Bill C-29 · 38th Parliament · Paul Martin
An Act to amend the Patent Act
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedDec. 3, 2004
- Debated in principleDec. 13, 2004
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberFeb. 10, 2005
- Passed the second chamberApril 13, 2005
- Became lawMay 5, 2005
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Paul MartinPrime Minister
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
83% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (601 words introduced, 624 passed).
moderate changeintent mostly kept
The bill retained its core rules on correcting past fee underpayments and requiring both Houses' committees to vet advisory committee candidates. It added a new section importing schedules from a related 2004 act, a clarifying subsection on certain patent applications, and split the coming-into-force rules to tie part of the bill to that other act.
- Narrowed the information a person must supply when correcting a fee payment.
Before: “the day on which the prescribed fee was paid, the service or proceeding in respect of which the fee was paid and the patent or application in respect of which the fee was paid.”
After: “the service or proceeding in respect of which the fee was paid and the patent or application in respect of which the fee was paid.”
- Added a new subsection clarifying that the fee-correction rule also covers applications mentioned in sections 78.1 and 78.4.
After: “(5) For greater certainty, this section also applies to applications for patents mentioned in sections 78.1 and 78.4.”
- Inserted a new section 2.1 that adds Schedules 1 to 4 from the Jean Chrétien Pledge to Africa Act into the Patent Act.
After: “2.1 The Act is amended by adding, after section 103, Schedules 1 to 4 set out in An Act to amend the Patent Act and the Food and Drugs Act (The Jean Chrétien Pledge to Africa), being chapter 23 of the Statutes of Canada, 2004.”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: HardDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill uses fixed twelve-month deadlines and deeming rules tied to exact payment dates, creating clear black-and-white outcomes for fee corrections. It also contains broad phrases that leave room for argument over what counts as a qualifying payment or consequence.
Open to argument
“For greater certainty, this section also applies to applications for patents mentioned in sections 78.1 and 78.4”
The clarifying phrase signals potential ambiguity in the core rule's coverage.
Clear-cut
“no later than twelve months after that day”
A fixed calendar period supplies an objective cutoff.“the payment is deemed to have been paid on the day on which the prescribed fee was paid”
The deeming provision creates a definite legal fiction once conditions are met.
Discretion. Coming-into-force dates are left to the Governor in Council, and the standing committees exercise discretion when judging candidate eligibility and qualifications before advising the ministers.
Challenging the law itself. The provisions contain no obvious vagueness or overbreadth that would readily engage section 7 liberty or section 2 Charter rights in a facial challenge.
Disputing a charge under it. A person could dispute whether a submitted payment truly qualifies under the twelve-month window or relates to the correct patent or proceeding, given the information requirements and deeming language.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
no evaluation found
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.