Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm awfully glad that this amendment gives me a chance, because with one minute per amendment, I don't get to respond in the back and forth unless you give me that latitude, Mr. Chair.
If the honourable government members actually think that this requirement for an assessment, “that the failure occurred in spite of the due care”.... If that's what they think it says, then they've been given bad statutory interpretation.
It means what it says it means. It's not discretionary. The requirements of both the amendments you just defeated and this current section use cumulative requirements before the application can be deemed reinstated. It uses the word “and”. It requires that the commissioner make a finding, a determination that the failure occurred in spite of the due care required by the circumstances.
As such, I couldn't agree more with what Mr. Cullen just pointed out and as we have been told by the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada.... I think we all have to acknowledge that the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada deals with intellectual property day in and day out, which none of us do, and their advice is pretty clear: this is going to end up in court.