:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'm very pleased to be here today to begin the examination of , Olympic and Paralympic Marks Act.
The legislation is being proposed for two main reasons: first, to follow through on a commitment to the International Olympic Committee, the IOC, during the bid phase of the 2010 Winter Games to adequately protect the Olympic and Paralympic brand, if the games were awarded to Vancouver; second, to enable the Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, commonly and from now on called VANOC, to maximize the private sector participation necessary to make the games a financial success.
My remarks today will situate Bill in its larger context, explain the type of protection it offers, and compare it with the legislative approach taken in other countries that have hosted or will be hosting the Olympic and Paralympic Games.
[Translation]
The 2010 Winter Games in Vancouver will have an enormous impact in Canada and around the world. Consider these numbers: 5,000 Olympic athletes and officials and 1,700 Paralympic athletes and officials. At least 80 participant countries in the Olympics. More than 40 participant countries in the Paralympics. We are expecting 10,000 members of the media and 3 billion television viewers.
These games will be an opportunity to showcase Canada to the world and will result in a significant sport, cultural, social and economic legacy for Canadians. To this end, the federal government has committed $552 million to deliver a successful 2010 Winter Games, including $290 million for sport and event venues. This financial commitment extends to federal essential services such as security, health and immigration, as well as border and meteorological services. It will include a Legacy Endowment Fund that will provide operational funding for 2010 Winter Games sporting venues and fund high-performance and amateur sport programming at those venues and elsewhere in Canada.
[English]
But the federal government's financial contribution is only one part of funding necessary to make these games a success. Increasingly, events of this magnitude are dependent on private sector support to be financially viable. Bill will provide the marketplace framework necessary for that support to flourish, while safeguarding legitimate business practices and non-commercial endeavours.
I'd like to take a few minutes to talk about the importance of corporate partners to the Olympic Games. Over the past decade, corporate participation has become a significant means of generating revenues for events of all kinds, be they local, regional, national, or international in scope. Businesses sign on as partners because they support the event's goals. They sign on because they recognize the value of being associated with an event, in terms of their own image and the potential impact on sales.
The foremost example of the value and importance of corporate partnership is the Olympics. The global audience attracted to the Olympic Games and increasingly to the Paralympics is of obvious interest to companies that want to reach current and potential customers.
The Olympic movement has developed a sophisticated approach to working with those companies. The IOC and national bodies such as the COC, the Canadian Olympic Committee, work closely with companies and organizations that want to become partners of the Olympic Games and national teams, and that want to use Olympic symbols of various kinds in corporate marketing and communications.
[Translation]
Companies compete to earn the right to be official partners in particular product categories for the entire Olympic movement, for a national Olympic body and for specific games. Companies compete to receive licences that allow them to put Olympic symbols and marks on products. They compete for the right to produce items with Olympic themes, for something as simple as a souvenir T-shirt, or as sophisticated as a marketing campaign focused around an entire product line.
These partnerships are now a critical part of the business plans for Olympic and Paralympic Games. In the case of the 2010 Winter Games, VANOC has projected that it will receive 40% of its revenues, or $725 million, from games-related partnerships and licensing agreements.
Now, I would like to take a few minutes to review some of the key measures in Bill .
[English]
I should note at the outset that the current Trade-marks Act offers some protection now to Olympic organizers for Olympic symbols, logos, and words. However, the government is concerned that the Trade-marks Act may not fully address the legitimate needs of Olympic organizers in responding to threats to their intellectual property rights.
The government is likewise concerned that the current legal framework does not provide sufficient protection against so-called “ambush marketing”, an increasingly common phenomenon in which non-partner companies find ways to falsely associate their business with the games, in the public's mind.
The first thing that Bill C-47 does is identify what Olympic and Paralympic words, symbols, and other indicia it serves to protect. These can be found in schedules 1 and 2 of the bill.
