Industry Committee on June 5th, 2007

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

I don't understand very well the intent to micromanage justice. I sure hope that if ever an appeal is lodged, it's going to be judged by somebody who has legal experience. To say that it has to be legal experience in such-and-such an area of justice seems to be a little preposterous, for a parliamentary entity or the Parliament of Canada to say to the head judge of whichever court is going to hear the appeal, “Make sure the guy you name will be competent.” This is kind of funny, as far as I'm concerned.

As much as we have to defer to the courts as far as their ability to judge is concerned, I would be a little bit terrified that any of those modifications could end up justifying somebody deciding that the injunction given will be suspended for the appeal.

How is that timing going about?

Will the right to appeal, which exists regardless of the amendment, allow for the harmful activity to be continued or will the injunction remain in force throughout the appeal?

[Darlene Carreau]

In terms of Federal Court proceedings, Federal Court Trial Division decisions, if the Federal Court is granting the injunction, it is an executory decision. It is a final order, so if a party appeals and wishes not to have that Federal Court Trial Division decision apply, they need to get a stay of that decision.

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I have Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Chair, obviously this is special legislation providing unprecedented powers; hence, I'm suggesting a system within that framework, as opposed to sending it to the existing judicial framework we have. That's the reasoning behind my suggestion. Even the 1976 Olympics bill actually had comprehensive legislation, as opposed to this being very specific to one issue in particular.

So I stand by the motion, and I'm open to amendments. If members have criticisms and suggestions, I'd be happy to receive them as subamendments, and I'll leave it at that.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I don't see any further comments on amendment NDP-3.

(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Can we get a recount?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

(Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to)

(On clause 8--Detention and disposition of imported wares)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I have amendment G-4, on page 10.

Mr. Carrie.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

The object here is to make sure that the English is as specific as the French version.

To make sure it is interpreted in the same way. That is very important.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Is everybody okay with this amendment?

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 8 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 9 to 12 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 13--Schedule 2)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I have amendment NDP-4, on page 11.

Mr. Masse, I'll get you to speak to that.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This simply ensures that schedule 3 is sunsetted with schedule 2. Schedule 2 has an identifiable date, December 31, 2010. Schedule 3 has that part omitted, so this just ensures that it's at the same time and that there can be no misunderstanding of that.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Ms. Fry.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

I think the amendment's addition of schedule 3 is fine, but I just wanted to get a clarification from the panel and Ms. Carreau.

The concern here is that if all we're doing is deleting or repealing schedules 2 and 3, then does clause 6 stay in this, or does clause 6 go as well?

[Darlene Carreau]

Clause 6 stays, but the relevant provision for this is really clause 4 on ambush marketing. The provisions will stay and in fact the schedule will stay. All we're doing is emptying the schedule.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

So you will now have new benchmarks for proving.... I mean, will “irreparable harm” remain, or is it going to sunset? This is what I meant by clause 6.

[Susan Bincoletto]

Clause 12 currently provides for Governor-in-Council authority to prescribe regulations; and clause 6, on the waiving of irreparable harm, which you're referring to, will expire, as prescribed by regulation. And currently it is the government's intent in clause 12 to issue regulations that will make it absolutely clear that the ambush-marketing provision in clause 4 and the waiving of the irreparable harm in clause 6 will cease to have effect as of December 31, 2010.

So there is no link with schedule 3, which is linked more as a factor to determine ambush marketing in clause 4, as my colleague mentioned. But with clause 6, its validity will only have effect as per the regulations.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Thank you. That's what I wanted to find out. That's all I needed to clarify.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Ms. Fry.

(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 13 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 14 and 15 agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Shall schedule 1 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Shall schedule 2 carry?