Industry committee  Thank you very much for the question. I would agree that the two objectives you outlined, making sure Canadian companies were more competitive and ensuring costs were brought down, were the two policy objectives of the decision the government took to move forward with these treaties.

Industry committee  Thank you very much. In January, the government tabled in Parliament five international treaties that were developed by the World Intellectual Property Office: the Madrid Protocol, the Singapore Treaty, the Nice Agreement, the Hague Agreement, and the Patent Law Treaty. The changes to the Trade-marks Act that are proposed in division 25 of part 6 of Bill C-31 will allow Canada to implement the Madrid Protocol, the Singapore Treaty, and the Nice Agreement.

Industry committee  No, sir. (Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Industry committee  The amendment seeks to limit the tools available to the police who are investigating offences under the Copyright Act. As a result, the RCMP would be unable to seek judicial authority to conduct a wiretap as part of a criminal investigation involving the production of, for example, thousands of infringing DVDs, Blu-rays, or CDs for commercial distribution.

Industry committee  Sure. The effect of the amendment would be to establish a new system of statutory damages, with a mandatory minimum of $1,000 and a maximum of up to $100,000. Statutory damages were not included in Bill C-8, and I would note the following consideration around statutory damages.

Industry committee  I absolutely agree that litigation is expensive. I'd note as well that statutory damages with a range of $1,000 to $100,000 still would provide judges with discretion, ultimately, to make a determination on the appropriate level of damages. To the extent that there's a cost incurred on a rights holder or small business seeking damages, it’s still at the discretion of the court.

Industry committee  It's parallel in the trademarks portion of the bill to what's already been agreed to by the committee on the copyright side.

Industry committee  In answer to your question, the bill does not include a definition of what is individual and what is commercial.

Industry committee  Ultimately it would be for a court to determine. First off, you wouldn't be detained if you were coming into the country at an airport with one Coach purse in your possession. I don't know at what point—two Coach purses, three Coach purses—but at some point you could trigger a commercial...you could be importing on a commercial scale.

Industry committee  I would note, as well, that the committee has already voted against NDP-1, which is similar to this provision but applied to the Copyright Act. Similar to my comments on that earlier amendment, I would note that this is not necessary, as Bill C-8 already clearly exempts parallel imports from the application of the border measures.

Industry committee  Yes, that's an accurate description. Part of the reason for the determination of a time-delineated period is that you want to have stability and certainty in the marketplace. If there were no certainty around a trademark—that it could be amended without a court process at any point ongoing—it would undermine that objection.

Industry committee  Michael agrees.

Industry committee  I'll start off and provide an overview of what the amendment does. Effectively, the amendment removes the requirement for the crown to prove that the accused knew that the trademark was registered and his or her actions were contrary to sections 19 and 20 of the Trade-marks Act.

Industry committee  The ability to actually have filings in electronic form is absolutely something that's supported by this legislation.

Industry committee  But it's the cost of moving documents from written from into digital form that have no value. I think that's the point.