The next thing it does is identify VANOC, the COC, and the CPC, the Canadian Paralympic Committee, as the entities authorized to exercise the rights and remedies associated with these marks, or to license those rights to their various corporate partners where appropriate.
Bill C-47 then sets out two main types of conduct that it would prohibit. The first such prohibition applies to the use of an Olympic or Paralympic mark in connection with a business, or a mark that is likely to be mistaken for one, without the consent of VANOC until 2010; and after that, for the marks found in schedule 1, consent would have to be given by the COC or the CPC.
The second such prohibition applies to the so-called ambush marketing behaviour I mentioned earlier. It prohibits non-partner companies from behaving in a manner that is likely to mislead the public into believing that they or their products or services are endorsed by, or otherwise commercially associated with, the games, VANOC, or the COC or CPC.
[Translation]
Beyond that, the bill sets out the various remedies available in the event these two prohibitions are not respected. For the most part, these are the same remedies available to rights holders under the Trade-marks Act, with one noteworthy exception, as I'm about to explain.
Trade-mark litigation is often lengthy and it can be very difficult to convince a court to put a stop to the allegedly infringing activity pending the outcome of the trial. Given the short duration of the Games, and the tremendous potential for economic harm during that period, it is important that speedy interim remedies be available to immediately stop this type of misconduct. Bill thus provides that a rights holder, namely VANOC, the COC/CPC or a corporate partner, may apply to the Court for an injunction against an alleged infringer, or ambush marketer, pending trial, without having to prove that it would suffer "irreparable harm" if the impugned activity continues. Having to prove "irreparable harm" is the single greatest obstacle in convincing a court to grant this type of remedy in ordinary trade-mark cases.
However, this is a time-limited exception which will expire the same year as the Olympic flame is extinguished in Vancouver.
So, under Bill , when a person or company seeks to profit improperly from the 2010 Winter Games, the legal framework will be in place for VANOC to protect its rights—and the rights of its partners and licensees—quickly and effectively.
[English]
As l've explained, Bill gives the designated Olympic organizations the authority to protect the Olympic brand from unauthorized and illegitimate use. But this protection is neither overly broad nor oppressive.
Most importantly in this regard, it should be understood that Bill only applies in a commercial context. For example, the use of a protected Olympic or Paralympic mark is only prohibited when it is “in connection with a business, as a trade-mark or otherwise”. This “in connection with a business” phrase was taken from the Trade-marks Act and has been interpreted rather strictly by the courts. In order for the use of a mark to qualify as infringement under the act, its primary purpose must be commercially driven. The use of a mark as a tool to promote goods or services in the marketplace would be the obvious example.
This is important because some of the news coverage of Bill suggests that it could apply outside a commercial context, to stifle artistic works, or to prevent individuals from parodying the games. That is not the government's intent, as evidenced by the “in connection with a business” proviso and the inclusion of a “greater certainty” provision, which confirms that the use of an Olympic or Paralympic mark in a news report or for the purpose of criticism does not constitute infringement under the bill.
So if someone wants to create a piece of art for non-commercial purposes, to criticize the Olympic Games in a sketch, to publish an editorial cartoon, to make derogatory comments on a website or through a newspaper article, they can refer to an Olympic mark or include a representation of an Olympic logo, as they see fit.
In addition, the bill contains a grandfathering provision that prevents it from applying to anyone who began using a protected Olympic or Paralympic mark before March 2, 2007, the date of the bill's introduction in this House. As a result, persons or companies that were already using an Olympic or Paralympic mark in connection with a business will continue to be able to do so without fear of facing legal proceedings under the bill, provided the use in question relates to the same products or services or the same class of product or service as before.
[Translation]
Similarly, this bill contains a number of safeguards to protect the legitimate use of an Olympic or Paralympic mark in a business context. For example, a person may use such a mark in an address, in the geographical name of their place of business, or to the extent necessary to explain a good service to the public.
