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.
9:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you for that commentary.
(Clauses 308 to 310 inclusive agreed to)
Thank you to our officials for being here. Enjoy the rest of the hockey game.
Colleagues, what's the next clause a member wishes to speak to? Maybe that's the best way.
9:25 p.m.
NDP
9:25 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
It's 311 and 312. We need a vote on 313. That's different. Sorry, it's bit of a hodgepodge.
9:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
All in favour of clauses 311 and 312?
(Clauses 311 and 312 agreed to)
Those are unanimous I think.
9:25 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Just because we were voting for it doesn't mean you don't.
9:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
We'll deal with clause 313 separately.
(Clause 313 agreed to)
(Clauses 314 to 316 agreed to)
That's unanimous.
We'll move to division 25, Amendments Relating to International Treaties on Trademarks. We'll ask our officials to come forward, please.
I'll indicate we have an amendment for clause 330 in this section, and we have one for clause 339 and clause 345.
Do you want to start at clause 317?
9:25 p.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Bill C-31removes the requirement to use a trademark before it can be registered and the owner can be given exclusive rights.
Canadian Chamber of Commerce has sent out a call to action for its members against this section of C-31. We have since heard from chambers across the country, from Surrey to Gander to Northwest Territories, who are warning that this provision will increase business costs and risks in Canada, complaining about a lack of consultation from the government, and asking that the trademark provisions of C-31 be removed from the bill pending further study.
We are also hearing these concerns from numerous employers across Canada; everyone from the retailer Giant Tiger, food manufacturer Pepsi-Cola, and Canadian Institute of Plumbing & Heating.
The Canadian Bar Association also warned us that the provisions “…will cause such serious problems that we recommend they be removed”. Furthermore, it stated:
The CBA Section is not aware of any specific consultations with any interested parties on the effect of these amendments. It has been suggested that the change is at the request of [the] Canadian Intellectual Property Office and may be more driven by internal efficiency for the Trade-marks Office than protection of Canadian business interests. There is no apparent policy reason behind these changes, and the changes are not required to adhere to the Madrid Protocol nor the Singapore Treaty.
It continued that these provisions in C-31 would:
…have a negative impact on Canadian business. Canadian business people and those seeking to protect trademarks in Canada will face additional expense and economic disadvantage vis-à-vis business people in other jurisdictions.… At the same time that Canadian businesses face these increased costs and uncertainties, they will also likely face increased filing fees for separate class fees and more frequent renewals.
And finally they said:
An abrupt change from a use-based system, without consultation and analysis by stakeholders, serves only to disrupt the economic relationship between Canada and the U.S. CBA Section members have been contacted by the American Bar Association members who were shocked to hear that these changes were in progress.
To address these concerns, the Canadian Bar Association explicitly requested three amendments to re-reinstate the requirement for the applicant to use the trademark before obtaining a registration. We've introduced these as Liberal-18, 19, and 20, which amend clauses 330, 339, and 345 respectively. They also help address the very serious concerns we've heard from Canadian businesses from coast to coast to coast.
It's pretty obvious, Chair, that the business community both large and small is upset. It is upset from one end of the country to the other. They complain about the same things that the Canadian Bar Association is complaining about; i.e., there was no consultation, and interestingly the Bar Association also says that there is no policy reason behind these changes, and they are not required in order to adhere to the Madrid Protocol or the Singapore Treaty. And just to add insult to injury, you have the Americans upset as well.
As we read this, you have pretty well covered all of North America. It's kind of hard to do, to get done, apparently it's an accomplishment of some kind, but nevertheless it does seem to have generated a lot of commentary, all of which is negative, from all of the chambers and both the American and the Canadian bar associations.
9:30 p.m.
Conservative
9:30 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you.
This is one of challenges with this process that we've talked about a great deal. The amendments being sought here around trademark and intellectual property, and we'll be supportive of the amendments that have been moved by my friend.... I suspect that these votes are going to lose, and the bill is going to pass as it is.
But I offer this sincerely to my friends across the way. Have some pause here, because initially the minister tried to describe this as just a bunch of lawyers wanting more trademark work. But you do get the warnings from the Canadian Bar Association and from the American Bar Association as well, plus the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, and dozens of other chambers of commerce across the country writing to the government and, in fact, pleading with them not to do this because of one particular stipulation around the need-to-use clause.
