Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As Mr. Cullen was kind enough to welcome me to committee, I remind you all that I'm here because I've been summoned. Thank you very much. I'm sure you're all glad to have at least some gender parity around the table. A bit shocking, but anyway here we go, my amendment.
As Mr. Cullen suggested, you have had x evidence from patent experts. I draw my amendment from the advice you received on November 14 from the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada. This amendment to page 305 of the omnibus bill, proposed paragraph (b), says, just to give you the context, that the subsection is deemed never to have produced its effects if:
(b) the Commissioner determines that the failure occurred in spite of the due care required by the circumstances having been taken and informs the patentee of this determination.
This is exactly as Nathan was just saying, injecting uncertainty and standards that the experts in this field believe are going to cause difficulty. As the expert evidence from the Intellectual Property Institute pointed out, Bill C-43 changes the reinstatement procedure very substantially. I quote:
In some circumstances, reinstatement is only permitted upon a determination by CIPO that the applicant's failure to take action.... The due care standard is not mandated by the PLT. It is inherently uncertain and subjective.
On that basis, I hope you'll consider this amendment favourably.