Bill C-47 (Historical)

Olympic and Paralympic Marks Act

An Act respecting the protection of marks related to the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games and protection against certain misleading business associations and making a related amendment to the Trade-marks Act

This enactment provides for the protection of Olympic and Paralympic marks and protection against certain misleading business associations between a business and the Olympic Games, the Paralympic Games or certain committees associated with those Games.
This enactment also makes a related amendment to the Trade-marks Act to preclude the registration of a trade-mark whose adoption is prohibited by this enactment.

Message from the Senate

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend Her Excellency the Governor General in the Senate chamber Her Excellency was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill C-12, An Act to provide for emergency management and to amend and repeal certain Acts--Chapter 15;

Bill C-294, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (sports and recreation programs)--Chapter 16;

Bill S-6, An Act to amend the First Nations Land Management Act--Chapter 17;

Bill C-40, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act, the Excise Act, 2001 and the Air Travellers Security Charge Act and to make related amendments to other Acts--Chapter 18;

Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts--Chapter 19;

Bill C-277, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (luring a child)--Chapter 20;

Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Public Service Employment Act--Chapter 21;

Bill C-18, An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to DNA identification--Chapter 22;

Bill C-60, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2008--Chapter 23;

Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (adoption)--Chapter 24;

Bill C-47, An Act respecting the protection of marks related to the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games and protection against certain misleading business associations and making a related amendment to the Trade-marks Act--Chapter 25;

Bill C-61, An Act to amend the Geneva Conventions Act, An Act to incorporate the Canadian Red Cross Society and the Trade-marks Act--Chapter 26;

Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Quarantine Act--Chapter 27;

Bill C-59, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (unauthorized recording of a movie)--Chapter 28;

Bill C-52, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2007--Chapter 29;

Bill C-288, An Act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol--Chapter 30.

It being 12:23 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, September 17, 2007, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

The first session of the 39th Parliament was prorogued by royal proclamation on September 14, 2007.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bills:

Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (adoption).

Bill C-47, An Act respecting the protection of marks related to the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games and protection against certain misleading business associations and making a related amendment to the Trade-marks Act.

Bill C-61, An Act to amend the Geneva Conventions Act, An Act to incorporate the Canadian Red Cross Society and the Trade-marks Act.

Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Quarantine Act.

Bill C-59, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (unauthorized recording of a movie).

Bill C-52, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2007.

Bill C-288, An Act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol.

Olympic and Paralympic Marks Act

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little disappointed to hear my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster speak about all of the doom and gloom, how terrible things are going to be, and all the budget overruns.

I was encouraged by my colleague across the floor, the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, because he spoke with great optimism, which is exactly what our government is doing. The Winter Olympic Games in 2010 in Vancouver and Whistler are going to be a huge opportunity for Canadians. It is not about doom and gloom. The only doom and gloom we had from the NDP was 10 years in the wilderness in British Columbia when successive NDP administrations drove the provincial treasury into the ground.

It is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-47 which actually protects the trademarks and licensing rights for the Vancouver-Whistler 2010 winter games.

As we know, the 2010 winter games will be an event with enormous impact in British Columbia but also in Canada and around the world. Consider these numbers. There will be 5,000 Olympic athletes and 1,700 Paralympic athletes and their officials. More than 80 countries will participate in the winter Olympics and 40 countries will participate in the Paralympic games. There will be 10,000 media representatives present at those games and over three billion television viewers around the world.

To ensure the success of the winter games the Vancouver organizing committee, which we refer to as Vanoc, needs a solid legal and financial foundation. Bill C-47 will meet our government's commitment to the International Olympic Committee to protect the Olympic and Paralympic brands. It will allow Vanoc to raise the sponsorship money from the private sector necessary to complete the games and to make sure that they finish within budget, are successful and leave a significant legacy for Canada.

Consider the Calgary Winter Olympics of 1988. Even today, almost 20 years later, athletes from around the world still descend upon Calgary to use its Olympic facilities, which are an abiding legacy of those games.

Is this bill important? Of course it is. John Furlong, who is the chief executive officer of Vanoc, has said that the organizers need resources of about $1.87 billion to stage the games. One of the most important sources of funding for those games are corporate sponsorships. In fact, approximately 40% of revenues will come from partnerships and licences.

The value in those partnerships and licences comes from two main factors. First, the sponsors and licensees need to receive great public exposure and marketing advantages from their association with such a positive, high profile public event like the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver and Whistler. Second, the nature of the 2010 winter games is unique. There is no other event like it in the world. There is no other event in the world that year that is likely to draw as many TV viewers or capture as much of the world's attention and that is value. That is why we get sponsors for the Olympic games.

Under Bill C-47, if an unauthorized person or company tries to profit from the 2010 winter games, Vanoc will have the legal tools to protect its rights and the rights of its partners and licensees effectively and quickly. The current Trade-marks Act provides some protection, but it is not enough. There are concerns that it may not fully address the legitimate needs of the organizers of the Olympics in responding to threats against their marketing rights.

There are also concerns that the current legislation does not allow emerging threats to be dealt with. This is particularly true of so-called ambush marketing, in which companies find ways to falsely associate their business with the winter games in the public's mind. Bill C-47 addresses these concerns by allowing Vanoc to use legal remedies when necessary, yet maintaining a balanced approach to the issue.

I do not have time to comment on each part of this bill, but I do want to take a few minutes to remind my colleagues in the House of some of the bill's key measures.

First, the Olympic and Paralympic marks act explicitly defines the words, symbols and other marks that are to be protected against fraudsters. The bill protects the rights of Vanoc, the Canadian Olympic Committee and the Canadian Paralympic Committee to defend these marks. They can use the remedies under the bill and can consent to assign those rights to their various partners, where appropriate.

What are some of those marks? I have a list of well over 60 here. Canadians will be familiar with the five Olympic rings and also the Olympic torch, or the official symbol of the 2010 Olympic games, the inukshuk. There are many more words and symbols that are synonymous with the Olympic games and these are officially being protected under the bill we have before us today.

The bill goes on to set out two main types of conduct that will be prohibited.

First, no one can use an Olympic or Paralympic mark in connection with a business without the agreement of Vanoc. That lasts until the end of 2010.

Second, the bill prohibits so-called ambush marketing, which I referred to before. It prohibits people or businesses from doing business in a way that is likely to mislead the public into believing that those businesses or those persons and their products and services are linked to the winter games, when in fact they are not and they have not paid for that right.

Beyond that, the bill also provides for a number of exceptions and sets out the various remedies available in the event that these rights are not respected.

One of the reasons we have introduced this bill is to specifically address ambush marketing. Some of our viewers may wonder what that is exactly. It is an attempt by an unauthorized person or business to act in a way that causes the public to believe that they are connected to the 2010 games. As I mentioned before, that will now be prohibited.

Unfortunately, the courts can often take a long time to adjudicate those kinds of disputes. In fact, it is very difficult to convince a court to issue an injunction and to stop the alleged illegal use of a trademark before a trial is finished. Such delays would be a huge problem for the 2010 games in Vancouver-Whistler, since the games would be over by the time the trial is complete. The damage to the games would already have been done and there would be little, if any, chance of recovery of those damages.

That is why Bill C-47 allows Vanoc to put a stop to ambush marketing without having to prove that the games will suffer irreparable harm. That irreparable harm standard is the greatest obstacle to convincing a court to grant an injunction in trademark cases. Our legislation removes that obstacle until the 2010 games are over. When the Olympic flame goes out in 2010, this aspect of the legislation will also be extinguished.

The reality is that very few of these situations will actually end up in court. This bill actually gives Vanoc the authority it needs to deal with these kinds of fraudsters.

Bill C-47 also gives the designated Olympic organizations the authority to protect the Olympic brand from unauthorized and illegitimate use, but we have been careful not to bring in legislation that is too broad or oppressive.

As members know, this bill has gone through many amendments to reflect the concerns of key stakeholders and committee members. For example, Bill C-47 exempts Canadian businesses that were using trademarks before March 2 that could possibly be in conflict with the Olympic marks. They cannot suddenly start using an existing mark for a new purpose to cash in on the Olympics, but they can continue their existing uses. For example, if people have an “Olympic Pizza” in their town, we are not going to shut them down unless they suddenly start using the word Olympic to promote other services and products.

We are not targeting mom and pop shops. We are not targeting Canadians who have been using these marks in the past. We are simply being reasonable.

The bill also provides clarification that this bill is not intended to curtail freedom of press or to muzzle those who are critical of the games. My colleague from West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast also made that point. We do have protections in Canada. We as Canadians pride ourselves in the freedoms that we enjoy and defend in our country, and those freedoms will continue to be protected under our bill.

As I mentioned earlier, our new Conservative government is a committed partner in making the 2010 winter games a big success. The big winners will undoubtedly be the people of British Columbia and the rest of Canada, and some of our contributions are quite obvious. We as a government have committed $552 million to make the winter games a reality, including $290 million for sport and event venues.

Some of the contributions we are making are less tangible but not less valuable, and this Bill C-47 to protect the Olympic trademarks certainly falls into that category.

The bill is a balanced piece of legislation that is in line with what other host countries have put in place in the past. It is a necessary piece of legislation to ensure that the winter games are a huge financial success and that we as a country, and the organizers, can leave behind an enduring legacy for generations to come.

The world is waiting to rediscover Canada. Our communities across British Columbia and Canada are looking forward to the economic opportunities and new sporting facilities that the 2010 winter games will deliver. Let us not disappoint them. I encourage all members of the House to ensure quick passage of this very important bill.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise on behalf of the NDP caucus to speak in support of Bill C-47 as amended by the NDP.

We raised some concerns when the bill was initially brought forward. I will come back to that in a moment. Subsequent to that, we had yeoman's work done by our industry critic, the member of Parliament for Windsor West. As a result, some of the issues about the bill have been addressed. The bill has certainly been improved through the intervention of the NDP which offered the most amendments in committee.

Bill C-47 is something that touches people from British Columbia, but also touches people from coast to coast to coast across Canada. We are all impressed with the principles of the Olympic movement. The athletes train for many years through extenuating circumstances and often are impoverished while working to attain that ideal in sport. We have seen from the Olympic movement the principle of athletes driving themselves to perform at their maximum. This is something that all members of this House admire and respect.

In particular, one of the improvements in the Olympic movement in the past few years has been the involvement of Paralympic athletes. Increasingly we see people with disabilities who in a very real sense show their competitive spirit and show to what extent they can push themselves to excel. The Olympic movement has clearly been improved by the inclusion of people with disabilities in the Paralympic movement. That is something which over the last few years has deepened the respect that people around the world and across Canada have for the principles of the Olympic movement.

We believe in the principles of the Olympic movement. We believe in the principles of the Olympic movement as expressed by Paralympians. We believe in the principles of the Olympic movement that we see expressed through athletes pushing themselves to be the best possible. We are extremely proud of the athletes from Canada from coast to coast to coast who have excelled in the winter Olympics and the summer Olympics. We have much to be proud of in Canada, particularly our Olympic athletes who prove through every Olympic Games to what extent they are willing to push themselves to their maximum to excel for their country.

We support those principles, but our role as New Democratic Party members in this House is also to closely scrutinize legislation and to make sure that what is proposed is actually achieved. That has been the role of the NDP historically since the foundation of our party. We have always been the party of sober second thought.

That is why when Bill C-47 came forward we supported the principle, of course, for reasons I will come back to later. We had concerns about Olympic cost overruns, but we wanted to see clear improvements made to the legislation itself.

We believe that the legislation should have exempted electronic media for example. We also believe that a sunset clause had to be very clear about the extent of the number of terms that are used. The Vancouver Olympics, the 2010 marks, are quite extensive. Seventy-five terms are included within that very broad use of copyright terms. We wanted to make sure as well that there is a very clear sunset clause that would take effect at the end of the year 2010.

We also wanted to make sure that aboriginal and not for profit groups would have an opportunity to have no cost licences through the Olympic movement. In that way they would be able to contribute in some way and receive some benefit from the Vancouver 2010 Olympic Games. We also wanted to make sure there was an appeal process in place.

We brought forward those amendments, more than all other parties put together. We closely scrutinized the legislation. My colleague from Windsor West, very eloquently as always, brought forward those amendments in committee.

