of certain patent fees.

The amendments contained in the bill provide a 12 month timeframe for patent holders and applicants who are negatively affected by the court decision to maintain their rights by making necessary top up payments. In effect, we are giving patent holders the right, for a 12 month period, to continue making the arrangements that the courts found they had no right to do under the current legislation.

The longer this legislation is delayed the more likely the number of patent infringement court cases would increase. This would have an adverse effect on Canada's reputation as a good place to do business. It would undermine our reputation as a country that protects intellectual property rights.

The intellectual property stakeholders have been consulted on these technical amendments and they support the patent provisions of the bill. I would urge hon. members to pass it as quickly as possible and remove the uncertainty.

The second issue dealt with in the bill involves the legislation that was passed in the last Parliament as Bill C-9, the Jean Chrétien Pledge to Africa Act. Hon. members who were present in the last Parliament will recall that this was an initiative to provide lower cost pharmaceutical products to least developed and developing countries. At its heart, the bill aimed at helping those countries fight HIV-AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis and other public health problems by giving them easier access to patented medicines.

Bill C-9 amended the Patent Act and the Food and Drugs Act. It provides the legislative framework that enables Canada to authorize someone other than the patent holder to manufacture a lower cost version of a patented medicine for export to a developing country. Canada was very proud to be one of the first countries to take such action.

However there was a technical oversight in that legislation, one which we seek to correct now. An expert panel, to be appointed by the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Health, was to be named to advise the government on which pharmaceutical products should be eligible under the regime.

In response to recommendations from some hon. members from across the floor, the government agreed that the appointment of this panel would be reviewed by a committee of the House. Of course, the other place also has a rightful responsibility in matters that come before Parliament, and a committee of the other place should have the right and authority to review these appointments as well.

Hon. members who were present during the final weeks of the last Parliament will recall the urgency of getting this humanitarian and life-saving legislation through Parliament before the election writ was dropped. There was no time to make the necessary amendments to Bill C-9 that would ensure the other place was given the same rights of review as the House. However the then minister of industry gave the other place her commitment that at the next available opportunity the government would correct that oversight in the new Parliament.

The next available opportunity is now. We wish to take advantage of the need to pass technical amendments affecting payment of fees to make a further technical amendment that would provide the other place with its rightful responsibility to review the appointments to the expert panel.

This is not a controversial measure. It is a step to do the right thing and correct an oversight of the last Parliament, an oversight that, were it not for the generosity and spirit of the other place, might have killed the bill at that time.

Both of the measures in Bill C-29 are very technical in nature. Neither of them is controversial. Both of them deserve swift passage and that is why I urge the House to focus sharply on the technical content of the bill.

This is not an overhaul of the Patent Act. It does not break new ground in how we protect and encourage innovation in Canada. I urge hon. members from both sides of this House to join me in voting for the passage of this bill as soon as possible.

[World Trade Organization, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no question. It is critical that we work with industry and all of the people who are participants in the auto industry and that we make sure we have coordinated all the departments in the federal government. I believe the minister has been moving in that direction and working very hard.

The Beacon project was mentioned. I believe the government is very serious about working with General Motors in order to make sure that our opportunities and direction will be positive ones for the auto industry in this country, but it is extremely important to make sure that all proper elements are in place.

Our discussions with CAPC people occurred just a couple of weeks ago and it is critical to realize that their input was extremely important in making sure the auto policy in this country goes forward, so we have to work with all shareholders and make sure we move in the right direction.

[World Trade Organization, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the member for Windsor West's comment about our auto policy and the direction in which we are going.

The member has expressed his concern that the government is moving too slowly. Quite frankly, this is a major task that we are moving forward on.

As the member for Windsor West knows, in 2002 we created the Canadian Automotive Partnership Council, or CAPC, to help identify ways the government and private sector could work together to strengthen this key sector. On October 26 of this year CAPC released a report entitled “A Call for Action: A Canadian Auto Strategy”, which outlines a vision for increasing investment and innovation in the Canadian auto sector in order to make Canada the location of choice in North American manufacturing.

I can assure the House that we will be responding very shortly with a new strategic framework for the automotive sector. The CAPC report represents an important contribution to the new framework and we have been looking very carefully at its findings. The industry minister and I had an excellent half-day meeting with CAPC executives on November 3, when the report was discussed at length.

Those hon. members who are familiar with the CAPC report will know that many of its recommendations align very closely to federal government priorities. For example, one of our top priorities is to improve the Canada-U.S. border infrastructure to facilitate secure and efficient trade. This government is also serious about attracting new automotive investment to Canada, another core priority identified in the CAPC report. This is evidenced by the government's $100 million contribution related to Ford's $1.2 billion investment in the Oakville facilities and important new research and undertakings by Ford.