It also bears mentioning that Bill C-47 has a time-limited aspect to it. The special enforcement measures it confers lapse December 31, 2010, once the Games' year is over.
Finally it is important to note that VANOC has committed to use its intellectual property rights under the bill in a discipline, sensitive, fair and transparent manner. It will develop guidelines which describe the criteria and process VANOC will apply in determining what type of activities it considers problematic under the bill.
I will conclude my remarks with a brief comment on the international context of Bill .
It is important to remember that Canada is not out of step with the international community with this proposed legislation. We are simply reflecting best practices established by other host countries of recent and upcoming Games.
Moreover, Canada already passed time-limited legislation similar to Bill C-47 for the 1976 Montreal Games, which enabled the organizing committee to act swiftly in the face of potential commercial misuse of the Olympic symbols.
[English]
That kind of legislation became the norm during the 1990s. The United States, Australia, Greece, and Italy have all strengthened the legal protection for Olympic-related intellectual property rights. Furthermore, the upcoming games in London and Beijing are already the subject of such protection under the national laws of those host countries.
As I said earlier, partnerships have become a fundamentally important source of revenue for major events, particularly international sporting events. And governments around the world have recognized the need to protect the IPRs of organizers in order to ensure that those events attract the necessary revenues from partners and licensees. The government believes Canada can and should do the same through Bill .
Thank you for your attention, and I'm open to your questions.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon, everybody.
I must say, it's quite a privilege to be here to have a chance to speak with you this afternoon with my colleagues, Bill and Anita.
My goal, after having sat at the back of the room, is to try to make you more comfortable with where we are on this bill. We're in the happy position, I think, to be here and to be able to say that we've enjoyed fantastic support here in Ottawa from all of the parties in the House of Commons for a long, long time, and that feels very good to us.
My job is to lead the organizing committee and to make sure that our project is delivered on time and on budget. A preoccupation of mine is to maintain the reputation of VANOC both here in Canada and around the world and to look after our good health as best we can.
The vision we have at Vancouver 2010 is a vision of a stronger Canada because of our passion for sport, for culture, and for sustainability. Our goal, really, is to try not to just deliver spectacular Olympic and Paralympic Games in Vancouver, but to be relevant in every home in the country, to share this experience with all Canadians, to count in all parts of Canada so that this event will be one that touches the soul of the whole country and leaves profoundly positive, lasting legacies that we will enjoy well into the future.
So I thank you again for the opportunity to be here. We're working extremely hard in Vancouver to deliver excellent games that you will all be proud of and will all feel that they were really worth the effort that we're putting in.
In less than three years, the Olympic flame will arrive in Canada and three billion people will watch this project unfold on television around the world. We will have the largest television audience in Olympic history. So now, of course, we're putting that story together so that we have something profoundly important to say. We want to make the country proud, and these are Canada's games. These are your games. They're about all of us and not just about a few of us on the west coast. For us, our inspiration is about trying to do something great for the country and about shaping our international reputation.
Our private sector partners have made unprecedented financial commitments to the games, some of the biggest in Olympic history in any country in the world, including the United States and China. The situation we're in today is that we have this extraordinary partnership between government and the private sector in that our government partners have taken on responsibility for providing us with funding to deliver spectacular Olympic and Paralympic venues and they're also looking after securing the games. The private sector is responsible for generating the revenues necessary to stage the operations of the games. That's the area of concentration for us today, the sort of $1.65-billion operating budget, which relies entirely on private sector funding.
It's quite the partnership. Half of that budget, half of that $1.65 billion, or so, comes from Canadian companies, big and small, through sponsorship, licensing, and merchandising programs, from companies like the one Anita Chandan is from. Anita is with Hunter Canada in Montreal. She's here with us today and she is one of the proud licensees of Olympic merchandise.
