Industry Committee on June 5th, 2007

[Susan Bincoletto]

If I understand this motion correctly, it's a motion to enable the Governor in Council to make regulations determining the terms and conditions of a licence and who would qualify for such a licence and even the terms for suspension and revocation of a licence.

We've looked at it very quickly and we have some concerns after hearing the testimony, as well, of IPIC in relation to one of the earlier questions to them. The question here is it really does seem to interfere with the rights holder's ability to determine when to license, how to license, and with whom to license. One does not take that lightly in terms of giving the Governor in Council that ability to impose an obligation on the licensing terms and conditions.

It's not something the government has been doing lightly, especially recently, to intervene and impose these kinds of obligations. It may also interfere with provincial jurisdiction, because the conditions of licence is really an issue of provincial jurisdiction. So we have some concerns about this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Masse, do you want to address that?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Yes, but just make sure it's for community and not-for-profit groups.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Masse, I have a question, if I can. I'm not certain why this is necessary and perhaps if you could explain that again. I don't see what this is trying to protect that is covered by the legislation in and of itself right now.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Right now, the way I understand and read the legislation is there is no mandate for VANOC to do this. This compels a process to have rules and regulations out there for aboriginal and community not-for-profit groups. That's why this would create a clear process the Governor in Council would have to do beforehand, specific to those groups, and they would come up with the regulations to do so.

So instead of having it left out, this would be an obligation, but I think that's the gentle balance in all this. I believe it wouldn't adversely affect the property rights holders for trademarks and their usage, seeing it's so specific to those organizations and because we're using symbols that are traditional in nature. We've had concerns raised by different community groups, and that concerns us.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I have just one follow-up question, Mr. Masse.

You can address this as a panel. My understanding in reading this legislation is that if an aboriginal group uses it, or if a not-for-profit group uses one of the trademarks, and it's not for commercial purposes, it's not covered by the legislation. That's why I'm not sure why this is necessary. Because if a not-for-profit group uses it, it's not covered by this legislation.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

These are concerns that have been raised to us. I think I've played this out as basically an insurance policy that I'm looking to move forward. And that's the reason for it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Does anyone from the panel want to comment?

[Susan Bincoletto]

I would tend to agree with the chair. If it's for an abundance of caution, if it's already outside the scope of the legislation, then there's really no need to impose a further obligation. If there is such an imposition of an obligation, it does raise some concerns in terms of how we interfere with the terms and conditions of a private party--in this case, VANOC--to determine who to license with and under which conditions.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

I have Monsieur Arthur.

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

From I have been told, people who used these marks on a regular basis prior to March 2, 2007, have had their rights grandfathered. The aim seems to be to keep in the good books of aboriginal community groups by allowing them to continue their traditions; however, I hope that these traditions started prior to March 2, 2007.

Could somebody please tell me if I am mistaken?

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

You are correct.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

It is an ancestral tradition.

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

I would imagine that the ancestral tradition started prior to March 2, 2007.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Ms. Bincoletto, do you just want to clarify that?

[Susan Bincoletto]

You are absolutely right. The bill grandfathers usage rights that predate March 2, 2007, but does not allow for them to be extended.

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

Thank you, Ms. Bincoletto.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We'll go to Ms. Fry.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

I have just one question of clarification for the panel.

Given that anything that occurred prior to March 2, 2007, is outside the scope of this bill, and given that the inukshuk is an actual symbol coming from the Inuit people themselves, they could continue to use the inukshuk as much as they like in commercial mass communications in whatever ways they need to without having to face consequences from this bill. That is my understanding. Am I right?

[Julie D'Amours]

Yes, that's correct.

I'd like, Mr. Chair, to invite members to look at the schedule and item 18. This is the protected mark that consists of an inukshuk. This is the mark that is protected there. My understanding would be that first nations all across the country would use inukshuk that look different from this one. This is a very stylized inukshuk. You'll see that there's a smile, a special shape, and so on. So this is the mark that is being protected. Any inukshuk that doesn't resemble this one, obviously, can be used by anyone.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Instead of making me feel better, that's now raised a question for me. If we are already saying in the bill that anything that looks like or is similar to one of these trademarks or any of the things in that section that you just held up.... I know you say that this is specific, but an inukshuk is an inukshuk is an inukshuk. And if an inukshuk looks like that--it doesn't have to be exactly like that--are you now telling me that it doesn't come under the understanding of the March 2, 2007 deadline?

[Julie D'Amours]

If any aboriginal business, for instance, were using this particular mark or any mark so nearly resembling it as to be mistaken for this one, and they were using it prior to March 2, they would be safe.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

That's all. Thank you.

[Darlene Carreau]

It's worth noting that it's not simply the inukshuk that is being protected here, but that the elements of Vancouver 2010 and the Olympic rings are included. That is the mark. It's not the inukshuk alone.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Thank you. That's good clarification.