We were able to achieve two of the four improvements that we wanted to see in this legislation as a result of the NDP's interventions in the industry committee. Now as we bring this NDP improved legislation into this House, we see that electronic media is exempted from the bill.

We also have achieved the sunset clause, the date of December 31, 2010, to make sure the protections that are offered through Bill C-47 are temporary in nature only.

We are hoping as well, and we certainly directed the Vanoc committee to do this, that the regulations take into consideration the fact that there are many local businesses that have existed for many years in the Lower Mainland and throughout British Columbia. We anticipate that Vanoc, the Vancouver Olympic Organizing Committee, will respect those historic trademarks and those historic presences through the regulations that will be drafted after the bill is passed into law. We expect that will happen.

We are disappointed that the amendment regarding aboriginal and not for profit groups that was co-authored by the NDP was not accepted by other parties in the House. We certainly believe it would have been an improvement to Bill C-47. We offered it and unfortunately it is not before us today.

We also wanted to see an appeal system to make sure that individuals and small businesses were not caught in the kind of bureaucratic machinery we often see as members of Parliament. We have in Bill C-47 some real improvements brought forward by the NDP.

Let me get back to the principle. This is an important element. We believe there must be some copyright protection because we are concerned about the extent of Olympic cost overruns. The B.C. auditor general spoke to this just a few months ago, in September 2006. I will read into the record the CanWest news service article on the B.C. auditor general's report into Olympic spending.

It is very relevant and pertinent that we seek to ensure that Vanoc has the ability to get the sponsorships that will reduce the taxpayers' burden of the Olympic Games. In the B.C. legislature, Harry Bains, who is the provincial NDP Olympics critic, has been front and centre in ensuring there is that accountability and that we try to reduce what could be a substantial taxpayers' burden if things are not handled with due diligence.

As we all know, the NDP has the best fiscal management record of any party in Canada. I am not the one saying that, it is the federal Ministry of Finance. It did a 20 year study and compared from actual fiscal year end returns how Conservatives managed money, how Liberals managed money, how the Parti Quebecois in Quebec and Social Credit managed money and how NDP provincial governments managed money.

It came up, after 20 years, with the conclusion that the worst fiscal manager was actually the Liberal Party. Most of the time Liberal governments actually finished their year end, regardless of what their projections were, with a deficit.

Conservative administrations, be they provincial or federal, were actually the second worst. Two-thirds of the time Conservative administrations actually showed up in deficits.

The best by far were NDP administrations. Most of the time when surpluses or balanced budgets were projected, they actually came out as balanced budgets or surpluses in the year end fiscal returns.

The NDP has a proud history of being the best financial managers in the country. That is understandable. We are a party composed of ordinary working families and working Canadians who have to manage with fewer resources. As a result of that, they are much better at managing resources than anybody else. A single mother who is trying to raise children, that Canadian woman knows how to manage with very few resources. As a result of being a party of ordinary Canadians, we have achieved what is undoubtedly, according to the federal Ministry of Finance which is certainly not an NDP affiliated organization, the best record of financial accountability.

We are providing the same oversight that we do in this Parliament and in provincial legislatures across the country to the issue of the Olympic Games.

I come back to the CanWest news service article. It is dated September 15, 2006 and states:

The 2010 Olympic Games will cost B.C. taxpayers nearly $1 billion more than the provincial government previously indicated, according to the province's acting auditor general.

In a hard-hitting report released Thursday, Arn van Iersel pegs the true cost of the Olympics at a minimum $2.5 billion, of which $1.5 billion will come from the province.

The B.C. government insists its total commitment to the Games is $600 million. But van Iersel says that figure ignores key Olympics-related costs....

The government, he says, needs to come clean with the public.

“Given the province has the ultimate responsibility for the financial outcome of the Games, we feel there should be regular and complete reporting of the total Games costs to the taxpayers,” the report states. “To date, the province has only reported to taxpayers on the $600 million envelope it established; however, there are many other Games related cost[s] that are not being reported as such by the province.”

The 65-page report also highlights significant problems with the management and marketing of the Olympics, and warns that costs could go even higher. Van Iersel found, for instance, that the province lost $150 million in projected revenue from broadcasting and international sponsorships by failing to adopt a routine “hedging strategy” that would have protected them against fluctuations in the dollar.

He found, too, that the government will have to wait six years longer than expected to launch a marketing campaign, because it didn't realize the International Olympic Committee restricts such campaigns until the previous Olympics are over. B.C. had planned to start its campaign in 2003, but now will have to postpone it until after the 2008 Olympic Summer Games in Beijing. Van Iersel said the delay could hurt the province's plan to reap $4 billion in economic spin-offs.

The auditor's report also notes that the Vancouver Organizing Committee (VANOC) has transferred construction risks for many of the venues to other partners. But if rising costs make it impossible or those partners to finish the job, “there is a risk the province will have to contribute more funding to VANOC to get the projects completed,” the report says.

The province has set aside $76 million for such unexpected costs, but the auditor general also questions whether that emergency fund will be enough.

NDP critic Harry Bains said the report shows B.C. risking a financial disaster on par with the 1976 Olympics in Montreal.

“All you have to do is go back to what happened in Montreal, and then go back to what happened in Athens,” he said. “We don't want to see that kind of stuff happening here, but the way this government is going, the direction this management is going, I think there's a real risk of going in that direction if we don't stop it now.”

A federal report, also released Thursday, confirms the auditor general's warnings about rising construction costs....

“Escalation continues to run rampant in British Columbia as a result of higher material and labour costs, and the lack of competitive bids and skilled trades people, especially in the Lower Mainland,” the report says.

That comes from the Victoria Times Colonist. It underscores our concerns.

We are profoundly supportive of the ideals and the principles of the Olympic movement and Paralympic movement. We are profoundly supportive of our athletes. In fact the NDP throughout its history has called for more support for Canadian athletes, there is no doubt about that. However, we balance that off with real concerns about the cost overruns that are apprehended with these Olympic Games, and both at the provincial legislature in Victoria and here in the federal Parliament we are raising those issues on a regular basis.

We saw Bill C-47 as a bill that would help to address in part those apprehended Olympic cost overruns. We want to make sure that the Vancouver Olympic Committee can do what it needs to do to ensure that there are as few obligations imposed on taxpayers as possible.

We would like to make sure that the B.C. provincial government does its job to ensure that additional funds are not required. However, we are generally concerned, as is B.C.'s auditor general, with the direction the provincial government is taking.

We support in principle Bill C-47 and we constructively brought forward amendments that improve the bill, so that the bill actually does address some of the concerns that people have raised about it perhaps going too far.

There is no doubt that the sunset clause will make a difference. The exemption on electronic media will make a difference, and there is no doubt about that. We have certainly sent a very clear message to the Vancouver Olympic Organizing Committee that we want to make sure the regulations keep with the spirit of what the NDP offered at the industry committee and what we are saying here in the House.

We want to make sure that these games proceed smoothly and that in the end all Canadians and all British Columbians will be happy and content with how the games actually came about and will feel some sense of pride that we had in the Vancouver-Whistler area in 2010 an Olympic Games that really showed the ideals of the Olympic movement and also the ideals that we all have as Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, after a serious study of Bill C-47 in committee and after hearing stakeholders including companies, athletes and lawyers, we are here to debate Bill C-47, the Olympic and Paralympic Marks Act, for the last time.

This new legislation meets the International Olympic Committee's requirements and will be the responsibility of VANOC, which from our first meetings in February promised to make judicious and sparing use of the legal remedies at its disposal. No one wants this new legislative tool to hamper anyone who wants to be part of this common effort.

After all our work, I still have some slight reservations about using the criminal courts to punish small businesspeople who inadvertently violate the law. I wish that, during her testimony before the committee, Susan Bincoletto, director general of Industry Canada's marketplace framework policy branch, had been able to tell me how many small businesspeople in other countries had been prosecuted using legislation similar to Bill C-47. Ms. Bincoletto was unable to say, and that concerns me a little.

However, as the CEO of VANOC, John Furlong, explained when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, 85% of businesses that want to get involved in the events around the Vancouver and Whistler Olympics do not have malicious intentions.

Ultimately what we must realize is that the vast majority of businesses that believe in the Olympic values are motivated by the desire to do something constructive for athletes, communities and youth in general. We presume that there will be no lawsuits launched. After all, what advantage would there be to sacrificing one's reputation for the passing satisfaction of being fraudulently associated with the Olympic Games? Talk about this with athletes who have lost their medals after a positive drug test: would they not do otherwise if they had it to do over again?

We must also realize that VANOC's reputation is at stake when legal action is taken. Consequently the image of the Olympic movement must not be tarnished by unwarranted legal action. It is all a question of balance.

That is why it is up to VANOC, to the Canadian Olympic committee or the Canadian Paralympic committee, to take legal action, and not up to businesses that may feel they are harmed by the unauthorized use of Olympic marks. These businesses will have to apply in writing to VANOC, which will have 10 days to render a ruling, determine whether or not there was harm and if there is cause for legal action, and inform the business. If, and only if, VANOC does not reply within 10 days, the business may take legal action itself.

Important clarifications and additions were made to the bill in committee and I would now like to point them out.

First, the bill does not apply to an artistic work. The work of creation must be able to be carried out with peace of mind as indicated in clause three of the bill:

For greater certainty, the inclusion of an Olympic or Paralympic mark or a translation of it in any language in an artistic work, within the meaning of the Copyright Act, by the author of that work, is not in itself a use in connection with a business if the work is not reproduced on a commercial scale.

The second important point is that athletes with sponsors other than the official sponsors may maintain their relationships with these businesses that contributed in no small way to their success. Athletes were concerned about this aspect of the original bill. However, VANOC officials reassured them by stating that their intention was not to compromise their personal sponsors. The legislator included in the new version of Bill C-47 an explicit guarantee modelled after that found in the Australian legislation passed for the Sydney Olympic Games.

Long-term relationships between sponsors and athletes make it possible for athletes to develop their talents every day. Sponsoring athletes gives them the means to achieve their goals and also helps to give people positive and inspiring role models. It is important not to discourage sponsors who, without being official Olympic partners, have participated in the development of Olympic athletes.

It is important to remember that athletes who are members of a federation are often economically vulnerable and unfortunately do not all benefit from sufficient financial support. Support from sponsors enables young people to concentrate on what they have to do rather than scrounging around for funding between training sessions or competitions.

The support provided by the sponsor enables athletes to pay for training and travel expenses. What is more, it is quite often both partners of the agreement, and not just the sponsoring company, that benefit from increased visibility.

Members will recall that at the Olympics in Athens, McDonald's, sponsor of Alexandre Despaties, launched an advertising campaign which no doubt greatly contributed to making him a household name. He has since become a favourite and has found his way to the big screen.

A relationship between a sponsor and an athlete can extend over a number of years, and may even continue after the athlete retires from competition. This is important, since we know that for many athletes, the transition into retirement can be difficult to manage. Sylvie Fréchette, Olympic champion synchronized swimmer, was sponsored for a number of years by the National Bank, which even offered her a job after her sports career ended. Just one year ago she once again participated in an activity organized by the National Bank as part of its diversity week, which shows the extent of the relationship still maintained between the institution and the Olympic champion.

However, the National Bank has not sponsored any athletes directly since 1998. Instead, it decided to create a scholarship program to help promising young athletes and to help athletes return to their studies when they are ready to retire from sports. This is another way, and one that is just as praiseworthy, I think, to contribute to the development of organized sports.

Closer to home, RONA, which is one of the official partners of the Vancouver Games, has also established the “growing with our athletes” program, through which the company will provide financial support for five years to 100 Olympians and Paralympians, including Meaghan Benfeito, Roseline Filion and Émilie Heymans, all divers who are Quebec's Olympic hopefuls for the upcoming summer games in Beijing.

Alcan and wheelchair racing champion Chantal Petitclerc are another example of a lasting partnership. Alcan has been Chantal Petitclerc's sponsor since 1998 and has contributed significantly to her success. In exchange, Chantal Petitclerc has paid many visits to the employees of Alcan and represented the company at numerous public events. In 2001, when the company renewed its commitment to the champion until 2005, that is, one year after the Athens Games, Chantal Petitclerc stated:

It's unusual for a company to have such a long-standing association with one athlete. But even more remarkable is a sponsorship agreement signed so far in advance of the Olympics. Athletes must have access to financial assistance for years, not just during the six months prior to the Games, in order to train well enough to be competitive.