Budget 2004 committed the government to develop a new strategic automotive framework. I will reiterate for all members of this House that we are working hard to develop this framework. Several ministers are involved with the auto issues, and CAPC and others have expressed perspectives that we are assessing.

This new strategic automotive framework will outline a vision for Canada's automotive sector through the year 2020 and examine the key competitive issues impacting its long term growth. Skills development, R and D, trade infrastructure and regulatory harmonization will be important parts of the basis of this study.

It is very important to realize that this minister and this government are very concerned about moving the agenda of the auto sector forward. We are putting plans together at this point in time and with other departments, by the way, because it is not one department in the federal government but several that are involved in making sure the auto industry has the correct direction. I am sure the member for Windsor West would agree with me that we must make certain we get it right and we get it straight the first time. It is critical that we look at all suggestions and all directions very carefully and make sure we have it right as we introduce it in the House.

[Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and privilege today to come before this House and speak to Bill C-21, an act respecting not for profit corporations and other corporations without share capital.

The legislation, which would enable the governance regime for federally incorporated not for profit organizations, is a long overdue replacement of the present Canada Corporations Act, or CCA. The CCA, which, to this point, has set the rules for some 18,000 organizations, was first enacted in 1917 and has not been substantially changed since.

Needless to say, the CCA no longer responds to today's needs for the not for profit sector. For example, it is silent on major elements of modern corporate governance which creates uncertainty in the public mind.

Second, it is an administrative burden on the sector and the government.

Finally, it fails to provide adequate protection for men and women who manage or operate these corporations.

In the years since the CCA was originally enacted, the world has changed dramatically and the not for profit sector faces governance challenges that cannot be dealt with under the existing legislation.

In response to these challenges, the government has taken a measured and reasonable approach to addressing the urgent need to reform the not for profit statute. It has looked at the Canada Business Corporations Act as a model of worldclass corporate statute. It then built on the provisions of the CBCA to reflect the requirements of the not for profit sector. It utilized, where appropriate, examples found in provincial not for profit statutes.

Finally, it was benchmarked against similar legislation in the United States. As a result, the new act will be one of the most modern statutes of its kind, measuring favourably against the best features of similar statutes throughout North America.

It may be asked: why now? Why has Parliament not addressed this in the last 80 years? In fact, there have been four previous attempts to reform the CCA but, for a variety of reasons, members of this House or our partners in the other place have never been able to complete the necessary scrutiny of previous bills before they died on the order paper.

We are now presented with an opportunity to bring this legislation up to date and to position federal not for profit law as the new benchmark for other jurisdictions.

The development of a new not for profit corporations act has been a long journey. It began with a commitment under the voluntary sector initiative in June 2000, followed by two rounds of cross-country consultations with shareholders.

The not for profit sector plays many important roles in Canadian society and our economy. It mobilizes citizens and creates a sense of community, enhances democracy, fosters community participation and strengthens our ties to one another. From national corporations created to fight disease to local sports associations, from faith organizations to facilities that provide job training and education to new Canadians, the sector touches most aspects of Canadian life. It is essential to our national identity and to our economy. Many are important government partners in providing services to Canadians.

The Government of Canada recognizes the importance of strengthening Canada's social economy and the thousands of entrepreneurial enterprises that form its backbone. These organizations are not only the key to social economy, but they are also an important pillar of the economy as a whole.

Research indicates that there may be up to 160,000 not for profit organizations creating opportunity in this country. When universities and hospitals are included in these figures, the revenue of the sector is estimated up to $112 billion a year.

The not for profit sector is one of the country's largest employers, employing more than 2.2 million people, with payroll expenditures as high as $64.1 billion. Most of these corporations are incorporated provincially. However more than 18,000 are federally incorporated and many are among the largest and most influential not for profit corporations in Canada.

The proposed new statute would demonstrate the government's commitment to strengthening its partnership with the sector. Current federally incorporated organizations include national charities such as the United Way of Canada and the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada. It includes umbrella organizations such as the Canadian Centre for Philanthropy and the Consumers' Association of Canada and several national businesses. It includes religious groups such as the Canadian Jewish Council.

There are health and community based organizations, environmental organizations, and cultural and heritage societies. Also included are transport related organizations such as airport authorities and small harbours. There are also many private foundations that pursue philanthropic objectives to the benefit of Canadians. Each of these and thousands of other small and large organizations perform an important function for their members, their communities, the recipients of the services and, collectively, all Canadians.

