Finance Committee on May 29th, 2014

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

So they're just blowing smoke when they say they're not aware of any specific consultations with interested parties.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You're asking her to comment on an organization.

This organization has one view. The officials are answering your questions, so let's ask questions not about what they think about the Bar Association, but about the specific policies of it.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I didn't ask them what they think about the Bar Association. All I'm saying is that from what's being said here about consultations, and what the Canadian Bar Association thinks—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. So let me, as the chair, ask this.

The Canadian Bar Association, apparently, according to Mr. McKay, says there were no consultations.

Ms. Carreau, can you repeat what you said with respect to consultations?

[Darlene Carreau]

A technical paper was published by the Canadian Intellectual Property Office in 2001. Following that, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office conducted public consultations in 2005 and again in 2010. In the fall of 2013 we conducted targeted consultations with a number of our stakeholders, including the major IP associations: FICPI , INTA , and IPIC. We also consulted with the Molson Coors company in Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

And the Canadian Bar Association is opposed to this?

Mr. Halucha, can you describe the difference between the price a business had to pay under the old system and, if this passes, the price it will have to pay under the new system? What is that price difference again?

[Paul Halucha]

The savings could be up to $4,000 per trademark over the application process.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Who do businesses currently pay that $4,000 to?

[Paul Halucha]

Typically, it's to a legal intermediary.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thanks. I appreciate that clarification.

I was also concerned about the Canadian Chamber of Commerce releasing something. Although I'm a fan of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, they don't always get everything right.

I recall going home and listening to the new Chamber of Commerce talking about their concerns with anti-spam legislation and saying how the anti-spam legislation coming into effect was going to ensure that a real estate agent in Leduc would not actually be able to continue sending electronic information to its customers. I know that's a bit off topic here today, but it proves my point.

Can you comment on that, Mr. Halucha, in the sense that absolutely incorrect information was distributed across this country by this esteemed organization?

[Paul Halucha]

I'll take your word for that, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I love the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, but as every human organization, they're not always perfect.

Mr. McKay, do you have any further questions?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I have one final comment.

You just advertently or inadvertently illustrated why this process is so terribly flawed. This is a serious amendment, and there are diametrically opposed views.

Maybe I can narrow the view by saying that the consultation has not taken place with respect to what's in Bill C-31.

Is that true?

[Paul Halucha]

Do you mean that the actual legislation was provided to people in advance? Is that what you're suggesting?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

No, but you didn't consult with the Canadian Bar Association on the drafting of Bill C-31?

[Paul Halucha]

On the drafting, we did not.

But all the essential concepts were there and the actual treaties have been known publicly as countries have been acceding for many years.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Maybe you could have saved yourself a little grief, and you could have taken us out of an awkward position. I don't know whether you're right or whether you're wrong—

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

He's badgering the witness.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

All right. Okay, I think that's fine.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Badgering? You haven't seen badgering, buddy.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Keddy, do you want to respond on this point?

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Respectfully, it's really not a question to the experts at the table or to the newly minted experts across the way, but really it's a question about the process, Mr. Chairman.

Respectfully, we really need to respect our witnesses' time, and I really don't think we have the right as individuals and members of Parliament to be rude and to badger and to ask repetitive questions. We do have important succinct questions that need to be asked and that have been asked during the evening, but we have to move this on and get to a better level.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I certainly agree with that last sentiment about moving on. Frankly, I for one think the witnesses before us provided very clear and concise answers. I thank them for that, and I think all members do. I appreciate that.

Colleagues, how do you want to deal with the amendments or the clauses? I do not have an amendment until clause 330. Can I group any of the clauses together?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Say it again, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I don't have an amendment until clause 330, so can I group any clauses together?

Can I group clauses 317 to 329?