Chantal Petitclerc made it abundantly clear: a long-term relationship between an athlete and a sponsor is a precious thing. As such, it is important to reiterate that Bill C-47 does not call into question that kind of relationship, even if it involves a sponsor other than the official partners of the Vancouver-Whistler games, as clarified in this clause, which the committee added:

Nothing in subsection (1) or (2) prevents [among other things,] the use by an individual who has been selected by the COC or the CPC to compete, or has competed, in an Olympic Games or Paralympic Games, or another person with that individual's consent, of the mark “Olympian”, “Olympic”, “Olympien” or “Olympique”, or “Paralympian”, “Paralympic”, “Paralympien” or “Paralympique”, as the case may be, in reference to the individual's participation in, or selection for, those Games.

When building a society, we need citizens to get involved. Of course, volunteers and individuals help our society move forward, but businesses also have an essential role to play. We must encourage them to participate in sporting events because events like these have a positive impact on participation in sports and good lifestyle habits.

We have to create the kinds of conditions that facilitate this. As I have already said in this House, it is not enough to put the ball in an individual's court and expect him or her to find long-term solutions to problems of poor physical fitness and obesity. It is high time we took action right in people's environments, and that means that we have to encourage businesses to get involved. Sponsorship is not the only way for businesses to contribute.

From a broader perspective, in order to remedy the harmful effects of physical unfitness, we have to make sure that the companies that want to adopt good practices and put in place conditions enabling their employees to incorporate physical activity into their daily lives are not discouraged.

I am thinking here about the good practices adopted by many employers to help their employees acquire healthy lifestyles. Employers are now aware of their responsibilities and many of them are proposing concrete solutions.

I am thinking, for example, of Sainte-Justine hospital, which since 2002 has been making gymnasiums available to its employees for the modest fee of $10 a year, offering them very affordable classes and organizing activities for them. According to the head of health and safety at the hospital, these measures have done a lot towards improving the work atmosphere and decreased the stress levels felt by employees.

Likewise, all Mouvement Desjardins divisions now offer sports and physical activity programs for their employees, and those who join athletic clubs or sign up for physical activities can count on their employer’s financial support. These measures have notable positive effects on the staff turnover rate, absenteeism and smoking.

Ubisoft offers a voucher worth up to $500 a year to its employees to help them purchase sports equipment, in addition to providing them with free access to a gymnasium. Employees who are in better shape work better and the action taken by Ubisoft also works to the company’s advantage.

Louis Garneau Sport, a well-known Quebec company headed by the former cycling champion, also stands out for its sense of initiative. A few days before Environment Week, Louis Garneau Sport held an activity to encourage its employees to bike to work, thus contributing to an improvement in their physical fitness and to conservation of the environment.

I will end my list of inspiring examples here since, although work may continue until 10 o’clock tonight, your role, Mr. Speaker, is also to remind me that I only have a few minutes to state my point of view, and I would also like to have the time to talk about the third major aspect of the bill, pertaining to freedom of expression.

As clause 3 of the bill now states, following the passing of a motion moved in committee, and I quote:

For greater certainty, the use of an Olympic or Paralympic mark or a translation of it in any language in the publication or broadcasting of a news report relating to Olympic Games or Paralympic Games, including by means of electronic media, or for the purposes of criticism or parody relating to Olympic Games or Paralympic Games, is not a use in connection with a business.

However, I must point out that when I asked in the standing committee whether special editions of certain magazines that run during the Olympic Games could fall under the new legislation, no one was able to give me a clear answer. On that matter, it seems we have to look at this on a case by case basis and editors will have to remain vigilant, as always.

In closing, I would like to come back to some of the concerns I have already expressed in this House during debate at second reading. I am talking about respecting bilingualism. Last May, I referred to some of the findings in the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Official Languages, entitled, Reflecting Canada's Linguistic Duality at the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games: A Golden Opportunity.

According to members of the committee, there is still a lot of work to do to make sure we fully and equally take into account both official languages in organizing the 2010 Games. During the June 4 meeting of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, the hon. member for Trois-Rivières referred to the same findings and asked John Furlong, the CEO of VANOC, whether any progress had been made. Mr. Furlong told her that for now, 25% of the employees working on the Games spoke French and that a significant effort was being made to ensure bilingualism. What areas of VANOC do these employees work in? Is there francophone or bilingual staff in every one of the divisions that take part in the Olympic adventure, in the offices, and in the stadiums?

Sometimes time runs out before we can get answers to all our questions. However, we will remain vigilant and lend our support to VANOC and wish it all the best in realizing this colossal project and pulling off the Olympic Games.

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, which includes 6 of the 11 venues for the Vancouver 2010 Olympics and Paralympic Games, it gives me great pleasure to rise in support of Bill C-47, an Act respecting the protection of marks related to the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games and protection against certain misleading business associations and making a related amendment to the Trade-marks Act.

I am very proud to speak to the bill today. The Olympic Games are more than just a sporting and cultural event. They will show to the world and to ourselves what Canadians can do. In less than three years, Vancouver, Whistler and the whole Sea to Sky corridor will host the world's largest event.

More than 20,000 employees and volunteers will put on the games. We will welcome more than 6,000 athletes and officials and more than 80 countries, and the competition will be covered by 10,000 members of the media and witnessed by more than three billion people worldwide.

The 2010 games will showcase our province, our culture and our people to the planet. They will create a lasting legacy of facilities for our athletes and immeasurable goodwill around the globe. They are Vancouver and Canada's time to shine.

Vanoc has delivered a business plan that will give us the games on time and on budget, despite being hit with skyrocketing construction costs and facing massive logistical, strategic and diplomatic challenges. Vanoc's accomplishment is a tremendous testament to Canadian know-how and business savvy and will not pass unnoticed abroad.

This sort of project requires a great deal of fiscal management. For Vanoc, this means that it has to be as careful as possible about the Olympic and Paralympic brands. There is no better branding than the Olympic brand and, without appropriate safeguards, many would try to take advantage of the goodwill created by the games.

We need to protect the words and symbols of the Olympic brand with special legislation to ensure that Vanoc has the tools it needs to prevent abuse. The confidence created by strong protection for the Olympic brand will improve Vanoc's ability to negotiate sponsorship agreements with businesses interested in associating themselves with the Olympic brand and provide important funding for the games.

This protection also will create the confidence which will ensure that sponsors are committed to the Canadian Olympic and Paralympic movement for years and years to come.

The Liberal Party support for the Olympics has been longstanding. The Liberal government of the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien was there at the very beginning and we championed the bid from its earliest stages. We supported the games with our words and, unlike the Conservative foot-dragging, Liberal governments have always provided the resources that were required on the federal side to support our athletes and support these games.

Long before I was a candidate for the Liberal Party, I took a leadership role in securing the Olympics for Canada by organizing the 2010 rally on Robson Street. Working directly with Mr. John Furlong and the 2010 bid committee, we organized a grassroots movement rally on the streets of Vancouver that was attended by over 50,000 Vancouverites in support of our bid and, as everyone knows now, we were lucky enough to secure it.

Providing enhanced protection for the Olympics has become a standard part of hosting the Olympic Games. The United States, Australia, Greece and Italy all have strengthened the legal protection for Olympics-related intellectual property rights. The upcoming games in Beijing and London are already the subject of such protection in those host countries.

Although existing intellectual property law in Canada arguably could be used to protect Olympic symbols and marks, the sheer volume of possible violations within the short period of the games creates a need for extra protection.

Ambush marketing, which has been spoken of here in the House, is a major concern for the host of any international sporting event. It is simply too easy to take advantage of the goodwill created by the games and mislead consumers into thinking that a company has a business association with the games when in fact it has nothing of the sort.

Bill C-47 would prohibit persons from using the Olympic and Paralympic marks for anything that could be mistaken for those marks in connection with a business without the permission of Vanoc or, after the games are over, the consent of the Canadian Olympic and Paralympic committees. It would also prohibit people from promoting or advertising their business in a way that misleads the public into believing that they are officially associated with the games.

With normal trademarks, the courts apply a three-part test in order to allow an interim or interlocutory injunction against a suspected offender. The plaintiff must establish, first, that there is a serious issue to be tried, second, that it will suffer irreparable harm if the offending conduct continues pending a trial, and finally, that the balance of convenience is in its favour.

Bill C-47 waives the onus on Vanoc to prove the most difficult part of the legal test, that of proving irreparable harm. This will allow Vanoc to act quickly and effectively to stop abuse of its brand. John Furlong and his team have emphasized that this speed is essential because the impact of ambush marketing is immediate and the response has to be immediate as well.

I believe that there is widespread support in the House for the aims of this bill. The devil, of course, is in the details. My colleagues and I have examined the bill see if it meets the critical test of basic common sense and fairness. Let me speak to several points on fairness.

The bill grants specific and clear exemptions to allow for freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of commentary. Some news reports have suggested that it would be used to crack down on dissent. These reports are wrong. Bill C-47 specifically exempts news, criticism and parody from the restrictions.

The aim of this bill is limited, of course, to commercial uses. Bill C-47 will not affect the non-profit community at all.

It is also particularly important that the bill not adversely affect our athletes. I welcome an amendment by the committee which ensures that companies sponsoring our Olympic athletes are able to advertise that fact. Being an Olympic athlete is part of who one is and the amendment ensures that these athletes will be able to say who they are, even in the commercial context. Former Olympian Jeff Bean testified before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology that the spirit of the bill does not impede the rights of athletes.

The bill also has a grandfathering provision to prevent existing businesses that use an Olympic or Paralympic mark from being unfairly disrupted. Anyone who adopted and began using such a mark before March 2, 2007, will be able to continue using that mark for the same purpose and will not have to change the name of the business, but if someone wants to open a business today and use that mark, that individual would have to come up with a new name.

The terms safeguarded are well chosen in that they are limited to terms that refer directly to the games. There has been some confusion over whether words like “winter” or “Vancouver” are prohibited, but this is not in fact the case.

Bill C-47 also contains a number of safeguards that will protect the legitimate use of the Olympic or Paralympic mark in a business context. For instance, businesses will be able to use geographic names to describe their market or to explain their services.

The Intellectual Property Institute of Canada has expressed concern that the bill gives sponsors the right to sue independently, arguing that Vanoc or the Canadian Olympic Committee and the Canadian Paralympic Committee are the ones that grant sponsorship and so they should be the ones to control access to the courts. The institute worries that this will lead to inconsistent applications of the bill. This is an issue that will have to be monitored closely as time goes by.

With these sensible features, Bill C-47 has found widespread support. Vanoc, the Canadian Olympic Committee and the Canadian Paralympic Committee support it. So do the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Own the Podium, Athletes CAN, and others.

It is time for the House to stand up for our athletes and champion and support the tremendous efforts of the Vancouver Olympic Committee to get this bill passed. It will protect the Olympic and Paralympic brands for Vancouver and the revenues that will benefit all hard-working Canadian families.

Let us make these the best winter games the world has ever seen.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to begin third reading debate on Bill C-47. This bill is a little different from most in that its passage is needed to ensure the success of a single momentous event, the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games in Vancouver and Whistler.

The size and scope of this event defies the imagination, with over 5,000 Olympic and 1,700 Paralympic athletes and officials, hundreds of participant countries, 10,000 members of the media and three billion television viewers worldwide. To ensure Canada takes full advantage of this tremendous opportunity to showcase itself to the world, it is imperative that the games be properly supported by government, including financial support.

During committee examination of Bill C-47, John Furlong, the chief executive officer of the Vancouver Olympic and Paralympic organizing committee, Vanoc for short, estimated that approximately $1.87 billion will be needed to ensure the success of the games.

Canada's new government will do its part in this regard by providing $552 million, $290 million of which will be devoted specifically to sport and event venues. However, the government's financial contribution is only one part of the funding puzzle. As with most events of this magnitude, the participation of the private sector is absolutely crucial if the games are to be financially viable.

For this to happen, Vanoc estimates that nearly 40% of the games' funding, $725 million to be precise, must come from partnerships and licensing agreements with the private sector entities.

In order for Vanoc to reach this objective, Canada needs to live up to the commitment it made to the international Olympic committee during the bid phase of the 2010 games to have marketplace framework laws in place to protect the Olympic brand. Bill C-47 fulfills that commitment.

