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.
4:50 p.m.
Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Department of Industry
Are you aware of anything?
4:50 p.m.
Chairperson, Trade-marks Opposition Board, Department of Industry
No. I'm not aware of anything.
4:50 p.m.
Chairperson, Trade-marks Opposition Board, Department of Industry
Yes, and I find that surprising, because the United States does not require use of all of its trademark applicants. The United States has adopted a dual system, whereby those foreigners filing in the United States are not required to provide a declaration of use, but domestic filers in the United States are required to provide a declaration of use.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
We all want to see a reduction of red tape, and we all want to see businesses in our country succeed; there's no question about that. It doesn't matter which party you're talking about. This is about our own country being successful.
What impacts are the proposed changes going to have on the number of trademark registrations in Canada by foreign companies?
4:50 p.m.
Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Department of Industry
The expectation, and what we've seen in other countries when they've proceeded to Madrid, is that the number of foreign applications does increase. By virtue of the fact that you're plugging into an international system with many dozen countries, there is certainly going to be an increase in the number of applications coming forward in Canada.
That does have certain benefits. First off, you can't plug into an international system that is that much bigger than Canada and not expect there to be more trademark applications coming into Canada. However, the benefit is that Canadian businesses get access to that global market. It's much easier for them to protect their IP, their trademarks, in every one of those countries. So it's a commensurate benefit.
Second, for consumers who are looking to have the latest products come onto the market, it's very positive that international and multinational corporations and companies that sell the types of products that Canadians wants to buy will have a much easier way of getting the protection to bring those products to the market in Canada. So we see there is a benefit for both businesses and consumers on that side.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
There certainly would be a reduction; as far as internal efficiencies, it would be far more efficient with what you're saying would happen. There would be a lot of efficiencies gained, which is why—
4:55 p.m.
Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Department of Industry
Efficiency, absolutely. The efficiency gains will happen, especially with companies that want to enter other marketplaces. For example, right now if a Canadian company wants to sell products in, say, three other countries in Europe, they need to get lawyers in those countries. If they want to sell in South America, they have to get lawyers in South America. They have to know what the language is. They need to complete their registration package in that language, and they need to hire a lawyer in each of those jurisdictions.
By virtue of the fact that we've joined the Madrid Protocol, there will be a single stop in Canada or in any other country in the Madrid Protocol: one application, one fee, one language, and the ability to seek protection wherever the Canadian business wants to do business.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
Thank you, Mr. Halucha.
Thank you, Madam Sgro.
On to Mr. Van Kesteren.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
This Madrid agreement or system has been around a long time, since the 1800s, and it's somewhat confusing. I read that there was a perceived flaw. This is the reason the United States, Canada, and Japan haven't been signatories to this. Has there been any work done to if the home registration was based under a central attack, something along those lines? Have they addressed those issues, or has Canada felt at this time that these were not sufficient things to worry about?
4:55 p.m.
Chairperson, Trade-marks Opposition Board, Department of Industry
Those issues were addressed in the new agreement in 1989, and the United States and Japan are both signatories.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
Chairperson, Trade-marks Opposition Board, Department of Industry
There were issues, and the U.S. led some of the negotiations to have the agreement changed to allow for that.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
Now, is the move to sign these three agreements part of our Canada-Europe free trade agreement?
4:55 p.m.
Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Department of Industry
It's not part of the Canada-Europe free trade agreement, although when we were preparing advice and advising the government on this, we certainly felt there was a strong convergence. With the fact that a trade deal had just been done with Europe and there were huge opportunities for Canadian companies to access those markets, greater than before, IP administration was a natural thing to also bring into alignment.
There's not a specific requirement; there's not an international obligation. In fact, arguably the only benefits to joining are for Canadian businesses. There's no real lever that any country would have to try to entice us or push us to join. As you noted, it has been around for a number of years. Just to build on what Darlene had said, I think we are close to being one of the last developed countries to join. One of my staff likes to use the phrase that we have a late-mover advantage on this. All of the problems have been worked out, and effectively it's a highly functioning regime that's more and more productive every year.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
In fact, we're a late mover on all three agreements. It's curious. I just wonder why the United States would lag on that and yet they are part of the Singapore Treaty. Is there a reason behind why the United States would have waited so long to join the one and yet they were a signatory on the Singapore?
4:55 p.m.
Chairperson, Trade-marks Opposition Board, Department of Industry
I think you had it right when you started. Their concern was around, I think, pending applications. Previously you were required to have a registered mark before you could file using Madrid. There were also concerns around what you mentioned as a central attack, where if your international registration falls, that you lose those applications or registrations in the foreign countries. Those have now been worked out, and the U.S. is a member of the Madrid system.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
I guess the question begs to be asked as well: why did Canada lag so long?
You're smiling.
It's almost as though we invited the pirates to our shores. Would it attract more business if we did? Maybe it's the type of business we don't want to have. It seems to be the right thing to do. Why did we take so long to do this?
4:55 p.m.
Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Department of Industry
I think the easiest answer is around how much national debate and parliamentary debate took place around the Copyright Act. Had that act been done more quickly, I think people would have looked at other international agreements. That was such a difficult journey for Canada to get through that some things were delayed, and this was one of them.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
So, the move by the government to put these agreements in place will put us in a position to be a much better trading partner, right?
5 p.m.
Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Department of Industry
Absolutely, and you're right. Often, when we travel internationally one of the complaints that's brought forward points around how well Canada's IP regime has evolved. We hadn't up to this point signed on to the three treaties that are recognized and have been implemented by all of our trading partners.
It was viewed as an indication that we didn't get IP as much as we should have, and it's important in terms of international business.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
We had tremendous struggles in the past to get these things done. I know there has been quite a lot of fervour around some of the things that we've done in our omnibus bills, but these things were necessary in order to enact these laws, so that we could be in a position to be better trading partners and to move our—
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Sweet
We're locked in an affirmation and not a question, Mr. Van Kesteren. We're way over again.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
Can I just get a yes or no?
It's yes. Thank you.
5 p.m.
Conservative