Industry committee  Consultations were undertaken. As I noted, the treaties are not new. The decision for Canada to ratify and accede to the treaties is new. Consultations were undertaken by the Canadian Intellectual Property Office in 2005 on Madrid and Singapore, and in 2010, and then most recently last fall.

Industry committee  The consultations last fall were, I would say, abbreviated. They were done over a month, a month and a half—

Industry committee  However, looking at the earlier consultation periods, the remarks and the comments that came forward were very indicative. I don't think we saw that there had been a big change in terms of what the responses were.

Industry committee  I'm not aware of any concerns raised by the U.S. I'm sorry.

Industry committee  Are you aware of anything?

Industry committee  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.

Industry committee  The one we used last fall was an example of a bottle that had an indentation on each side so you could hold onto it. That couldn't be trademarked as part of the trademark. It's a functional design to be able to lift the bottle.

Industry committee  This really points to the benefits of being part of an international system. On its own, moving Canadians from 15 years to 10 years means that they have to apply five years earlier. On the face of it, it doesn't look like a benefit. However, if you're maintaining a portfolio of trademarks in many jurisdictions, you want them all to come up at the same time, so there are benefits in being able to manage a portfolio without having trademarks coming up for extensions at different points in different jurisdictions.

Industry committee  Just to clarify, when I'm speaking of it as a significant change, it's significant in the context of administrative changes. We're not changing the rights fundamentally the way they were done under the Copyright Act, or the counterfeiting bill that was debated.

Industry committee  Yes. I just want to modify my own words. In terms of consultations, the government consulted on Madrid and Singapore in both 2005 and 2010, and most recently in 2013. I would point out that these are not new treaties. The Singapore Treaty was adopted in 2006—

Industry committee  We can happily do that. Actually, the 2010 consultations are all still available on CIPO's website, including the submissions that were made. I was just in the course of saying that the treaties are not brand new. The Madrid Protocol dates from June 1989. The Singapore Treaty dates from 2006—

Industry committee  You had a number of questions in there. To go back to the first point, the declaration of use form does not signify all of the elements of use that are in the Trade-marks Act. Therefore, getting rid of a single form does not mean that use is not part of the act anymore. For example, section 30(1) of the act, clause 339 of the bill, says: A person may file with the Registrar an application for the registration of a trademark in respect of goods or services if they are using or propose to use, and are entitled to use....

Industry committee  Okay, sorry.

Industry committee  It's a complicated question. I would say that there are two reasons. I think many of them have grown accustomed to a certain way of doing business, and the declaration of use form was a cornerstone of their interactions with their clients both in Canada and internationally. As I noted in my remarks at the beginning, there hasn't been a lot of change in the trademark system for a very long time, so this represents a significant change.

Industry committee  I think I had gone to the end. I was going to recapitulate the points you raised at the beginning. We need a lot in our business dealing with intellectual property with companies. Across the board I have never had a company say it's not complicated enough or they don't feel like there's enough paperwork in their administration process.