I would like to talk about the partnership context. In 2006 alone, Vanoc reported signing partnership agreements worth $115 million. Under Bill C-47, 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.

The current Trade-marks Act offers some of that protection, however, there are concerns that the current legislation does not allow emerging threats to be dealt with. This is particularly true for so-called ambush marketing in which companies find ways to falsely associate their business with the games in the public's mind.

Bill C-47 responds by making the will of Parliament very clear on the protections that we want Vanoc to have and the legal remedies that Vanoc should be able to use when necessary.

I would like to now take a few minutes to remind my hon. colleagues of some key measures in Bill C-47. What is in Bill C-47? The Olympic and Paralympics marks act explicitly identifies the Olympic and Paralympic words, symbols land other indicia that they are to be protected.

The bill protects the rights of Vanoc, the Canadian Olympic committee and the Canadian Paralympic committee with regard to these marks. They have recourse to seek the remedies that the bill provides and may consent to assign those rights to their various partners where appropriate.

Bill C-47 goes on to set out two main types of conduct that would be prohibited.

First, no one can use an Olympic or Paralympic mark in connection with a business without the agreement of Vanoc until the end of 2010 and after 2010, without the agreement of the Canadian Olympic or Paralympic committees.

Second, the bill would prohibit so-called ambush marketing behaviour that I mentioned earlier. It would prohibit people and companies from actions that are likely to mislead the public into believing that they or their products or services are linked to the games, Vanoc, or the Canadian Olympic or Paralympic committees.

Beyond that, the bill provides a number of exceptions and sets out the various remedies available in the event it is not respected.

I will now briefly touch upon some of these areas, the first being exceptions. As we have seen, Bill C-47 would give the designated Olympic organizations the authority to protect the Olympic brand from unauthorized and illegitimate use but the government has been very careful not to bring in legislation that is too broad or oppressive.

Bill C-47 would exempt businesses that had and were using trademarks before March 2, 2007 that might possibly be in conflict with some Olympic marks or works. The provisions apply only to businesses that suddenly start using an existing mark for the new purpose of cashing in on the Olympics.

The bill also protects businesses that are using legitimately what would otherwise be a protected term, such as a business address if it happened to be 2010 Olympic Avenue, for example.

As well, the bill allows athletes to use protected words such as “Olympian” and “Paralympian” to promote themselves.

It is important to remember that Bill C-47 applies only in a commercial context. Thus, the bill contains a “for greater certainty” clause, which serves to confirm that it is not intended to curtail freedom of the press or to muzzle those who wish to criticize or parody the games, nor are artistic endeavours on a non-commercial scale prohibited by Bill C-47.

Finally, Bill C-47 is time limited. All the special enforcement measures it confers lapse by December 31, 2010.

One important area in which this legislation differs from the Trade-marks Act is the test Vanoc must meet to obtain an interim injunction against a suspected offender. The court normally applies a three-part test in deciding whether to grant this type of relief. The party seeking the relief must establish that there is a serious issue to be tried, that it will suffer irreparable harm if the offending conduct continues pending trial, and that the balance of convenience is in its favour.

Bill C-47 waives the onus on Vanoc to prove the second part of the legal test and often the most difficult to establish: that of having to prove irreparable harm. This will greatly facilitate Vanoc's ability to quickly enforce its rights and will provide a degree of comfort to businesses contemplating entering into a partnership agreement in anticipation of the games.

However, this is not an unlimited power under the bill. It will last only for the duration of the games. When the Olympic flame goes out in 2010, this aspect of the legislation will soon follow. The reality is that few of these situations will end up in court precisely because of the impact of this legislation.

Bill C-47will give Vanoc the authority it needs to deal with people and businesses that are using marks they do not have the right to use. It gives Vanoc the authority to deal with companies or organizations that try to link themselves to the Olympics without having earned that privilege as others have.

In conclusion, as I mentioned earlier, the Government of Canada is a committed partner in making the 2010 winter games a big success. Some of our contributions are obvious. As I mentioned earlier, we have committed $552 million to the winter games, including $290 million for sport and event venues. Some contributions are less tangible but no less valuable. Bill C-47 certainly falls into that important category.

Bill C-47 is a reasonable, balanced piece of legislation that is in line with what other countries have done and are doing when they host similar kinds of international sporting events. This legislation is necessary to ensure that the winter games will be a success and that the games provide an enduring legacy to Vancouver, British Columbia and Canada as a whole.

The world is waiting to rediscover Canada. Our communities are looking forward to the economic boom and the new facilities. Our children deserve their share of the Olympic dream. We should not disappoint them.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-47, An Act respecting the protection of marks related to the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games and protection against certain misleading business associations and making a related amendment to the Trade-marks Act, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have before us a motion which asks, pursuant to Standing Order 27(1), that commencing on Wednesday June 13, 2007, and concluding on Thursday June 21, 2007, the House shall continue to sit until 10 p.m.

The Bloc Québécois will support this motion because we are determined to see Bill C-52, the budget implementation bill, passed before we adjourn for the summer. As you know, this bill contains some significant transfers for Quebec. They do not correct the fiscal imbalance, but they will make it possible to relieve the fiscal and financial pressures Quebec is experiencing.

The Bloc Québécois set the bar at $3.9 billion in additional transfers to Quebec, the third year, to be satisfied with the budget. As you know, there is $3.3 billion. More remains to be done, especially when it comes to post-secondary education, but we think that with $3.3 billion for Quebec in the third year, an important step has been taken to relieve Quebec's financial pressures.

Once again, this does not correct the fiscal imbalance. A solution to the fiscal imbalance will take negotiations to transfer tax points equivalent to the transfers for post-secondary education and health care to Quebec, to prevent Quebec from being at the mercy of unilateral decisions by the federal government. In the mid-1990s, for example, when the former finance minister and former Prime Minister decided unilaterally to cut transfers to the provinces in order to solve the government's problems, this created problems for the provinces. It is therefore extremely important to us that the budget be adopted before the summer recess.

In addition, I do not completely share the opinion of the House leader of the official opposition that we are referring to 2006-07 when we are talking about closing the books. It is true that when the books are closed in September, they will be the books for 2006-07. But if we have not disposed of the budget surplus, if we have not decided how the surplus is to be used before the books are closed, that money could well be used simply to pay down the debt.

I have an opinion here from the Library of Parliament that supports what I am saying. I would like to read a short excerpt from it:

If the budget were adopted before the end of the fiscal year but the Budget Implementation Act creating the trust [we are talking here about the Canada ecotrust] were adopted later in the 2007-08 fiscal year but before the government's books were closed, for reasons related to the parliamentary calendar, a portion of the 2006-07 surplus could no doubt be deposited in the trust.

It is very clear, then, that if we do not dispose of the budget before the House rises for the summer, that money will no longer be available for the Canada ecotrust, because the books will be closed in mid-September. This is also true of certain amounts for the health trusts.

We cannot take that risk. That said, the Bloc Québécois had another extremely serious concern. When the government talked to us about the possibility of introducing this motion, we indicated that what was important to us was the budget—and we are going to work to get it adopted as soon as possible—but that we also wanted an amendment to the notice of ways and means motion concerning the Bankruptcy Act and protection for workers' salaries when their employer goes bankrupt. We told the government that this was imperative for us.

As I was saying, we will support this request for extended hours. It is a priority not only to ensure that the notice of ways and means is tabled and corrected by taking into account the unanimous motion of the National Assembly, but also that the government agrees to fast tracking this bill to amend the Bankruptcy Act so that wage earners are protected—which is what all parties in this House now want—and that the laws of Quebec and the Civil Code of Quebec are respected.

Earlier, in response to a question that the Bloc Québécois asked and that I myself asked the Minister of Labour, we were assured that sometime tomorrow an amended notice of ways and means, taking into account the unanimous motion of the National Assembly, would be tabled with a bill. I think we will have the unanimous consent of all the parties in this House. I do not see why the New Democratic Party or the Liberal Party would oppose the will expressed so many times by the government and the Bloc Québécois

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, who worked so hard on this and who never stopped hounding the entire Conservative government—especially the Minister of Labour—to achieve today's result. With these two guarantees, we feel comfortable knowing that Bill C-52 will be adopted before the summer break. This will ensure that Quebec receives the transfers it needs even though this bill does not close the debate on the fiscal imbalance. This will also put workers in Canada and Quebec on the list of preferred creditors, thereby giving them new protection when businesses go bankrupt. The creation of a wage protection fund will give them a chance to be compensated should their employers be unable to pay their wages. We think that this is extremely important.

As my colleague mentioned earlier, one of our priorities is Bill C-51, which would cede certain islands that are currently the property of the federal government back to Inuit nations. This is a request that dates back a long time, and it seems that everyone is in agreement. That is also the case for Bill S-6, An Act to amend the First Nations Land Management Act. We think it is very important that this bill be passed to bring justice to the first nations of Quebec. There is also Bill C-59, which would make using digital cameras to make unautorized recordings of movies a new offence under the Criminal Code. Unfortunately, Canada, Quebec and even Montreal have become hotbeds of this kind of piracy, which is a threat to the development of the Montreal region's very prosperous film industry.

This idea has already been raised in committee by the hon. member for Hochelaga. If my memory serves correctly, he also introduced a motion adopted by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We feel it is important that this bill is passed before we break for the summer, which, incidentally, is not all vacation time. We have many appearances and meetings planned in our ridings. It is, however, a time for festivals, and we have many in the Lanaudière region. I invite all members to come and enjoy them. Furthermore, I would like to take this opportunity to once again ask the government and the Minister of Canadian Heritage to unfreeze the money, to ensure that these festivals can continue to provide relevant programming, not only this year, but also for years to come. She does not seem to be conscious of this. If, for financial reasons, one festival or another shows a deficit, that would jeopardize the survival, the development and the future success of that festival or those festivals. In that regard, it is very important that the government unfreeze the money immediately. I also think that common sense dictates that we focus our attention on bills, such as Bill C-47, for instance.

The Olympic Games will be held in my former riding of Vancouver. I think it is important to cover all aspects dealing with the legitimacy of all trademarks surrounding these Olympic Games.

For all these reasons, we support the government motion to extend the sitting hours to 10 p.m., beginning on Wednesday until Thursday, June 21.

I will close on another note, because I have not often had the opportunity to speak in this House, since I became the House Leader of the Bloc Québécois. Indeed, I had more occasions to address this House when I was the Bloc Québécois finance critic.

I would like to thank Catherine Lacroix, who works in the whip's office, here behind the scenes. She will be leaving us a few days from now, after working here with us for many years. All the members of the Bloc Québécois—and I am sure this is also true for many members of all the parties—have appreciated her finesse and her ability to work well under pressure, while always keeping a smile on her face. She plans to travel for a few months, in Europe, particularly.

Like Ulysses in Homer's The Odyssey, I hope she gains wisdom and fulfillment from her travels. I have no doubt that she will always be successful in all areas of her life. I would like to thank her and wish her all the best.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the government, in proposing this motion today, has chosen once again to maintain its habitual lack of consultation and reluctance to attempt a collaborative approach to organizing the business of the House.

On more than one occasion, as I think the Chair will remember, I asked directly whether the government intended to make use of Standing Order 27. As other House leaders can confirm, the reply was, “probably not”. I do not think we would be off base in the opposition in expecting that if that were no longer the case, if the government had in fact changed its mind, that it would have decently given us a heads-up that it was going to propose this motion today, at least given us that notice some time earlier than around one o'clock this afternoon.

Frankly, as we saw the government House leader making his travels across the floor of the House, I will not say where he went, the heckling and yelling as he departed the chamber obviously indicates the kind of demeanour of which we have to deal.

I do not see what there is on the order paper at present that this motion will get through the House any more quickly than would have otherwise been the case. I presume, judging by the government House leader's remarks, that the government is principally concerned with Bill C-52, the budget bill.

It has represented to the House and to the public that the government is now extremely concerned the bill will not receive royal assent in time for certain expenditures to be booked in the appropriate fiscal year. Let us be clear. The fiscal year the Conservatives are talking about is 2006-07, and that is the point.

The issue is retroactive fiscal bookings for the last fiscal year, not the future fiscal year, as members would have gathered from the remarks of the government House leader. If there is concern about the lateness of the date, the government really has only itself to blame.