So we have to raise enough money to deliver the games, and our goal is, because this is a one-time opportunity, to leave a positive financial legacy that will benefit young people in sport so that we can maintain this important Olympic legacy that's developing on the west coast. It's important for us to do this so that we are never put in a position of having to come and ask anybody to help us out. We want to deliver it this way. This is the partnership we have, and we fully intend to deliver on that. We never want to come back and have to ask for help because we haven't been able to meet our obligations.
This is about protecting everybody's investment, yours and that of our partners, so quite a bit is expected of us in that regard. This bill, from our perspective, is essential to protecting the Olympic brand in Canada and the integrity, particularly of the Vancouver 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games, to protect the investment of these small and large companies that are proudly supporting this project, some of them at levels we have never seen before in Canadian history. It's really important for us to protect those companies that have made this commitment on the basis of our commitment to them.
As you know, it was stated earlier that we gave a promise in 1993 in Prague that this protection would be there, and we've given that promise as a result of that commitment. These companies and our partners have relied heavily on it, and hence we have these extraordinary commitments today, which I spoke about earlier.
The other thing about this is that if we can maintain that, we have a very good chance of attracting more support from other companies who are looking at the Olympic Games as a great opportunity to invest, not just in this project, but in the country itself.
So it is about keeping our word and about protecting these marks, because we said we would. I remember the words we used in Prague—that a promise made in Canada is a promise kept. It is about protecting small businesses. You'll hear from Anita in a few minutes about her company and their particular story and what led to their decision to invest in the games. It applies only in connection with a business or commercial association. That's the only thing we're concerned about. It's business or commercial association with the games. It's not about people who wish to parody, protest, or write about the games. That's not our goal.
This bill honours Canadian athletes, because it helps to ensure that the necessary funding to have our athletes on top of the podium in 2010 is in place. As you know, we are partners with the Government of Canada in making sure that we have enough money to have the best team in the world on the field of play in Vancouver in 2010. The Government of Canada has committed $55 million, and VANOC, working with our partners, has committed the other $55 million. Many of these companies are out there raising that money today and are relying heavily on this protection to do that.
It also, I think, enhances the prospect of legacy funding after the games. If we do a good job and we can provide the protection, and we find new partners, then there's a good chance we will leave a very great financial legacy such as the one that was left by Calgary after the 1988 games.
I want to tell you that we will work to ensure that any concerns from athletes respecting their ability to use their status as Olympians and Paralympians will be addressed. We will work with you to ensure that this is not an issue. Of course, as you've heard also, the legislation is time-limited, as it applies to VANOC and the 2010 games, to December 31, 2010. However, it will continue to provide the COC and the CPC with the ability they need to protect the Olympic and Paralympic brand after the 2010 games are over. As was mentioned earlier, should Canada decide to bid for the Olympic games in the future, then this piece of legislation will be an important legacy for them, because this was a considerable piece of work for the organizing committee back in 2002-03. There was quite a lot of work that had to go into getting these assurances in place.
One of the questions asked—and I'll cover it here—is about the guidelines and education. Once the legislation—and maybe I'm assuming something here—is passed, we would immediately then produce the guidelines and the education program, put those on our website, make them public, communicate them across the country. The effect those guidelines will have should be to give everyone the assurance that there will be no freelancing from VANOC. VANOC's interest is to be fair-minded, to be honest and thoughtful and upfront in how we deal with this. So our goal would be to have those guidelines everywhere so we could prevent this from happening and not have to deal with it after the fact. So we would move quickly to make those public so people would know how we're holding ourselves to account and what we're asking the community to do as well.
I think, really, we need to use common sense to apply this, and we will. You have my word on it. We are committed to applying the legislation in a disciplined, sensitive, fair, and transparent manner. We have to do this so it will benefit everybody. We trust that all of the parties will come together around the games and that this is something we will all support. This legislation is important to us. It will help us to do a good job. It really speaks only to the future and not to the past.
