Industry Committee on June 5th, 2007

[Cynthia Rowden]

I think that easy and fast access to the courts is something that anyone involved in the legal profession wants. The faster you can get into the courts, the better. In most business contexts now, if you have an urgent situation, you can get before the courts within a day.

I think that IPIC's membership hasn't considered this issue further, so this is really my response rather than IPIC's. Often the experience of parties who have specialized courts is very mixed. If you get a court and you find out afterwards that the judge has a specific bent, then you're stuck with that judge forever. I think that an equally sound response would be to make sure that there is adequate access, and that the Federal Court, for example, which is probably the court that would be responsible for hearing issues relating to the Olympics, should be strongly encouraged to have a body of judges readily available to hear issues on demand.

The Federal Court is now experienced with respect to intellectual property matters. One of our former members is actually on the Federal Court bench right now, and I think that request to the court would probably be met with a positive response. So rather than access to a special court, I think that full access to the full panoply of judges would be preferable.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I'm not a lawyer by trade, so that probably wouldn't be part of this bill. I'm wondering how you would lodge that type of a request on delivery as part of the bill.

[Cynthia Rowden]

Well, it's clear from listening to the presentations around the table today that there are lots of discussions that are taking place with the parties about how the bill will be interpreted and how the bill will be enforced. I think this is just one of the discussions that could easily take place, and a request could be made to the courts to ensure that they have adequate response necessary in the event that a vast number of serious claims are made.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I want to be clear. Are you saying that that can be done within this bill, as an actual clause?

[Cynthia Rowden]

I think it would be difficult to mandate that the court have judges ready, willing, and able to deal with it. I think it would be preferable to discuss it with the court. I think they would probably understand the importance of being available during this time and would make available the resources.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

That's the problem, though, when we pass the bill, that we've just got to hope the courts actually do that. Hopefully in light of this public discussion and concern, that would be made available, but we would have no guarantee of that. Hence, we're back to where we started.

You had another suggestion, as well?

[Cynthia Rowden]

No, it's not really a suggestion, it's a comment, and that is that in urgent situations, parties can get access to the court on very short notice. That happens now. I think that during the Olympics, it could easily happen, as well.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Okay, that's helpful.

Now, for sunsetting then, with regard to the Olympic Games, schedule 2 has a sunset clause, but schedule 3 does not. I've proposed an amendment that would sunset schedule 3, just to ensure there would be consistency. Is that something you think would be favourable to a system: not having an unknown duration out there?

[Cynthia Rowden]

We support sunsetting of the bill to the extent that it deals specifically with activities relating to the Vancouver Olympics. We think that following the experience of the Vancouver Olympics, there may very well be other ways to deal with issues of ambush marketing, and at that time it would be a good time to review, again, the legislation and the way it worked, before being stuck with this legislation forever.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Ms. Northcott, you had mentioned Australia and what they had done over there. Can you provide some more details so that we can understand what happened over there and why it was brought up, and the benefits that happened to athletes who had former relationships in competition through the Olympics?

[Jasmine Northcott]

Thank you.

The legislation that was passed in Australia in preparation for the 2000 Games was very similar to the legislation you have in front of you today. So there were no provisions for athletes; however; athletes were finding it extremely difficult to create sponsorship relationships to promote themselves and garner the funds needed for their training and competition costs.

So in 2001 the government made the amendment to provide athletes and sport organizations, etc., with a bit more freedom, for athletes in particular, to reference themselves and be referenced by their supporters as Olympians and Paralympians.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Do you know if—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, you've got two seconds, Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

We'll just enjoy the silence then.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Just to clarify, Mr. Masse--and I'm sorry, I should have mentioned this at the beginning--all the amendments have been received. They've all been put into a package for members.

I thought, and the clerk thought, that we would distribute those at the beginning of clause-by-clause. If members do want them, they can have them. I just thought it was better to hear from the witnesses.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

They're not tabled here, Mr. Chair, in the summary we have. My amendments are but the government's aren't.

No, I would prefer to have them before the last minute.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

The agenda is slightly outdated. There should have been a new agenda.

If you'd like them....

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Yes, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I would prefer that the entire committee have them at the beginning of clause-by-clause and that we hear from the witnesses while they're here before us. But if you insist on having them, you can have them.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I would prefer to have them, to be prepared for clause-by-clause.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

We'll go now to Mr. Byrne, please, for five minutes.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Thank you very much to our witnesses for presenting evidence to us on the merits of and concerns about the particular legislation before us.

I think all members of the committee are extremely supportive of Canada's and the Vancouver Olympic Committee's efforts to host the best-ever Olympic Games, but there is concern rising for some members of the committee. This issue is either opaque or translucent; you're either on board or you're offside.

What we're hearing here is that there are concerns about Bill C-47 that may extend the boundary beyond existing legislation, that may create a different standard of expectation beyond what is encompassed under the existing Trade-marks Act or Copyright Act.

In fact, to get right down to the point, Ms. Rowden, if a provincial government were to have a similar games event, a provincial games, and use “2010”--even “10”--could they, technically speaking, be in contravention of this proposed legislation, should it be passed?

[Cynthia Rowden]

The answer to that requires you to look at a combination of things within the act.

First of all, clause 3 prohibits the adoption or use in connection with a business. So perhaps a provincial games would not be classified as a business.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Under the circumstances that a provincial games were to sponsor out, to seek corporate sponsors, and to use it, or to attempt to use it, as a licence arrangement, would that be the case? I'm thinking of a parallel provincial Olympics, so to speak.

[Cynthia Rowden]

I think what we'd find in that situation is that any sponsors involved in those provincial games would be under the prohibitions of the statute.

Subclause 3(1) prohibits the use of a number of specifically Olympic terms. So as long as the provincial games didn't use those Olympic terms, that would be okay.

Similarly, schedule 2 refers to a number of terms that are specific to the Vancouver Olympics.

The risk is that the words in schedule 3 and the way in which they would be interpreted leave some doubt amongst sponsors as to what activities would run afoul of the legislation. We think it would be preferable that the court be given more unlimited discretion in dealing with activities that are at the heart of what this legislation is. And what's at the heart of this legislation is preventing activities that improperly suggest an affiliation with the Olympics.