Usually federal budgets are delivered in or about the third week of February, which then permits the introduction of a budget implementation bill by the end of that month. If things are properly managed, this would permit the bill to be in committee before the end of March and to be passed at all stages by the end of May or, at the very latest, the beginning of June.

This year the government chose, for its own partisan reasons, to delay the budget until the third week of March. We did not even see it until then. Then it unilaterally interrupted the budget debate. Then having finished that, belatedly, it interrupted, again, the second reading debate on the budget implementation Bill C-52. That interruption lasted for three full weeks, getting the bill to committee only in the middle of May.

As a consequence, the government then bulldozed the bill through the committee, breaking procedural agreements, denying many interested and informed citizens and groups the right to testify on the bill. Let it be clearly understood that any procedural issue on Bill C-52 is a direct result of government breaking the agreement on the process, which had been fully settled by members of the committee.

Nevertheless, the bill is now only in its third day of debate at third reading and there is every indication that the third reading and final stage would come to an end in debate in the House by the end of business tomorrow at the latest.

It is important to underscore what these dates are with respect to the budget. Remember that the House resumed in the final week of January. The budget was not presented to the House until March 19, fully eight weeks into the parliamentary sitting. That was followed by a ways and means motion and the introduction of the budget bill, but that was delayed because the government interrupted its own budget debate on the financial principles of the government.

Its budget was late, the budget debate was unilaterally delayed by itself and then it finally got around to introducing the budget bill on March 29, which was debated at second reading for the first time on March 30. It was then debated in a haphazard, sporadic fashion, brought forward to the floor by the government, until April 23, and then it was hoisted altogether. The House did not see it again until May 14, full three weeks later.

Finally, it went to the committee, not as a result of any filibuster by the opposition or any party in the opposition. The delay was entirely the procedural mismanagement of the government. It was there for less than two weeks and one of those weeks was a break week when Parliament was not even sitting.

It finally passed through the committee, rather expeditiously, thanks to the cooperation of the opposition, and it was brought back to be debated at report stage on June 4. For how long? One day, that is all the report stage took. Now it is at third reading where there have been three days of debate, and probably a conclusion could have been arrived at very easily by the end of the day tomorrow.

This is why I made the point at the beginning of my remarks that there really is nothing on this order paper that could not be dealt with in the ordinary course of business without the measure the government House leader has introduced. Obviously it is a tactic to blame the opposition for the delays that lie entirely within the control of the government.

What is it then? If it is not Bill C-52, what is it that causes the government to move the motion today? Despite frequent requests for the government to outline its realistic legislative priorities before the summer, all we have heard repeatedly from the government House leader and from others on the government's side is a flow of partisan rhetoric. Legislation has in fact been moving along through the House and through committees, despite the government's erratic management of its agenda.

In fact, the most controversial bill on the order paper, and this is what gives me perhaps a little hope here, is probably Bill C-30, the clean air act, as it has been revised by members of Parliament. Significantly, only the government has been stalling it up to now. However, now we will have some extra time, some extra hours of sitting every day beginning on Wednesday.

Can we then conclude that the extra time the government is seeking is to facilitate the work of the House in consideration of Bill C-30? I certainly hope so. It is in this fervent hope that I indicate to the House that my party, the official Liberal opposition, will support the minister's motion for the extension of hours.

In the time available, in addition to Bill C-52, which will probably be done tomorrow, and in addition to Bill C-30, which I hope the government has the courage to recall and put before the House once again, the official opposition also looks forward to making progress on Bill C-11, lowering freight rates for farmers, on Bill C-14, dealing with foreign adoptions, on Bill C-23, dealing with criminal procedure, on Bill C-29, dealing with Air Canada and the use of official languages, on Bill C-35, dealing with bail reform, on Bill C-47, dealing with the Olympic, on Bill S-6 and Bill C-51, dealing with land claims and on Bill C-40, the private member's legislation that would provide free postage for mail from Canada to our troops in Afghanistan.

Then there is an item that was referred to in question period today. This is the bill we are anxiously awaiting to see, the one dealing with wage earner protection. I hope the government will follow through on the commitment given in question period, that it will table the bill in amended form so it can be passed at all stages and brought into law before Parliament adjourns for the summer recess.

Let me mention one other matter, which is outstanding and which should be dealt with by the House, or at least dealt with by the government when the House is sitting. This is the examination undertaken a few weeks ago by Mr. Brown in connection with the matters that have been of great concern to Canadians in respect of the RCMP pension fund.

As we understand it, there is a report due from Mr. Brown on June 15. That was the original undertaking given by the Minister of Public Safety. It would be very important for us to know that the examination is on time, that we will hear from Mr. Brown on time, and that the Minister of Public Safety will take the step that he promised to take and make that report public immediately.

Perhaps the government might also consider, in whatever time that remains before the summer recess, reforming its approach to the mood in the House. The mood could be improved if the government would refrain from certain of its more hostile practices. For example: no more gratuitous attack ads, no more broken agreements on how witnesses will be heard, no more manuals about dirty tricks for disrupting parliamentary business, and no more devious games to misuse Standing Orders of the House. A little good old fashioned good faith could change the mood for the better.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, today we will be continuing with the business of supply.

Tomorrow we hope to conclude third reading of Bill C-52. In answer to the question on priorities, I would point out that Bill C-52, the budget implement bill, is the number one priority of this government. We can talk about other priorities after we see an indication that it will be heading for royal assent. If we do not have it, it will result in the loss of $4.3 billion in 2006-07 year end measures which include: $1.5 billion for the Canada ecotrust for the provinces; $600 million for patient wait times guarantees; $400 million for Canada Health Infoway; $200 million for protection of endangered species; $30 million for the Great Bear rain forest; $600 million for labour market agreements for the provinces; $30 million for the Rick Hansen Foundation; $100 million in aid for Afghanistan; $100 million to Genome Canada; and so on. It is a long list of important priorities financing that will be lost if the bill is not passed by the end of this session in June. That is obviously our number one priority.

Next week will be getting things done for all of us week when we consider a number of bills that are in their final stages of the legislative process.

The following bills will be placed under Government Orders for debate: Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, which the Senate reported with amendments and which is now back before the House to receive the approval of the members, and Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal procedure, language of the accused, sentencing and other amendments).

We are awaiting the Senate's report with amendments on Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Public Service Employment Act.

Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, including amendments in relation to foreign investment entities and non-resident trusts, and to provide for the bijural expression of the provisions of that Act, Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Quarantine Act and Bill C-47, An Act respecting the protection of marks related to the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games and protection against certain misleading business associations and making a related amendment to the Trade-marks Act, will probably be passed by the House at third reading.

Discussions have taken place with the opposition parties, and there may be consent to fast-track some or all of the following bills: Bill C-59, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (unauthorized recording of a movie), Bill S-6, An Act to amend the First Nations Land Management Act and Bill C-51, An Act to give effect to the Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.

There is also a possibility of quick passage of a new bill entitled “An act to amend the Geneva Conventions Act, an act to incorporate the Canadian Red Cross Society and the Trademarks Act”, which appears on today's notice paper.

There are a number of other bills I am still hoping we could get included in getting things done for all of us week, provided that they get reported back from committee, in particular, Bill C-6 aeronautics; Bill C-27 dangerous offenders; Bill C-32 impaired driving; and Bill C-44, the bill to grant first nations people the human rights that every other Canadian enjoys. First nations people expect the House to get things done for them as well, so I urge the aboriginal affairs committee to stop delaying Bill C-44 and report it back to the House early next week. It is a priority for this government.

Industry, Science and Technology

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology regarding its order of reference of Thursday, May 17, 2007, Bill C-47, An Act respecting the protection of marks related to the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games and protection against certain misleading business associations and making a related amendment to the Trade-marks Act. The committee has considered Bill C-47 and reports the bill with amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

There are some concerns about clause 6, and I do have one amendment. But I have a question for the panel, which some members have asked me to raise. I'd like to state it and have the members of the panel address it. It deals mainly with the testimony from IPIC.

IPIC asserts that the provisions of Bill C-47 are inconsistent with other laws. They have stated that the bill sets a different standard for interlocutory injunctions from that applied by the courts in Canada, and that it removes the need to show clear or unequivocal irreparable harm that cannot be compensated by monetary damages that might be awarded after trial.

So could you comment on IPIC's concerns with respect to interlocutory injunctions and its recommendation to delete clause 6 of the bill? In other words, why is clause 6 required? That's the first issue.

Secondly, failing deletion of this clause, IPIC recommends that it be amended to state that

if a court finds reasonable grounds to conclude that the activities of a party will cause the public to believe that the activities are “approved, authorized or endorsed” then that shall be deemed to be evidence of irreparable harm.

Could you comment on this recommendation for us?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting to order.

Members, we are here to give clause-by-clause consideration to Bill C-47. We have the room until 2 p.m. I don't know if we'll need it that long, but I'm letting members know that we do have this room until that time. Members should have a group of amendments before them, and I will be proceeding in the order the legislative clerk has provided for me.

I want to re-introduce the three witnesses. We have Ms. Susan Bincoletto, Director General, Industry Canada. She's with us again. We have Ms. Julie D'Amours.

Are you with Industry Canada, or with Justice?

[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?

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

You said that after speaking to VANOC officials, you were sufficiently reassured that athletes would not be adversely affected by the passage of Bill C-47.

Could you please expand on this statement so that we can continue the discussion we started with Ms. Northcott and Ms. Rowden?

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

How exactly would you like to see Bill C-47 amended? Could you provide us with any examples of what you would like to see amended?

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

Fair enough.

I'm wondering if you could also perhaps comment on your first section here, “Are all the provisions of Bill C-47 necessary?” You point out that many Olympic trademarks are already protected in Canada. We have a list, obviously, in the act that is far more extensive than that. You've called for sunsetting of the clause of the bill, that the bill would terminate immediately after, I take it you believe, the Olympics and the Paralympics as well. I think you said that.

[Jasmine Northcott, Athlete Forums Director and Operations Manager, AthletesCAN]

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, committee members. On behalf of Canada's national team athletes, the board of directors of AthletesCAN, our chief executive officer, and myself, thank you for this opportunity to sit with you this morning to share our collective concerns and feedback regarding Bill C-47.

AthletesCAN is the collective voice of national team athletes in Canada, and we represent over 2,500 active national team athletes, including Olympic, Paralympic, Commonwealth Games, Pan-American Games, and aboriginal athletes. We work diligently on their behalf to provide these athletes with programs of leadership, advocacy, and education to ensure a fair, responsive, and supportive sports system.

AthletesCAN has extensively reviewed the content of Bill C-47 and consulted with our athletes and partners, and as a result we are here today to support the government's efforts to better high-performance sport in Canada.

We recognize the need to support the sponsors and licensees who have contributed and will contribute significant resources to the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games. However, we bring to the committee's attention the need to entrench athlete rights within this bill.

The opportunity to create and foster an environment for sponsors and licensees that protects their right to associate themselves with the Olympic and Paralympic Games is a great step forward for the Canadian sports system. However, we need to address the direct legislative implications that this legislation will have on the individuals who are central to our country's sporting success: our athletes.

We believe it is possible to create an environment that protects both the rights of the sponsors and licensees and the rights of the athletes. It's our recommendation to the committee that the protection of athletes can be provided under Bill C-47 with the adoption of a simple amendment, which we have identified as the protection of identity for Olympians and Paralympians. Olympians and Paralympians are those athletes who have competed at Olympic and Paralympic Games. These athletes have earned the right to refer to themselves and their sponsors as Olympians and Paralympians.

However, there is concern among the athlete community that their ability to foster relationships with businesses and communities could be adversely affected by this legislation, as this type of support and endorsement could fall under the commercial parameters of this legislation.

Unlike companies that use the Olympic and Paralympic marks for ambush gains, athletes who are successful in garnering the support of businesses and communities do so to support the significant costs of training and competition at an international level. We've looked to the committee to provide provisions within Bill C-47 to protect the rights of athletes. In Australia, where similar legislation exists, provisions were made to protect the rights of athletes. Canadian athletes deserve this same right.

It is the recommendation of AthletesCAN that Bill C-47 include a provision by way of amendment to protect the rights of athletes to identify themselves as Olympians and Paralympians who have participated at past Olympic and Paralympic Games, to be able to speak to their accomplishments, and the right to reference as factual experience to either promote themselves or be promoted by their sponsors without penalty.

