Industry Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Ms. Sgro.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

I have a brief question. What if your assessment on that is wrong? Before you would destroy the records would you attempt to contact the individual to ensure that clearly nothing is happening on that issue? I think a lot of work goes into these particular applications.

[Paul Halucha]

Yes, I think that determination would be made, and six years would provide a window for a contact to happen. But, for example, if someone has made a determination not to renew their trademark, then effectively that is a form of communication. They're signalling to CIPO that there is no value to that and they're not going to be renewing it. And, ditto, if they have not undertaken to proceed with the examination of a trademark, they are making an assessment and communicating to CIPO that there is no value to their proceeding. So in both cases, there is an implicit form of communication. But it would be prohibitive to go back to a number of files and seek to have either a document or a signal that in fact they are not of value to the individual any more. But six years, I think, is the objective of providing that sort of a window if a rights holder were to determine two or three years later that they wanted to come forward. But there's a point at which, just from the sheer desire to want to limit the number of records you're maintaining on an ongoing basis and that cost to the crown, you need to declare that they're dead.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

But, does the Canadian Intellectual Property Office, or CIPO, keep statistics on, for example, the number of files abandoned or kept? That statistical data could help determine whether the office's process can be improved. Even if the documents are destroyed, are statistics still kept on the number of patents filed, for example?

[Paul Halucha]

I would need to check with CIPO in terms of whether they would be keeping statistics on how many files. I wouldn't know that.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

That's fine.

[Paul Halucha]

We do have somebody from CIPO here. If the committee would like to ask them to come to the table, they could potentially answer that question.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

I thought that question was interesting because when we were looking into intellectual property, questions were asked about the office's effectiveness and the proper functioning of the process.

[Paul Halucha]

We would be very pleased to provide that information to the committee, if that would be acceptable.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Fine. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Seeing no other debate, shall Liberal-3 carry?

Ms. Charlton.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Sorry, Mr. Chair, just on a point of clarification, didn't Ms. Quach move a friendly amendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

There's no way to move a friendly amendment. She would have to actually put the amendment in writing and we'd have to debate it here. There's no such thing as a friendly amendment.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

We can't move amendments off the floor during clause by clause? Sure we can.

[A voice]

In writing.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Yes, in writing.

[A voice]

No.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

No. We can do that verbally.

[Mike MacPherson]

It has to be in writing.

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Did you think you could do it verbally as well?

I thought that was the whole point of clause by clause, that you could actually have a conversation about this and move amendments.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

We know that's a waste of time anyway.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

It doesn't have to be in both official languages. It just needs to be in writing.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

We might as well just move on.

[Mike MacPherson]

We need the wording.