The first point that was raised, Mr. Chair, is with respect to inconsistency with other laws. This is not inconsistent with other laws. There is a three-pronged test in the common law dealing with what is required to be granted an injunction.
The government's position is that a specific change is required in this circumstance to do away with the requirement of irreparable harm. So to that extent, we are changing the test as it stands with respect to injunctions, but it is not inconsistent.
It's required primarily because it is very difficult in these types of cases for a party moving to get an injunction in an intellectual property case to prove irreparable harm, largely because we're dealing with money. The court generally comes back and says, “Well, we can just satisfy the claimant and pay them later”, so the conduct can continue, to the detriment of the applicant, and in this case it will be VANOC. So the infringing activity can continue and later on VANOC would be compensated for all the damages that had accrued over the course of the games.
The government's position is that this is not acceptable during the Olympic Games. The intent is to remedy the situation immediately and to stop that activity from happening and not deal with compensating in money later. The damage will have already been done and perhaps cannot be compensated in damages.
Do you want me to comment on their deeming provision?