We would like to thank the industry committee for this opportunity to provide the collective concerns of Canada's national team athletes and offer a simple suggestion that could be easily implemented to protect the rights of athletes.

Thank you. I welcome the opportunity for questions from the committee.

[Roger Jackson, Chief Executive Officer, Own the Podium 2010]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, everybody. It's a pleasure to appear before you this morning and to offer unequivocal support for Bill C-47, on behalf of Own the Podium 2010.

In my prior experience as president of the Canadian Olympic Committee and as a leader of the 1988 Olympic Winter Games, I understand the importance of official Olympic sponsors contributing to the games. I'm also very much aware of the need to ensure that the value of these sponsorships, namely the exclusivity of association with the Olympic brand, is adequately protected.

This understanding has only deepened in my current role as chief executive officer of Own the Podium 2010. Launched in January 2005, Own the Podium is a national collaborative initiative, supported by all 13 of the winter sports in Canada, both Olympic and Paralympic, the Canadian Olympic Committee, the Canadian Paralympic Committee, the Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, the Government of Canada, and several corporate sponsors.

There will be 80 countries participating in the Olympic Games in Vancouver and the Paralympic Games. Own the Podium 2010's goal is ambitious but obtainable: to win the greatest number of medals of any country in the world at the Olympic Winter Games, and to finish third at the Paralympic Winter Games.

Own the Podium 2010 partners believe that we can make this goal a reality. Together they have committed $110 million over five years to support the national sports organizations and their athletes. Of our total funding, half—or $55 million—comes from the Government of Canada, and $5 million comes from the Government of British Columbia. The remaining $50 million comes from the VANOC corporate sponsors, including corporations such as Bell Canada, General Motors, Hudson's Bay Company, McDonald's, Petro-Canada, RONA, and the RBC Financial Group.

Make no mistake, these organizations were not contractually obligated to support Own the Podium 2010, and thus Canada's Olympic and Paralympic athletes, as part of their agreements with VANOC. Instead, they did so voluntarily to help Canada's athletes succeed during our games.

With this in mind, I respectfully submit to the committee that Bill C-47 will serve Canadian sports extremely well. In protecting the investment made by Olympic and Paralympic sponsors, Bill C-47 will encourage ongoing support and new partnerships between Canadian sports and the private sector. Indeed, without the protection of Bill C-47, the interest of the corporate sponsors to generate funding for Canadian athletes is dramatically reduced, and our Canadian goals will certainly not be met.

For the 2010 winter games to be successful in the eyes of Canadians, our athletes must be adequately supported to rise to their full potential and be able to win at home. Through their generosity, our corporate sponsors have demonstrated their commitment to this end. In return, they deserve nothing short of the protection that Bill C-47 provides.

Thank you.

[Brian MacPherson, Chief Operating Officer, Canadian Paralympic Committee]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, everyone, and thank you for this opportunity to speak to you this morning. I'll start with a brief statement and then be more than happy to answer any questions you may have.

The Canadian Paralympic Committee supports any initiative that benefits Paralympic athletes, and Bill C-47 benefits Paralympic athletes. Let me explain.

It's no secret that historically Paralympic athletes have not enjoyed the same level of support as Olympic athletes. In fact, up to the 2000 Paralympic Games, Paralympic athletes had to pay out of their own pockets to represent this country. The primary reason for this lack of Paralympic support was lack of corporate sponsorships.

Today, the Canada Paralympic Committee has eight major corporate sponsors. It fully supports and funds Canadians athletes to the Paralympic Games. In addition, the Canadian Paralympic Committee now delivers numerous athlete-support programs between the games.

The Canadian Paralympic Committee has corporate sponsors today because it has successfully cultivated, and grows, the Paralympic brand, a brand that corporate Canada now wants to be associated with and is willing to pay for that association. Integral to that association is the explicit understanding that the Canadian Paralympic Committee will take every measure possible to protect the brand. Bill C-47 has an opportunity to increase that level of brand protection, thereby increasing brand value and financial support from the corporate Canada sector to the Paralympic sports and to the Paralympic athletes.

Another example of how increased corporate Canada financial support is already helping Paralympic athletes is through the Own the Podium program. Through this program, our winter Paralympic athletes are enjoying unprecedented levels of support.

Let me read you an excerpt from an article that appeared in the Edmonton Journal on February 22. This article is an interview with Para-Nordic skier and multi-gold Paralympic medallist Shauna Maria Whyte. Shauna says:

In the past, I had only a few people helping me get to the podium. Now there's like an army, and that's a big help. The support is an amazing feeling.... When an athlete does get on the podium, yes I'm the one who's standing on the podium but it's a team effort getting us there...the team nutritionist, physiotherapist, psychologist, our head coach, my personal coach and all the Canadian taxpayers. That's an awesome feeling for me now, to realize that when I stand on the podium, it's for my country.

Looking forward, the more financially successful the 2010 games are, the more stories like Shauna's will be made possible. This is because the majority of any 2010 games operating-budget surplus will be placed into an amateur sport legacy fund, a fund solely dedicated to supporting athletes and coach development programs. Also, a successful 2010 games will make it easier for the Canadian Paralympic Committee to renew its sponsorships and recruit additional sponsors.

Benefits to Canada's Paralympic athletes--this is why the Canadian Paralympic Committee supports Bill C-47.

Thank you.

[Jeff Bean, Olympian, Freestyle Skiing, Canadian Olympic Ski Team, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and committee, for letting me speak here today in support of Bill C-47.

For the past 12 years, I have been a member of the Canadian free style national team. In that time, I have had the honour to represent Canada in competition at the past three Olympic Winter Games—Nagano 1998, Salt Lake City 2002 and most recently Turin 2006. However, I have made the important decision to retire at the end of this season. I would really like to be able to do that at 30. I'm going to retire from hurling myself in the air to do quadruple twisting triple back flips.

Looking back at my career, I will be forever grateful for my Olympic experiences, and I know that none of them would have been possible without significant contributions of official Olympic sponsors. That is why I am here today to support the passage of Bill C-47, which protects the Olympics investment of corporate sponsors, and in doing so, encourages ongoing support of Canadian sport and Canadian Olympic athletes like me.

At my first winter games in Nagano, I was taken aback at the sheer size and scale of the event. The venues were filled with tens of thousands of spectators and the village was a small city unto itself, with every modern amenity one could imagine. They ranged from dentists to haircuts. Basically anything you would see in a normal little village, that's what happens in an Olympic village. As I continued on to Salt Lake City and to Reno, the villages and the services and amenities offered in those villages just grew.

All that is to say I've had, first-hand, an enormous amount of knowledge of the resources required to host a successful winter games. I cannot believe for a minute that they could happen without the hundreds of millions of dollars contributed by Olympic sponsors.

Beyond simply investing in the Vancouver winter games, official Olympic sponsors here in Canada are supporting the success of Canadian athletes. For example, through support provided by Own the Podium 2010, the Canadian freestyle ski team has been able to hire three new coaches, install a leading-edge video playback system at our summer water out-training facility, and host a first-ever physical conditioning camp for the entire team for six weeks, which was held in Whistler this spring. I know similar improvements have been made across other Canadian winter sports and I know Canada's results at the 2010 winter games will reflect all of this crucial support.

On a personal note, I'm what is known as an RBC Olympian. RBC has developed this program, which not only supports athletes financially, but also offers an opportunity for athletes to gain real-world work experience while still training and competing. At this point in my life, the skills and experiences I am acquiring will be invaluable in my non-sporting career.

All this being said, when I first read Bill C-47 I did have some reservations regarding the ability of athletes to promote themselves as Olympians and Paralympians. I was contacted by AthletesCAN and we shared some of these same concerns. However, after posing these questions to VANOC, I've been adequately reassured that the spirit of this legislation does not impede the rights of the athletes. Furthermore, I'm encouraged in hearing that VANOC is willing to support any amendment agreed necessary by committee that will formalize the abilities of athletes to refer to themselves as Olympians and Paralympians.

With all the contributions official Olympic sponsors have made to the Vancouver winter games and to Canadian athletes, I feel that at the very least Canada owes them the sufficient protection for their investment provided in Bill C-47.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer any questions you or the other members of the committee may have.

Thank you very much for your time.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I'd like to call the meeting to order.

We have before us a number of witnesses, so I'll try to get to things as quickly as possible.

We have two sessions today. The first session has a number of witnesses on Bill C-47, and then hopefully we can move to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-47 at 10 a.m.

Today is the 66th meeting of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. Pursuant to order of reference of May 17, 2007, we are studying Bill C-47, an act respecting the protection of marks related to the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games and protection against certain misleading business associations and making a related amendment to the Trade-marks Act.

We have a number of witnesses before us. I'll go in the order I have them here. First of all, from the Intellectual Property Institute of Canada, we have Ms. Cynthia Rowden, the past-president.

We have, appearing as an individual, an Olympian, Mr. Jeff Bean, from freestyle skiing, the Canadian Olympic Ski Team.

From the Canadian Paralympic Committee, we have Mr. Brian MacPherson, chief operating officer.

From Own the Podium 2020, we have Mr. Roger Jackson, CEO.

From Athletes Canada, I believe we have two individuals: Mr. Guy Tanguay, the CEO; and Ms. Jasmine Northcott, athlete forums director and operations manager.

Finally, we have Mr. Lou Ragagnin, chief operating officer, from the Canadian Olympic Committee. Is that correct?

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

Okay, it sounds like a really good point. The Olympic committee seems like a pretty sophisticated organization as well that could do a fair bit of policing without new laws.

Anyway, I'll move to the next point, which is to John. We really appreciate the fact that you've given to the committee some commitments that you will not react with a heavy hand on some of this. I guess one of the questions I have is that you stated to the committee that you haven't released your voluntary guidelines on the basis that you do not know exactly where this legislation is going to go, what final form it's going to take. Are you anticipating that the Parliament of Canada will significantly amend this legislation you've read, Bill C-47?

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

How do you protect that? You do not currently have Bill C-47. Obviously the Stanley Cup right now is a lot of hype, a lot of momentary enthusiasm, which will last forever when the Sens take the cup.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, sir.

The introduction of Bill C-47 before the House is a promise made to the IOC. Could you explain to us what was asked of you by the IOC? What was promised by you to the IOC? What exactly is the deal we are trying to honour here by adopting Bill C-47?

[Bill Cooper]

I want to emphasize that if and when Bill C-47 is passed, we will not be starting from scratch with the guidelines. I want to put you at ease there. There's been an enormous body of work done already on the guidelines—as much as we thought was reasonable and sensible, given how much impact this committee process must have on the law. Ultimately, that law will dictate to a large extent how those guidelines look.

What I can tell you is that we've done a lot of work. We've worked with the IOC and the COC and the CPC already. We've worked with the athlete groups and worked with the national sport organization groups to make sure that the core, the heart and soul of the guidelines we have, the architecture, already adequately reflects their concerns.

I can also tell you that as it pertains to education, we are already in the marketplace, to the extent that we can be in the absence of Bill C-47, educating the public as best we can. As to mechanisms, we are basically using industry segments, working with our partners, who might know their own industry segment well, and in addition working with their respective agencies and suppliers to make sure we can penetrate relevant sectors.

For instance, we're getting in front of agencies, communications and PR companies, to make sure that before they plan the communications platforms of their respective clients—in the pre-Beijing phase, as an example—they're informed of what allowable thresholds are with respect to aligning with the Olympic and Paralympic brands.

We're obviously quite well equipped already to launch our website. We have some material there already and we're quite keen, with this process coming to a close, on being able to make it more robust and to have more material available. We will also engage in above-the-line advertising, wherein we will actively communicate to the consumer what's real and what's not and why it's important to buy real and thereby fund athletes and not take money from athletes. In that sense, consumer awareness is a growing concern for us and a growing priority on our website as well.

Finally, I just want to emphasize that in our meetings thus far with athlete groups and sponsors with significant international experience, such as VISA and all the NSOs, we've had very positive feedback on our personality and our mechanisms for interpreting thresholds thus far.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to thank our witnesses for coming.

My first question is for you, Ms. Chandan. I imagine that the current Trade-marks Act works quite well for your company at present. How should this legislation be improved? Why is Bill C-47 so important for your company if you are currently able to do a certain amount of business under the current Trade-marks Act?