Replacing the CCA with a new framework law was a commitment made and reaffirmed many times over the last years. Fulfillment of this commitment would ensure that federally incorporated enterprises are governed by a modern legislative framework that is flexible enough to meet the needs of both small and large organizations while providing the accountability and transparency necessary to secure the support of the Canadian public.

The proposed new act provides a perfect example of smart regulations. It would reduce the administrative burden by making it easier and faster to incorporate and develop internal arrangements that suit the needs of the organization. It would promote good governance by emphasizing accountability and transparency to members and self-regulation more generally. At the same time, it would enhance the scope of governmental and public oversight by requiring greater financial disclosure requirements for organizations that solicit funds from the public or receive government funding.

The act is good for Canadians. It is good for them as individuals and it is good for our communities. I urge all members of the House to support the legislation.

[Competition Act, November 16th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I open the debate on Bill C-19, an act to amend the Competition Act. I am looking forward to working with all members of the House in considering this vital piece of economic legislation.

As mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, the government wants to ensure that the up to date legislative framework for business is put in place, and some of the amendments in the Competition Act are deemed to move in that direction.

Bill C-19 would strengthen Canada's competition framework in a global economic partnership to benefit consumers, as well as businesses, both large and small. These amendments would also create a greater symmetry between our competition regime and those of our major trading partners we deal with on a daily basis. That is good for business, which is increasingly multinational, and it is also good for our economy.

Bill C-19 implements a number of key recommendations from the industry committee's comprehensive report, “A Plan to Modernize Canada's Competition Regime”. The legislation before us today will strengthen the act by: providing restitution for consumer loss resulting from false or misleading advertising; introducing a general administrative monetary penalty provision for abuse of dominance in any industry; removing the airline specific provisions from the act to return it to a law of general application; increasing the level of administrative monetary penalties for deceptive or misleading marketing practices; and decriminalizing the pricing provisions.

In recent years we have taken an incremental approach to changing this complex legislation. We have always been careful and measured and move forward with amendments to this bill with no exception. Bill C-19 balances the interests of businesses and consumers in a number of ways.

On the business side, for example, it moves us toward a law of general application by removing the airline specific provisions, as advocated by the industry committee's recommendations that have come forward. It also decriminalizes the pricing provisions in response to the committee's recommendations and long-standing requests from various business groups.

On the consumer side, for example, it ensures that Canadians will have access to remedies similar to those in other states we do business with. When they have lost money as a result of misleading representations, they have a chance to reclaim those losses.

Consumers need to have faith in the marketplace and it is to our advantage to make sure that faith is there. They expect to be reimbursed for losses resulting from false claims, and they should be. The proposal for restitution would add an important additional remedy for the courts in cases where consumers have lost money as a result of false or misleading representations.

The Competition Bureau regularly receives complaints from consumers who have lost money buying products that simply do not work. Based on advertisers' false or misleading representations, they lose their investment. Those who engage in such practices can gain an unfair advantage in the market as well. That is bad for our marketplace. It is bad for our consumers. A restitution remedy is an appropriate tool to address this situation.

We are proposing a general administrative monetary penalty regime, or AMPs, for abuse of dominance. This provision would be applicable to all industries and would ensure a level playing field among all participants, including the airline industry.

AMPs are used in a specific way to encourage compliance with the law in a number of jurisdictions. In fact, our act is one of the few in the world that does not allow a financial remedy in such cases. The introduction of AMPs for cases of abuse of dominance will make our competition regime more similar to its counterparts in other jurisdictions, including our major trading partners. The maximum penalty would be $10 million, and $15 million for each subsequent order under the new provisions.

In other words, we are proposing a balanced approach to improve the remedies available in this particular section of the act.

We are also proposing to remove the airline specific regime consisting of provisions found in the Competition Act and the airline regulations. The airline specific provisions were introduced in 2000 and 2002 following the merger of Canadian and Air Canada and provided the Competition Bureau with the tools regarding concerns over predatory conduct by a dominant airline.

The Canadian airline industry has changed significantly since that merger. We have seen a decline in Air Canada's dominant market share; the entry and growth of low cost carriers; the development of competing loyalty programs; the growth of the Internet as a means of distributing tickets; and the changing role of travel agents.

The current provisions are no longer required and should be replaced with the general regime which I just described. This change would have the benefit of returning the act to a law of general application, something recommended by the industry committee in 2002 and by numerous competition law experts.

Bill C-19 also proposes to increase the existing level of administrative monetary penalties, or AMPs, available under the deceptive marketing practices provisions. The current limitation for AMPs generally represents only a small fraction of the profits made by businesses through deceptive marketing practices.