Some, like myself, have had to learn about the way trademark actually works in Canada. In terms of registering a trademark, it makes intuitive sense to actually use the trademark. You're intending to trademark a name, and that name is associated with a product, product line, or something you are doing.
This change goes far beyond any international requirements and far beyond what we're expected to do in any of the conventions that Canada is seeking to come in line with. It actually eliminates that stipulation, so that you then invite trademark trolls into Canada. Some will remember the inception of the Internet, when people—trademark trolls—would sit in their basements and register hundreds and thousands of Internet domain names in order to try to make money. Now, this is a tax on the system, as any conservative economist will tell you, because they're not actually adding any value. It's simply a cost of business. They have to pay off the person who has that domain name in order to secure the name they want for, you know, Montreal Canadiens.com, or whatever it happens to be. It's an absolute concrete tax on the system, and that's why these different groups have come forward.
I get why the Conservatives want to ignore the Canadian Bar Association. No love lost there. I understand. But certainly the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, and certainly the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, who are not known for being hyperbolic about these things, have said clearly in all their comments that have already been well stipulated.... I'll read just one, from the director of intellectual property and innovation policy at the chamber. Here's the quote, and I'll end soon here, Mr. Chair:
This amendment would mean that anybody could register a trademark for any goods of services simply by paying a government fee. This would open the door for trademark trolls to register currently existing brand names and trademarks and effectively extort value for them from current, unregistered owners.
That's a problem. That hurts productivity, efficiency, and all those things that government seeks to help in the Canadian economy, as fragile as it is.
So, for goodness' sake, this has been rammed into an omnibus bill. I understand the imperative of my colleagues across the way, who are given vote sheets and are going to vote a certain way, but these amendments seeking to remove this one stipulation and satisfy the exporters, the Canadian Bar Association, and the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters should give people some pause on the Conservative side of the table.
9:35 p.m.
Conservative
9:35 p.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
Thank you.
I have two questions to our witnesses here.
The first one deals with section 16 of the Trade-marks Act. It ensures that an applicant's entitlement to registrations in Canada is based on activity in the Canadian marketplace or an intention to use in the Canadian marketplace.
I'm listening to the arguments from across the way, and I really don't understand their reluctance to agree to amendments that state quite clearly that, if you're going to register in Canada, it has to be used in Canada, and there has to be a real intent to use, which takes away that nefarious, hyperbolic person sitting in the basement trying to register all these trademarks. It's eliminated by that first issue.
The second point is, if this motion was accepted, that person would be entitled to register a trademark in Canada by making it known.
Also, I want an answer on this: would this give them priority over other businesses that have already filed that have a trademark?
9:35 p.m.
Darlene Carreau Chairperson, Trade-marks Opposition Board, Department of Industry
The answer is yes.
9:35 p.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
So really, if we accept this—and this is what the opposition wants to do, and they went into great detail about it—then for anyone who's already in the queue and already wants to get a trademark registered, they're not going to be able to, because this other person is going to jump the line, and without any intent to use it.
May 29th, 2014 / 9:35 p.m.
Paul Halucha
Absolutely. If I could echo what you said, “use” has not been removed at all from the trademarks system. It's absolutely not the case that we're removing the concept of use. The intent to use—
9:35 p.m.
Conservative
9:35 p.m.
Paul Halucha
We're reinforcing the concept of use, absolutely.
We're eliminating a paper burden. It's a form that is not used by the Canadian Intellectual Property Office. It's also not used by the courts if there is a dispute over whether a trademark is actually being used on the marketplace. In that case, what actually gets brought forward as evidence is whether or not a mark is being used in the marketplace.
In terms of some of the letters and some of the comments that were just raised, I'll take one example that I think goes to some of the fears and the arguments that have been raised. On the domain name case, it's being portrayed as “this is the same as a domain name”. The fact is that the registry is not going to be wiped out the day after we join the Madrid protocol. Everybody who has trademark rights in Canada will have those rights. In a domain name situation, you have a new dot-whatever that's been created, and you have no property rights assigned with any big name. Everybody knows the value of the big name, so there is a free-for-all that happens in that case.
We're not at all taking the registry down. I think it's an indication of the type of fearful argument that's been brought forward. All three of the amendments, if I can make a comment on them, essentially reinforce the status quo. The government has made a decision in terms of acceding to Madrid, and we're the ninety-third country in the world to do this. This is not a new system. It's a tried system that has brought benefits to every single economy and every single country that has joined it, and that is the policy reason for Canada joining this.
