I have some comments regarding changes to the intellectual property regime. Most of this division of clauses 44 to 72 are housekeeping measures, but we've heard from a number of stakeholders who are worried about provisions here that grant privilege to patent or trademark agents and their clients.
Mr. Martel said there were consultations with the law societies. The Federation of Law Societies of Canada says:
As we stated in correspondence to Industry Canada in October 2014, the proposal to protect from disclosure the communications between patent and trade-mark agents and their clients raises complex issues and would have significant implications not only for the patent and trade-marks system, but also for the legal profession, other professions, and for the administration of justice.
The Law Society of Upper Canada says:
In the Law Society’s view, there is no public policy rationale for granting solicitor-client privilege to the communications between patent or trade-mark agents and their clients, no evidence that privilege plays a role in the selection of a patent and trade-mark agent, lawyer or non-lawyer and, as Industry Canada’s November 2013 discussion paper noted, “…little evidence of an overarching harm that needs to be remedied”.
The offending measures are contained in clauses 54 and 66, and we will oppose those two.
To Mr. Côté's point, whether it's industry or justice, would it be better for these kinds of changes to be discussed and ultimately voted on by parliamentarians on committees with a greater level expertise in those areas? I'm not a lawyer. I'm not an intellectual property expert, so I rely on informed stakeholders like the law societies, and as I just noted the words of the Law Society of Upper Canada. I take their advice very seriously. That's why we're voting against clause 54 and 66.