Our primary objective, Mr. Chair, is to work our way through these things as they come up. It's not to walk to court; it's not to seek those remedies. It's to sit down and work through with people what we need to do to achieve a good outcome. That's the best, I think, for everyone. If we can do that well and we work well together, we believe we can deliver a project in Canada that is unprecedented worldwide. Our goal, as I said, is just simply to do our job the best way we can.
What I think I'd do now is ask Anita to make a few comments for her company, if that works for you.
First of all, thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to speak.
I'd like to speak on the part of small business. There are many different partners in the Olympic movement. There are large companies like Bell Canada who have invested in this movement, but there are also very small companies like our own.
[Translation]
Hunter Canada is a small company established in Montreal. We have an office in Montreal and another one in Toronto, which is now the address for our new licence. We also have a distribution and sales centre in Vancouver.
[English]
We were very pleased recently to be chosen by the Vancouver Olympic Committee to produce novelty items and souvenir items using the Olympic marks. We are perhaps, then, your official T-shirt company that you were talking about.
While the eyes are going to be on Canada during the Olympic Games, our mandate is to give every Canadian and every visitor to the games the opportunity to take home a souvenir, a souvenir representing the quality of what Canadian companies can represent.
We are firmly based in Canada. We do over 80% of our production in Canada. We're a Canadian company, offering Canadian products, believing in the Canadian movement.
I have to say that our Olympic licence represents a significant strategic investment on behalf of a company of our size. We're a small company, doing approximately $5 million in sales.
In undertaking this venture we had to make a commitment to pay the guarantees in the sales, guarantees of over actually a half million dollars, which is not a small amount for a company of our size. However, this is dwarfed, really, in comparison with the funds that we're going to invest in this program over the course of the next three years.
We invested because we're confident that this investment will be sound and that our business will grow, and it will give a positive legacy to our firm.
My journey to Vancouver began in Lillehammer in 1992 as a licensee of the Canadian Olympic movement, and we were thrilled when VANOC decided to choose us to be a part of this amazing event. However exciting the opportunity was, we really had to think, as a small company, what this investment would do to us. If we managed it properly internally, and if we were given the protection that we needed from our licensor, this could be an opportunity to raise our company to the next level, doubling our sales staff, doubling our sales in general. However, if it wasn't managed properly internally and if we didn't have protection and were faced with other companies that didn't make these kinds of investments, then it could ruin us as a company, following the games. This is the type of investment that is make or break for companies of our size.
We are concerned about the losses that we could incur should adequate legal protection not exist to effectively address the sale of cheap counterfeit Olympic goods. We've already begun production on merchandise based on forecasted sales, and this will result in a large amount of inventory that we're going to carry leading up to the 2010 games. If passed, will offer our business the assurance that our exclusive rights to produce officially licensed merchandise will be protected and that the value of its significant investment will not compromised by the saturation of counterfeit products in the marketplace.
As a Canadian company, Hunter is proud of our association with the 2010 games. We feel that our licence is just one important legacy that the games will deliver to Canadians and Canadian businesses.
We do feel, I'd like to say, that VANOC has made it a point to make this Canada's games—not just Vancouver's and not just B.C.'s. The group of licensees ranges from Montreal to Quebec City to Toronto to London to Winnipeg—all across the country—with the same goal in mind: to be part of this program.
We intend to increase our jobs in Canada—increase our marketing team, our sales team, warehouse team, as well as production staff. Our company is a reflection of Canada, with the ethnic and cultural diversity within our own company.
Whether a small company like ours or Bell Canada, I think that we all have the same aim in mind: to be a part of this program and to make a commitment to the Olympic movement, as well as to athletes. The royalties that we pay to VANOC go to athletes, so companies like retailers or consumers buying from outside the licensee base don't have to pay the royalties, which again, goes back to the Olympic movement.
So on behalf of Hunter Canada and other official licensees, I would ask the committee to support the smooth passage of this bill.