[John Furlong]

Thank you for the question. Let me deal with the second part first and come back to the harm.

On the guidelines, they'll come out as soon as this passes, because we haven't seen the final document yet. We'll make those guidelines public quickly and we will move to distribute them in every way we can, through small business associations, on our website, everywhere we can. We think in and of themselves they will provide a balance as to how we act in respect to Bill C-47. The more the public knows, the better chance we have of having no problems. Frankly, I think we've tried to take the position that most organizations don't really want to take advantage. In many cases, it's inadvertence or simply a mistake.

On the harm, as I think it was answered earlier—and I'll have my colleague speak to it a little—I think the concern we have is the time. It's being in a situation where we have no other way to remedy. The games are coming quickly; we're in a very narrow window, and we have no way. This is why it's designed this way. I think other countries have had that experience, where time is not your friend sometimes. I think if we were here for 20 or 30 years, it would be different, but we aren't. We need to be able to take action quickly.

We have given our word to many organizations. We're concerned that someone who has not acquired these rights or been given these rights, and they've been given to someone else, and that someone else is protected—that we live up to our commitment to them. We need to be able to do that.

Do you want to comment further on that?

[Anita Chandan, Vice-President, Hunter Licensed Sports Distribution Corporation, Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games]

Sure.

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.

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.

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, Bill C-47 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.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Members, we call the meeting to order again for the second part of our study of Bill C-47.

We have with us for one hour the Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. We have, first of all, Mr. John Furlong, the chief executive officer; secondly, Mr. Bill Cooper, who is the director of commercial rights management; and thirdly, Ms. Anita Chandan, who is the vice-president of Hunter Licensed Sports Distribution Corporation.

I believe, Mr. Furlong, you'll be making the opening statement and then you'll be open to questions from members.

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

Good afternoon, ladies. Thank you for coming.

Essentially, this bill seeks to protect trade-marks. Actually, it has to do with the value and importance of partnerships. If I were a sponsor and if I had paid substantial sums of money, I would not want everyone to be allowed to use the same logos.

Moreover, you stated that 40% of the revenues, namely $725 million, come from partnerships. If Bill C-47 had not been tabled, have we any idea of what we could get in the way of partnerships? Is it really that crucial?

[Susan Bincoletto, Director General, Marketplace Framework Policy Branch, Department of Industry]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm very pleased to be here today to begin the examination of Bill C-47, 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 C-47 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.

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.

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 C-47 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.

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 C-47.

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.

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 C-47 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 C-47, 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.

As l've explained, Bill C-47 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 C-47 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 C-47 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.

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 C-47.

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.

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 C-47.

Thank you for your attention, and I'm open to your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I'd like to call to order meeting number 65 of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, May 17, 2007, we are studying Bill C-47, an act respecting the protection of marks related to the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games and protection against certain misleading business associations and making a related amendment to the Trade-marks Act.

We have two sessions today. The first is from 3:30 to 4:30, with representatives from the Department of Industry.

We have three representatives. First, we have Ms. Susan Bincoletto, the director general of the marketplace framework policy branch. We've been keeping you very busy, Ms. Bincoletto. Thank you for coming before us again.

We also have Ms. Julie D'amours, counsel with legal services. Welcome.

In place of Douglas Clark, we have Darlene Carreau, counsel in legal services as well.

Ms. Bincoletto, I think you'll be doing the address today, so begin any time.

Thank you.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

I would not do that.

Tomorrow is an allotted day.

Next week is constituent consultation week, when the House will be adjourned to allow members to return to their ridings and meet with constituents to share with them the activities of Parliament since the last constituency break.

For the interest of members, I will quickly review our plan for the context of our overall legislative agenda.

As he requested, this is currently strengthening the economy week, where a number of financial bills moved forward. The budget bill was sent to committee and, hopefully, it will be reported back tomorrow, or soon, so we can deal with it at third reading when the House returns after the break.

Bill C-40, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, was read a third time and sent to the Senate. Bill C-53, an act to implement the convention on the settlement of investment disputes, Bill C-33, the sales tax bill and Bill C-47, the Olympics symbol bill were all sent to committee and we all would like to see those back in the House for report stage and third reading.

In an earlier week, Bill C-36, the bill that makes changes to the Canada pension plan and the Old Age Security Act, was made into law after receiving royal assent.

Strengthening accountability through democratic reform week was a success with the consideration of Bill C-43, Senate consultation. We had three new democratic reform bills introduced that week: Bill C-55, to expand voting opportunities; Bill C-56, an act to amend the Constitution Act, democratic representation; and Bill C-54, a bill that would bring accountability with respect to loans. We hope to continue debate on that particular bill later today.

Bill C-16, fixed dates for elections, was given royal assent and is now law, which I think is the cause of the commotion now in all the committees where Liberals are using procedural tactics. Now they feel they can do it with a free hand.

Two other democratic reform bills are in the Senate, Bill C-31, voter integrity, and Bill S-4, Senate tenure. I really would like to have the term limits bill from the Senate for an upcoming democratic reform week if the opposition House leader can persuade his colleagues in the Senate to finally deal with that bill after 352 days. We may get 352 seconds in a filibuster, but they have had 352 days so far. They have been stalling for a year.

During the consultation week, I will be interested in hearing what our constituents think of the plight of Bill S-4 and the irony of those unaccountable senators delaying it.

We dedicated a good deal of our time focusing on making our streets and communities safer by cracking down on crime. Now that we have had the help of the NDP, we restored the meaningful aspects that the Liberals gutted in committee to Bill C-10, the bill to introduce mandatory penalties for violent and gun crimes. We are continuing to debate that bill today at third reading.

Bill C-48, the bill dealing with the United Nations convention on corruption, was adopted at all stages.

Bill C-26, the bill to amend the Criminal Code with respect to interest rates, was given royal assent.

Bill C-22, the age of protection, was given final reading and sent to the Senate, although it did spend close to, if not in excess of, 200 days in committee where the Liberals were obstructing and delaying its passage.

We made progress on Bill C-27, the dangerous offenders legislation. We would like to see that back in the House.

Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conditional sentence of imprisonment) and a host of other justice bills are working their way through the system.

Members can advise their constituents that when we return, we will be reviving two themes, back by popular demand. Beginning May 28, we will begin again with strengthening accountability through democratic reform with: Bill C-54, political loans; Bill C-55, additional opportunities for voting; and Bill C-56, democratic representation.

Up next is a second go-round on strengthening the economy week with Bill C-52, the budget implementation bill, which will be called as soon as it is reported back from committee.

In the near future, we will have the improvement of aboriginal people quality of life week with Bill C-44. This bill will grant first nations residing on Indian reserves access to the Canadian charter of human rights. They have been denied this right for 30 years. Unfortunately, Bill C-44 is being delayed by the opposition. This is another bill being delayed by the opposition in committee.

After Bill C-44, I intend to debate Bill C-51. The agreement establishes the use and ownership of land and resources and will foster economic development. This bill illustrates Canada's commitment to the North and to settling land claims.

I wish all members a productive constituent consultation week and look forward to more progress on the government's legislative agenda when the House returns on May 28.

Olympic and Paralympic Marks Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-47, Olympic and Paralympic Marks Act.

Today I would like to talk about the importance of sport and the importance of supporting it. I will of course address the importance of the Olympic Games and, above all, the importance of protecting Olympic marks from ambush marketing and trademark theft.

According to the Olympic Charter, established by Pierre de Coubertin, the goal of the Olympic movement is to contribute to building a peaceful and better world by educating youth through sport practised without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play. What an excellent example and lesson for our youth.

The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-47 because we believe in the Olympic ideal. We do not think it is outdated. On the contrary, we believe it is important to promote the movement. Furthermore, as we have seen in this House, the Standing Committee on Health has tabled bills concerning obesity rates among our youth. Sport is a good way to tackle that problem.

Problems of hyperactivity among young people, the majority of them boys, can be resolved by involvement in sports. It is therefore important for our society to support sports, and the Olympic Games provide an excellent opportunity to focus on sports and increase activity.

We had an example of this after the Montreal Olympics of 1976, as generations of young people acquired a taste for sports in general, Olympic sports in particular. It is a matter of health and of well-being.

We became aware, however, at the same time, that funding was both difficult and fraught with peril, and this is why Bill C-47, is so important. This bill makes possible the funding of the Olympic Organizing Committee, which is essential. We need to keep in mind that we are talking of $700 million in connection with Vancouver and with marks. Forty percent of the Olympic Games budget is linked to sponsors, whose ability to use Olympic marks is what will be able to fund those games.

This bill deals with the protection of Olympic and Paralympic marks, and with protection against certain misleading business associations between a business and the Olympic Games, the Paralympic Games or certain committees associated with those Games.

It is therefore important for us to provide real support, but for a limited time. This bill is about special protection, but for a limited time, of intellectual property rights, words and symbols relating to the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics.

The Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill C-47. We note, however, that the Conservative government may be moving quickly to protect Olympic marks, but it is taking far more time to protect intellectual property adequately. At the present time, in fact, the Standing Committee on Industry, Sciences and Technology is looking at the issue of counterfeiting and intellectual property, a major problem for our economy.

Even the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is hard at work to find ways of dealing with film pirating. This committee has, moreover, adopted a motion, thanks to the efforts of the hon. member for Hochelaga, the Bloc Québécois justice critic, which is about proceeding with an examination of this matter.

Canada has, unfortunately, already been faulted for its inaction on film pirating by just about every country on the planet, and rightly so. No fewer than 20% of films pirated by videotaping in a movie theatre originated in Canada.

So what about intellectual property? Generally, the notion of intellectual property covers rights related to intellectual activity in the industrial, scientific, literary, or artistic fields. Intellectual property rights include patents, trademarks, copyright, industrial drawings, integrated circuit arrangements, plant breeders' rights and so on.

All of these are considered intellectual property. We know that if intellectual property is not protected, not only will creativity and inventiveness be suppressed, but the cost to our economy will be enormous. This is becoming a disaster of epic proportions.

The Olympic mark, which we are discussing today, includes all names, phrases, marks, logos and concepts related to the Olympic movement. If we do not protect Olympic marks, why would major sponsors want to invest in these Olympic Games? It is critical that any unauthorized use of the Olympic mark be prevented because it could undermine the entire sponsorship system, the way the Olympic Games organizing committee awards licences and the committee's ability to raise the money needed for these games. Products, sponsorship and licences are truly essential to the success of the Olympic Games, and that is why we really support this bill.

This bill criticizes ambush marketing. What is ambush marketing? Users, individuals, retailers and people selling all kinds of products could claim to own Olympic marks and use them to sell their goods. They would use the marks to appeal to the public so they can sell their fake Olympic logo products.

This bill is really aimed at protecting these Olympic marks. Not protecting them will reduce the value of sponsorship rights. Why would major sponsors pay top dollar for sponsorship rights if they are worthless because the marks are used by everyone? For viable Olympic Games, the trade-marks must be well protected. Every time the Olympics are held, a new bill must be introduced, because the Olympic marks are extremely valuable.

Canadian and foreign organizations have always invested a great deal of money because we have been able to guarantee the Olympic marks. Unauthorized use of Olympic marks must be illegal and carry severe penalties. With this bill, we are not trying to prevent companies from doing business, but it is important to protect the rights of major sponsors who are supporting sport and the building of facilities that will stay in Vancouver and promote sport, which is what happened in Montreal.

For example, under this bill, it would be illegal to use the Olympic rings, the Olympic torch, the logo of the 2010 Olympic Games or the mark Vancouver 2010 on a website or sign, in a written document or on an item, or to use the Olympic mark in a corporate or company name or a trade-mark. The Olympic Organizing Committee is responsible for protecting the Olympic mark, but it is prepared to take legal action if necessary to protect that mark. This could include orders to seize unauthorized wares and recover damages.

What sorts of activities are considered ambush marketing? They include the unauthorized use of the Olympic mark or similar marks or names in connection with a business, organization, event or commercial Internet site; an Olympic contest, including offering a trip or tickets to the Olympics as a prize in a program or promotion; “good luck” advertisements or advertising or prizes to congratulate the Olympic athletes; and references to the Olympic movement, the Olympic Games or the athletes in advertising or marketing.

