Evidence of meeting #20 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was trademark.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Peter Braid Conservative Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
That was a shameless plug to claim some credit, because it was my motion that triggered that study.
5:10 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
5:10 p.m.
An hon. member
Way to go, Peter.
5:10 p.m.
An hon. member
Well done.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I find it shocking that we have only one hour to study dozens of clauses in this omnibus bill. These clauses should have been an entirely separate bill. That would have allowed us to thoroughly study them in a reasoned, intelligent manner. However, we will not be able to do that.
I have a lot of questions.
One thing you mentioned was the cost associated with registering a trademark. It is true that costs are high for more than 99% of companies. This process is used to register a whole host of trademarks that these companies, quite frankly, will never use. There are, however, some companies that easily have the means to flood the market. For example, when the Internet was first starting up, people registered domain names.
The approach you are talking about seems very naive to me. You said that this won't open the door, that it won't harm a significant number of our companies. However, I'm not entirely convinced that is true.
5:10 p.m.
Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Department of Industry
The point you're raising is that we could see an increase in or an expansion of the number of trademark registrations from abroad that are broad in scope. That's the normal concept of a troll. Instead of identifying just one product or number of products that I'll bring to market, I'll just try to seek to protect the full scope of the marketplace for that product.
I would note that we already have checks and balances in the current system. There's actually nothing to prevent somebody from trying to do that now, other than the examination process that exists and an opposition process that is run by the Canadian Intellectual Property Office. As well, businesses can come forward and complain about the scope of an application, in particular if it's infringing on a trademark that they are already using in the marketplace or for which they have protection.
The risk already exists. It actually hasn't materialized. There's not a flood of trademark trolls; we're hearing now about trolling in copyright as well as patents, so it seems to be an IP phenomenon. In this bill, other than the fact that we are joining the global community in terms of trademarks, there's nothing to suggest that there will be an increase. In fact, we are maintaining the mechanisms to protect, reduce the scope, and deal with it.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC
One second, Mr. Halucha. I appreciate your answer, but I am a bit curious about something.
In his book, titled Intellectual Property Law, Professor David Vaver states that a trademark has no value if it's not being used. I can't understand why continued use of a trademark is contrary to the international agreements we have signed. That is perfectly acceptable. I see no issue there. I don't think that you have demonstrated that continued use of a trademark—to ensure that it is not monopolized or being used inappropriately—is contrary to those agreements.
5:15 p.m.
Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Department of Industry
I'll just note that this bill does not actually eliminate the concept of use. It eliminates the administrative requirement that trademark applicants have to include in their paperwork a statement indicating that they have used their trademark in Canada. So use is still in the system.
For example, applicants still have to show use or propose to use in order to apply for protection in Canada. It's the sole grounds. Applications can also be opposed by third parties on the grounds that the applicant did not use or intend to use the trademark, so it's still grounds to oppose a trademark. If use can't be substantiated, then the trademark cannot proceed.
Consistent with current practice, registered and third parties have the ability to challenge a business for non-use of a trademark before the Trade-marks Opposition Board, so use is still at the core of the trademark system.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Warawa Conservative Langley, BC
This has been a very interesting day and a very good day. When we hear this kind of testimony, how obvious it is that Canada move forward in this direction, and that we've been considering this for over 25 years, it brings back a Liberal leader, not that long ago, who said, “Why didn't we get it done?” I look back on nothing happening, not moving forward on the obvious things that would help Canada and the Canadian economy and jobs.
Now I look at what our government has accomplished in the eight years since we became government. Since we became government, Canada has free trade agreements in force with more than 10 countries, which provides a competitive advantage across a wide spectrum. We've been negotiating with more than 60 countries, including some of the world's key markets. We're moving forward to align with international standards, to eliminate red tape, to reduce the paper burden, to streamline and harmonize with other jurisdictions, and to get in line by adopting best practice standards. It will help the Canadian economy. It will remove some government fees. This has been discussed for over 25 years.
I think back to 2006 when we first became government. The Sydney tar ponds was known in Canada as the dirtiest, most contaminated site in Canada, and it had been studied and studied and studied. Within a couple of months, we committed the funding to fix that horrific environmental disaster and it's solved. It's a beautiful sight now. It's our government that moved forward and got things done.
I'm not going to ask any questions because it's obvious this is the direction in which we need to move. I'm proud that this government is going to move forward. I don't agree with some who would suggest that we study this further. It has been studied with adequate research.
It's obvious that what Canada needs is to move forward in this way, aligned with the international standards. I really thank the witnesses for being here today.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Thank you, colleagues.
We have the unusual luxury now, Mr. Halucha or Ms. Carreau, if you have some closing remarks, if there are any points you'd like to make in finality, you can do that.
5:15 p.m.
Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Department of Industry
There were a couple of points that came up during discussion that we saved to the end. Are you okay if we just answer them? We'll do it between the two of us.
One of the issues raised was whether or not the legislation was unconstitutional. I'd just like to put on the record that it's not unconstitutional. That's point one.
I'll turn it over to Darlene.
5:20 p.m.
Chairperson, Trade-marks Opposition Board, Department of Industry
A concern was raised with respect to the Nice classification and its impact on small businesses. A full examination of fee impact will be undertaken before we move forward and consideration is being given to not charge a fee per class, so there would not be such a big impact on small and medium-sized enterprises.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Thank you very much. Your testimony has been very valuable.
Colleagues, thank you very much.
This concludes our meeting. I'll see you in two days.