Thank you, Mr. Keddy.
Mr. Saxton?
Evidence of meeting #39 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was amendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #39 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was amendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
9:35 p.m.
Conservative
9:35 p.m.
Conservative
9:40 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
One of the concerns raised is around the process of how we got here. What consultations were done with groups like the Canadian manufacturers association or the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada?
9:40 p.m.
Chairperson, Trade-marks Opposition Board, Department of Industry
A paper was published on the Canadian Intellectual Property Office, dating back to 2001. That was a technical paper and went through the various possibilities for accession to Madrid and Singapore. Following that, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office did conduct consultations that were open to all stakeholders and intermediaries in 2005 and again in 2010. Dedicated or targeted consultations were also conducted in the fall of 2013.
9:40 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Could you provide the list to the committee—not tonight, obviously—of the groups that attended those consultations? Particularly the last two would be of some interest.
9:40 p.m.
Paul Halucha
Sure, we'd be pleased to do that. Actually, we had the same question when we testified before the industry committee. We provided that list in writing to them last week.
9:40 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Here's the challenge we have as legislators. Before us we have the groups that have been identified so far—the Canadian bar, the manufacturers and exporters, the Canadian chamber, the Intellectual Property Institute, a series of large companies that have some credibility when it comes to business and understanding how intellectual property works—and they are saying the exact opposite of what you've just told us.
This is the challenge we have. How did we end up, as my friend said, in this “hyperbolic” scenario if there are two completely different versions of this piece of legislation coming forward to the public?
9:40 p.m.
Paul Halucha
Two different sets of views on the legislation? We very carefully have considered all of the complaints we have heard. No one has I think read them more attentively—
9:40 p.m.
Paul Halucha
—and we feel we have a very strong analytical basis to the decisions that were made.
Of the 93 countries, for example, on the declaration of use form, the only other countries that have it are the Philippines and the United States. The United States legitimately had a constitutional issue that required them to keep the form.
Had we maintained the form in Canada, we would have effectively had two systems, and the goal of this was to reduce paper burden. It was very much like smart regulation, where you want to have a single system so that countries operating in different jurisdictions don't have to relearn a new regulatory environment every time. It's the same principle here. We want countries that want to sell their products in Canada to have an easy process to bring them in. We don't want to have our trademark system being effectively a non-tariff barrier or a tax on companies coming in.
Likewise, for the Canadian firms, the government has made opening export markets a critical policy objective, and we do see this as aligned with that. We want Canadian firms to enter those marketplaces. If they have one set of rules in Canada and then have to learn another set as they go into those export markets, it's going to reduce that likelihood or their chances. It will complexify it. Building a brand is more than just doing a registration. Actually, the big expense, and where we really want companies to make the investment, is to actually get to build the brand to go into export markets and to compete successfully. We see it all aligned with those policy objectives.
9:40 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Sure, so we share common objectives in terms of increasing efficiency—
9:40 p.m.
Paul Halucha
Yes.
9:40 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
—but the challenging thing for us is what you're suggesting, that the traditional use and filing of this paper is what all of these different associations object to, that getting rid of that one-step process, the paper filing, is enough to get the Canadian manufacturers, the Intellectual Property Institute, the Canadian Bar, and the Canadian Chamber all in a tizzy.
9:40 p.m.
Paul Halucha
Respectfully, sir, going through the analytical process ourselves that is the conclusion. It all leads back to the decision to eliminate that paper burden on firms.
9:40 p.m.
NDP
9:40 p.m.
Paul Halucha
Yes, sir.
9:40 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I'm good. I'll stop here, Chair, and this is absolutely no comment on your work—we were going to have a briefing that was meant to happen today and we got five votes and we'll get there—but this puts us in such a funny conundrum where we have industry associations depicting one version of the world after this bill passes; civil servants depicting another; and members of Parliament being caught in between, because I don't think there are any copyright lawyers around this table—
9:40 p.m.
Paul Halucha
Just trademark lawyers.
9:40 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Excuse me, trademark lawyers around this table. See, I get my terminology wrong, exposing my shame. Should I apologize and resign? I forget how that works.
9:40 p.m.
Paul Halucha
I would suggest, sir, the one thing that could help is the fact that we're not the first country to go through this process—
9:40 p.m.
Paul Halucha
—we're the ninety-third, and we have looked carefully at the other jurisdictions. For example, one of the arguments is that opposition rates will go up in Canada. We've looked at jurisdictions and that hasn't happened. The idea that there are trademark trolls just waiting to descend on Canada.... I work on all the intellectual property laws in Canada, including patents, and in patents you do have a phenomenon around patent trolls, and even that's not happening in Canada. It's happening almost exclusively in the U.S. We've seen a little of it.
I did a set of round tables around the country in the early part of the year on the subject of trolling and the minister did one as well, and we did not hear any concern at all in any jurisdiction that trademark trolls were going to enter the Canadian market.
9:45 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Don't take it personally, but we're going to vote for the amendment. I hope you're right and all these other groups are wrong for the sake of trademark in Canada.
Has any sort of a sunset or any sort of a reconsideration of the policy been included in your contemplation of this?
