Evidence of meeting #30 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was vote.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Sylvain Laporte  Commissioner of Patents, Registrar of Trade-marks and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Intellectual Property Office, Department of Industry
Gerard Peets  Senior Director, Strategy and Planning Directorate, Strategic Policy Sector , Department of Industry
Konstantinos Georgaras  Director, Policy, International and Research Office, Canadian Intellectual Property Office, Department of Industry
Agnès Lajoie  Assistant Commissioner of Patents, Canadian Intellectual Property Office, Department of Industry
Denis Martel  Director, Patent Policy Directorate, Strategic Policy Sector , Department of Industry

10:25 a.m.

Conservative

Peter Braid Conservative Kitchener—Waterloo, ON

What are the four top ones then?

10:25 a.m.

Commissioner of Patents, Registrar of Trade-marks and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Intellectual Property Office, Department of Industry

Sylvain Laporte

In order, they are the University of British Columbia, the University of Alberta, Queen's University, and Université Laval.

10:25 a.m.

Conservative

Peter Braid Conservative Kitchener—Waterloo, ON

That's interesting.

This issue of the exercising of the patent in the fifth year, the 25% to 30%, when that happens, is that good for competition or not? Is there potential abuse of this exercising in the fifth year?

10:25 a.m.

Commissioner of Patents, Registrar of Trade-marks and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Intellectual Property Office, Department of Industry

Sylvain Laporte

We talked earlier on about the strategic use of IP for each company, their own strategy. In your market, in your area of technology, there may be an advantage to create uncertainty. There may not be.

Again, going back to the pharmaceutical companies, because of the synchronization requirement with health certification, which takes longer than the patent cycle, they actually don't want to go too fast and there are reasons for that.

Some are probably to create uncertainty, but not every case, for sure.

10:30 a.m.

Conservative

Peter Braid Conservative Kitchener—Waterloo, ON

Mr. Peets, I realize that all of you here are experts in the Canadian system and not the U.S. system, but are there any elements of the U.S. system with respect to the patent regime—the IP regime patent protection—that we may wish to study further and where there are perhaps advantages to the U.S. system?

10:30 a.m.

Senior Director, Strategy and Planning Directorate, Strategic Policy Sector , Department of Industry

Gerard Peets

That's a difficult question for me to answer. There are a lot of complex issues that we are dealing with and it's not always clear. The frameworks are taken as a whole, and it's kind of tough to take little bits of them and compare.

I can point out a couple of differences. Probably the biggest difference, without saying whether it's good or bad—my colleagues may comment—is that in the U.S., software patenting is prevalent. In Canada, it is not.

This is an issue where Canadian software companies are brought up in a school of thought where software is not patentable and they can face challenges when they enter the U.S. market, which is thoroughly patented. That was the example Sylvain gave of patent thickets in the United States.

10:30 a.m.

Conservative

Peter Braid Conservative Kitchener—Waterloo, ON

What is the reason for that difference? Is it culture? Is it business environment? Is it the legal framework, the fact that software is patented and there is more prevalent patenting of software in the U.S.?

10:30 a.m.

Senior Director, Strategy and Planning Directorate, Strategic Policy Sector , Department of Industry

Gerard Peets

It's a feature of the legal framework.

10:30 a.m.

Conservative

Peter Braid Conservative Kitchener—Waterloo, ON

So one of the things we may wish to explore is the difference in the legal framework between Canada and the U.S. as we proceed with our study.

10:30 a.m.

Commissioner of Patents, Registrar of Trade-marks and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Intellectual Property Office, Department of Industry

Sylvain Laporte

Perhaps I could add to that. My colleague, who heads the U.S. IP office, humorously tells us that with the latest act that's been passed in the U.S., the America Invents Act, they're actually catching up to the rest of the world. So I'm sensing, through your questioning, that you believe they have something we should look towards in terms of improvement.

10:30 a.m.

Conservative

Peter Braid Conservative Kitchener—Waterloo, ON

Your sensing is correct.

10:30 a.m.

Commissioner of Patents, Registrar of Trade-marks and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Intellectual Property Office, Department of Industry

Sylvain Laporte

I would maybe offer an opinion that Canada has actually something that they are aspiring to. So they're going to take the next four to five years to implement this new America Invents Act to actually align themselves with a legal framework that is closer to the Canadian framework.

