Mr. Chair, I want to thank the committee very much for having invited me to come to speak here today.
My name is Ysolde Gendreau. I teach law at the Law Faculty of the University of Montreal, where I have taught for 25 years. Prior to that I obtained a PhD in copyright law at Université Paris II. I am currently vice-president of the international copyright organization that developed the Berne Convention, which is the recognized international convention on copyright. I was president of the Canadian branch and president of an association of professors and researchers on intellectual property during two years. I am speaking to you today as an individual.
I am happy to have the opportunity to speak to you about intellectual property. In the time I have been given, I would like to make three comments. Two of them are of a general nature and the third is more specifically about copyright.
Intellectual property is an essential element in free trade agreements. This has been the case since industrialized — for the most part — countries realized in the 60s that international consensus in intellectual property forums like the World Intellectual Property Organization was extremely hard to reach because of the emergence of the developing countries. In a “one country, one vote” sort of system, developing countries have more weight, and the intellectual property policies presented by the developed countries are not accepted as easily.
Consequently, the World Intellectual Property Organization has trouble moving intellectual property dossiers forward. The World Trade Organization picked up the baton to some degree with the 1994 WTO agreements, which contained a very important chapter devoted to intellectual property, the TRIPS. Even now, the WTO has trouble moving intellectual property policy forward, especially when it comes to matters involving patents on medication.
The international development of intellectual property is now done through regional or bilateral trade agreements. Canada played a role with its first agreement with the United States. That was one of the trade agreements. Last year the TPP Agreement was much talked about in the Financial Times. Editorials implied that the the TPP was practically created to regulate intellectual property. I don't want to deny the importance of agriculture and all these other matters, but you should not be surprised that all these agreements trigger major debates on intellectual property. It could almost be said that it is the sinews of war.
Historically, Canada has had an ambiguous position on these matters. On the one hand, it presents itself as a developed, industrialized country, but it was snubbed at the G6. Then it became a member of the G7, and it belongs to the G20. The fact that it is not a permanent member of the UN Security Council does not sit well with Canada. It wants to be seen as an important industrialized country, but it likes to take the position of a developing country when it comes to intellectual property. Canada's position is very ambiguous on these matters.
If we are experiencing a fourth industrial revolution, knowledge is crucially important. At a certain point, you have to walk the talk, that is to say that you have to put your money where your mouth is. If you want to optimize and value knowledge, intellectual property law is the law that protects it in all its forms. It is difficult to have an industrial position based on knowledge without intellectual property legal tools that are needed for its protection.
That was my first comment.
My second comment is of a general nature and you have probably not heard it often. It is more academic, but it is something I like to mention. As compared to the agreement with Europe, the TPP is shows interest in traditional knowledge. To my knowledge, it is the first time that we have an agreement which refers to this matter.
I'll now switch to English, because I like to do half and half.