The level of AMPs needs to be increased in order to encourage compliance with the Competition Act and stop deceptive marketing practices. It is appropriate to bring the limits of AMPs for cases of deceptive practices to a level that is consistent with that proposed for dominance. Accordingly, the maximum penalty proposed under these deceptive marketing provisions would be, for individuals, $750,000 and $1 million per subsequent order, and for corporations, $10 million and $15 million for subsequent orders.

Bill C-19 would also reform the pricing provisions dealing with price discrimination, geographic price discrimination, predatory pricing and promotional allowances. Bill C-19 would repeal these criminal provisions and bring them under the civil regime under the abuse of dominance provisions. This type of pricing behaviour would be best suited to a civil provision with a competition test if AMPs are available to deal with anti-competitive behaviour.

Canadians are being well served by our competition regime, which is among the most developed in the world. However, there is always room for improvement. Bill C-19 represents the latest step in an incremental legislative evolution that shows the government is committed to having a modern, effective Competition Act.

This legislative package is responsive to the recommendations of Parliament and industry, consumers and businesses. Taken together, these amendments would strengthen the Competition Act. They would effectively deter anti-competitive behaviour that is most harmful to the Canadian economy and Canadian consumers. They would promote legitimate pro-competitive business practices to ensure a competitive marketplace, one where consumers and businesses benefit from competitive practices, product choice and quality service.

Again let me say that I look forward to working with all members of the House on this. I hope everyone will look at this piece of legislation as vital to the economy of Canada and to our legislative agenda.

[Criminal Code, November 1st, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I would assure my hon. colleague that the minister is looking very carefully at all programs in TPC. We are moving forward and attempting to ensure that the research element in Canada is well supported.

There is absolutely no question that the Minister of Industry at this point in time is looking critically at what we can do to support the aerospace industry and move its agenda forward. I have no question that the TPC program has over the years created a tremendous amount of investment in research and development, not just in the aerospace industry but in the broad spectre of manufacturing and industries across Canada.

To get back to the Bombardier question at hand, we know how important that is. We are looking at many locations where future potential can be developed. We will be supportive of ensuring that Bombardier keeps its jobs in Canada, that Canadian workers have an opportunity to deal in that industry and we will move forward--

[Criminal Code, November 1st, 2004]

Madam Speaker, the Canadian aerospace industry is among the five largest in the world. It makes a significant contribution overall to the Canadian economy. Over 700 aerospace and defence firms across the country employ more than 78,000 people. Sales last year alone exceeded $20 billion.

Aerospace is much more than just one of Canada's traditional industries. It also is one of Canada's leading advanced technology exporters. The sector invested approximately $1 billion on research and development last year. Aerospace is the second largest investor in R and D in Canada and 4 of Canada's top 20 industrial R and D performers in last year's operations were aerospace and defence firms.

In recent years markets have been slow and competition is tight. This is placing demands and new pressures on our aerospace sector. The government is quite conscious of these new pressures and wishes to work with the industry to overcome those problems.

The Speech from the Throne is very clear: aerospace will remain a key industrial priority for the government. Further, the government has committed itself to developing a national strategy to help the sector strengthen its technology, leadership and position for future growth.

A national aerospace strategy can provide the broad context within which government can consider individual funding decisions. This broad context would include considerations such as changing international business climate, the economic impact and fiscal implications of support, skills development, trade policy and how individual investments fit into the overall direction of Canada's aerospace sector.

The Minister of Industry is moving quickly to develop the strategy. He will do so in collaboration with industry stakeholders and provincial counterparts. In doing so, we will build our impressive achievements to date and on in government programs such as sales, financing from Export Development Canada and research and development support such as are available from Technology Partnerships Canada.

I was very pleased to hear my colleague mention Technology Partnerships Canada because it is a very impressive program and one with which we have been extremely successful. The partnerships, which have been forged between industry and government, have produced good results for companies and for Canada. Bombardier's success with its family of regional jets is a case in point, but there are many examples in which a risk sharing investment by the government has resulted in new aerospace business for firms in Canada.

Speaking of Bombardier, the government also recognizes that this company is a cornerstone of Canada's aerospace industry. Bombardier's aerospace division is Canada's largest aerospace firm with sales of $11.3 billion, more than 50% of all Canadian aerospace output. The company employs some 13,000 workers in its facilities in Montreal, Toronto and North Bay, and relies on extensive supplier networks across the country. As we well know, Bombardier is currently considering a next generation aircraft larger than anything it has built before.

I would like to assure the hon. member that we are looking at the situation and moving forward as rapidly as possible.