But Canada is also closer to the rest of the world, so the United States is actually coming to the rest of the international community. I'm not saying that there aren't areas in their legal framework that would be beneficial to us, but principally, from a big-picture perspective, they're in a bit of a catch-up mode.

10:30 a.m.

Conservative

Peter Braid Conservative Kitchener—Waterloo, ON

That's interesting. Thank you.

10:30 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Sweet

Thank you very much, Mr. Laporte and Mr. Braid.

I have one quick question, because we've asked around it. On the World Intellectual Property Organization, do you sense there's good momentum internationally for harmonization of the regulatory regimes? Obviously, that's a huge advantage for corporations to have an equal playing field in which the regulatory regime in each country is similar.

10:30 a.m.

Commissioner of Patents, Registrar of Trade-marks and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Intellectual Property Office, Department of Industry

Sylvain Laporte

I guess there are two perspectives to your answer: a policy perspective and an administration perspective. From an administration perspective there's quite a tremendous amount of effort to harmonize our various legal frameworks to make sure that we can operate a lot more smoothly from a global perspective. The World Intellectual Property Organization is at the centre of this, and they've made material progress, in understanding that it's hard to rope in 184 different countries. But they've been successful in the past with some major global agreements that we've adhered to, so it's been quite fruitful for us to participate in those forums.

10:30 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Sweet

Great. That's good news. As long as there's the momentum, it may be complex but if the momentum is there and we see some movement, then that's fantastic. Thank you very much to the witnesses.

We're going to suspend for just two minutes to allow the witnesses to move away from the table, if they like, and then we're going to deal with the votes on the estimates. So we'll suspend for two minutes.

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Sweet

I'll call the meeting back to order to deal with this last portion of business. Perhaps we could take our seats and we'll deal with our votes on estimates.

It looks like we have agreement on our shortened process here.

INDUSTRY

Industry

Vote 1—Operating expenditures..........$320,477,000

Vote 5—Capital expenditures..........$7,139,000

Vote 10—Grants and contributions..........$724,565,000

Vote L15—Payments pursuant to subsection 14(2) of the Department of Industry Act ..........$300,000

Vote L20—Loans pursuant to paragraph 14(1)(a) of the Department of Industry Act ..........$500,000

Canadian Space Agency

Vote 25—Operating expenditures..........$163,079,000

Vote 30—Capital expenditures..........$152,535,000

Vote 35—Grants and contributions..........$36,597,000

Canadian Tourism Commission

Vote 40—Payments to the Canadian Tourism Commission..........$72,033,000

Copyright Board

Vote 45—Program expenditures..........$2,815,000

Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario

Vote 50—Operating expenditures..........$26,588,000

Vote 55—Grants and contributions..........$188,934,000

National Research Council of Canada

Vote 60—Operating expenditures..........$323,633,000

Vote 65—Capital expenditures..........$34,949,000

Vote 70—Grants and contributions..........$169,416,000

Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council

Vote 75—Operating expenditures..........$42,357,000

Vote 80—Grants..........$998,918,000

Registry of the Competition Tribunal

Vote 85—Program expenditures..........$2,161,000

Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council

Vote 90—Operating expenditures..........$23,514,000

Vote 95—Grants..........$661,839,000

Standards Council of Canada

Vote 100—Payments to the Standards Council of Canada..........$7,629,000

Statistics Canada

Vote 105—Program expenditures..........$385,523,000

(Votes 1, 5, 10, L15, L20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90, 95, 100, and 105 agreed to)

ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY

Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency

Vote 1—Operating expenditures..........$74,337,000

Vote 5—Grants and contributions..........$225,214,000

Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation

Vote 10—Payments to the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation..........$57,268,000

(Votes 1, 5, and 10 agreed to)

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF CANADA FOR THE REGIONS OF QUEBEC

Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec

Vote 1—Operating expenditures..........$43,169,000

Vote 5—Grants and contributions..........$252,053,000

(Votes 1 and 5 agreed to)

WESTERN ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION

Western Economic Diversification

Vote 1—Operating expenditures..........$43,223,000

Vote 5—Grants and contributions..........$123,496,000

(Votes 1 and 5 agreed to)

Shall the chair report votes 1 to 105 under Industry; votes 1, 5, and 10 under Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency; votes 1 and 5 under Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec; and votes 1 and 5 under Western Economic Diversification, less the amounts voted in interim supply under Industry, Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, and Western Economic Diversification, to the House?

10:35 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

10:35 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Sweet

Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.

Without anything further, we're adjourned.