There are also the merchandise, posters and stickers distributed in connection with the Olympic Games, publications in connection with the Olympic Games, including programs, guides, magazines, maps and supplements, books, personal journals and calendars, and visitor services in connection with the Olympic Games.

One question often asked by promoters is whether Olympic Games tickets can be given as prizes in a contest or promotion. There are specific conditions attached to Olympic Games tickets that expressly prohibit using them for commercial, advertising and promotional purposes, including as prizes in contests. A person who obtains Olympic Games tickets in a manner that violates the applicable conditions can be refused access to the games site or be asked to leave the premises.

So the Conservatives’ haste to defend the Olympic trademarks stands in some contrast to their lack of haste in defending athlete development in Canada and Quebec. On that point, it seems to me that introducing this bill should be an occasion for the Conservative government to give more thought to how it supports sport. We cannot support sport in Canada and Quebec only when the Olympic Games are being organized. We should be doing that all the time, and it should be a requirement, for public health. In our opinion, it is important that more Canadians, in all segments of society, take part in sports activities of every variety.

After the 1976 Olympic Games, the Government of Quebec did a lot for sport. In my riding, there was a very important initiative: the creation of the Les Estacades Sports Complex, in which $8.5 million was invested. And what is this sports complex? It is a strategic centre for sports development, not only for young people who are involved in a program combining sport with academic work, but for all adults and young people in the riding, who can all use the sports complex, which has also received substantial funding from the Mouvement Desjardins. This will make it possible to build an indoor soccer field and an Olympic-sized arena, to open around about December. There will be a range of facilities that everyone in the riding will be able to use.

We are increasingly realizing that soccer is an expanding sport, and one that calls for little expenditure. As a mother, I have seen my sons play a lot of soccer. The youngest still plays. This is a very democratic sport, in the sense that it does not involve astronomical costs for parents. Every family can let their children get involved in this sport, which genuinely contributes to improving our young people’s health.

In conclusion, I will say that we support this bill, to ensure, obviously, that there is adequate funding for Olympic sports and to support amateur sport.

The House resumed from May 16 consideration of the motion that Bill C-47, An Act respecting the protection of marks related to the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games and protection against certain misleading business associations and making a related amendment to the Trade-marks Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. colleague for his excellent speech and the work he has done on this file. Obviously, it shows a great interest and enthusiasm on his part for the Olympics coming in 2010 to Vancouver.

Vancouver has a very soft spot in my heart because I went to grade school there for a number of years before moving to Toronto. Certainly, we are very pleased with Vancouver's bid. We are looking forward to the Olympics. When I was on city council in Toronto, I worked on the 2008 Olympics bid. Unfortunately, we did not win, it went to China, but we are very proud and very pleased that Vancouver was chosen to host the world and bring the world together. We are very delighted and look forward to that very day.

Branding is a very important issue and I understand the issue that my hon. colleague raised in his remarks in relation to Bill C-47. However, there are those who have issued concerns that this might be some form of censorship. I would like my hon. colleague to comment on that and elaborate further why this legislation is needed.

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

Mr. Speaker, after listening to my colleague's speech, I understand that the Liberals will be in favour of Bill C-47, because they have a good understanding of how important it is to provide adequate funding for these Olympic Games, even more so because my colleague is a member from Vancouver.

We can see how quickly the government wants to adopt Bill C-47. But it seems to me that the government is much slower to react to the phenomena of counterfeiting and intellectual property crime, which have increased considerably in Canada.

What does my colleague think about the Conservative government's slow reaction when it comes to intellectual property, whether in connection with films, the manufacturing sector or whatever?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, although I am glad she took the time to invite me to her city, I have been there many times. I have played at the Vancouver folk festival so I am well aware of the city. However, I do believe there are many people in the world who have not been to Vancouver and I am hoping they will visit in 2010 so that it is fully recognized as a city of the world.

I am pleased that she is saying that they are very clear in terms of their interpretation of what they need to protect. She speaks of the Olympic rings. I have always been under the impression that the Olympic rings are already carefully protected under trademark and copyright because of the international symbolism that they have.

I would think that Bill C-47 is looking at other areas that have not been covered off, in particular, the VANOC games, which brings me back to my point about the Inukshuk and how that would be protected as it is a symbol that has been within the first nations communities for however long, we could not even begin to guess. I would be more concerned about that symbol suddenly being brought under trademark law than about somebody getting away with abusing the Olympic rings because that is already covered under international trademark law.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-47, which has been introduced by the government to deal with trademark protection for the 2010 Vancouver Olympic and Paralympic Games. I have been working very closely with my colleagues from British Columbia, because this will be a unique moment in the history not just of our country but in particular of the people of the west coast, and I would like to speak to that.

I feel that it is always incumbent upon politicians to address their biases up front so that the people back home know where they are coming from. There is certainly a tendency for politicians to identify themselves with sports and to be seen with regard to sports, partly because people like sports a lot more than they like politicians, which is I think a good example of how the average person's wisdom tends to be fairly sharp.

When I was a boy in Timmins, we seemed to not exist anywhere on the planet. Culturally we never heard our voices mentioned on national television. We never heard ourselves on radio. The only time we ever saw a reflection of who we were was on Saturday night with the Montreal Canadiens and Frank Mahovlich playing. Frank Mahovlich was from Shumacher. We felt we were someplace on the world map because of Frank Mahovlich or Bill Barilko or the Kreiner sisters, who were such fantastic Olympians.

I cannot claim any share of that great sporting heritage from northern Ontario. I would not claim to be the worst hockey player ever put out in northern Ontario in the city of Timmins, but if we classified the 10 worst athletes ever put out in northern Ontario, I might be one of them. In fact, I remember as a little boy coming home to my father saying that I could not catch a baseball. I could not score a goal. I was pretty good at dirty cheap shots, but I have certainly grown out of that, and I think most of my colleagues will agree.

I remember asking my father why it was that in an area that produced so many great athletes the Angus family was so bereft of the most basic skills of eye-hand coordination. My father said, “Son, it's been like this for generations. When God was giving out eye-hand coordination, the Anguses were in another room getting a drink”.

I feel it is incumbent upon me to at least be honest with the people here and back home. I would never, ever claim any ability to win anything in the world of sports, but that does not mean I do not appreciate it.

When we are talking about the Olympics, we are talking about an event that brings us the best of our young athletes and the best of that spirit from around the world. However, we are also talking about what it does to a city. A city is forever changed by the Olympics. It is changed in the minds of the international community.

Let us think of the experiences in Calgary and Montreal. It will be the same for Vancouver. I think so much about the city of Sarajevo, which was such a symbol of international goodwill and of a cosmopolitan coming together. The tragedy of Sarajevo afterwards was very much marked because of our impression of it through the Olympics and the lost promise there.

The impact that the 2010 Olympics will have on Vancouver and the Whistler area will be phenomenal for the region of British Columbia. It certainly will be an event that will propel Vancouver's place in the 21st century. As government and parliamentarians, we certainly have a serious role to play in ensuring that these games are the most successful possible.

We have only to look back to the experience of the Montreal Olympics. Certainly from Expo but then from the Olympics, Montreal really was identified forever as an international city because of those events. However, Montreal also was remembered, at least in Canada, for Mayor Drapeau's famous baby that he delivered in the form of the massive debt he ended up with.

After that, cities and governments always had to contend with how to ensure that they promote a successful Olympics. How do they compete with every other Olympics? Every Olympics has to be the best there ever was. There is incredible pressure on a country, a region and a city to deliver something that the previous Olympics did not, to deliver so that in this age of 24-7 television and international attention, Vancouver, the Vancouver area and by extension all of Canada will shine.

There is an issue in terms of the financial costs. The costs are enormous. As parliamentarians we have to ensure that we are doing our utmost to make it possible for VANOC to work with the International Olympic Committee and Paralympic Committee to deal with sponsorship issues.

I am going to be speaking to Bill C-47 today because I think it is an important bill. We have to deal with the issues of bootleg products and ambush marketing to ensure that there is a good business climate so that people who do invest in the games will not be unfairly undermined.

However, at the same time, as with anything in terms of trademark or copyright law, we have to look at balancing the issues. Legislation is a blunt instrument. When we bring legislation forward, especially legislation that tries to cover off the minutia and the details that this legislation does, we are creating a very large and cumbersome body, and it can have unintended consequences. We see that with any bill that comes forward.

We have to reflect and make sure that we provide the tools to prevent the unfair ambush marketing that will undermine the value of the sponsorships. We are looking at a massive amount of money having to be brought forward by the private sector. The corporations that invest certainly have a right to be protected from the unfair bootlegging of Olympic logos by people who do not want to pay.

At the same time, as I say, in any trademark or copyright issue it is a balancing act. We have to ensure that the legislation we bring forward here will not have unfair and unintended consequences for small organizations and for small mom-and-pop operations. We have to ensure that the legislation we bring forward will not prevent citizens within Vancouver, Whistler or anywhere in Canada from partaking in a debate or discussion without facing unfair litigation or going to court to prove they really were not infringing on trademarks.

We have to look at how we can balance these two issues, because we see an extremely wide array of trademark issues and words put forward as being under protection. There are something like 75 being proposed for the Whistler games while there were only three for Montreal. That is a major change.

Words such as “tenth”, “winter” and “Vancouver” will be subject to a form of trademark protection. How will we ensure they are used fairly? We would understand if the five Olympic rings were being used by some burger chain in competition with a much bigger burger chain that actually paid to use them.

There is certainly an argument to be made that using the five rings and saying, “Come and get our Olympic fries”, would be an infringement. However, what about using specific words like “twenty-first” and “Vancouver”? How do we ensure average and fair use? Fair use is a legal term in any copyright issue. How does this legislation not impede the fair use of words like “twenty-first” and “Vancouver”?.

I am particularly concerned about the logo that was chosen, the inukshuk, which I think is an amazing symbol. It has become a symbol of Canada, but it is primarily a first nation symbol. It comes from our far north. It has become a symbol of the Olympics. Suddenly this symbol from our first nation people has been appropriated, in a sense, as being under trademark protection.

People see this symbol if they travel anywhere in northern Canada, not just in Inuit lands or in the far Arctic. It has become a common symbol. It is a symbol that everyone uses. I am very concerned that it is suddenly being given patent protection as an Olympic symbol when in fact it has been a symbol within the communities of the first nation peoples for I would not even venture to guess how long. I definitely have a concern about that and it has been raised within the NDP caucus.

We have a concern about the overall intent in terms of trying to be so specific. I appreciate the comments made by the Conservative member who spoke earlier and said that this will be applied only for commercial abuse. Public satire, public discourse, blogging, et cetera will not be impeded. This again shows the intent of a balance, but we have to see it in the legislation in order to feel comfortable that we are going after the unfair bootlegging use of symbols that are quite rightly trademarked.

One of the concerns I have is that law is based on precedent and we are setting up a massive tent for a short period of time with a sunset on how long we will not be allowed to use the word “Vancouver”, “tent”, “winter” or “gold”. However, under that tent, we are moving all the yardsticks fairly dramatically on Canadian trademark law and policy. It also affects copyright issues because this would be the single largest change in trademark law in the last 50 years. Essentially what it says is that if there is a perceived abuse of the trademark by someone then that person must stop using it immediately. The onus would then be on that person to prove that he or she was not abusing the trademark.

We saw similar attempts brought forward under the famous Bulte report on heritage in terms of copyright legislation where a suggestion was brought forward that if one felt that a website unfairly infringed on one's copyright material, that website would need to be shut down immediately. The reverse onus on someone to prove that he or she has not done something wrong is troubling. The person could say that he or she was just doing it for the duration of the Vancouver Games and then he or she will fold up the tent and everything will go back to normal, but we have set precedents at that point on how we establish trademark law in this country.

There have been some public critics of Bill C-47 who have said that we are looking at creating special interest law for a short period of time and then they will move that tent to another area.

On the larger issue of trademark law and copyright law, I know there has been much debate over the last number of years on where Canada needs to go and whether or not we are some kind of outrageous pirate haven for bootleg copies, as certain lobbyists have attempted to say, or whether we need to start building a 21st century legislative framework to deal with trademark and copyright issues in a digital age. Those are certainly issues that we need to discuss.

I am looking at Bill C-47 in terms of the larger issue of how we establish and protect the rights of businesses to invest in something as important as the Vancouver Games and how we also assess the potential impact on a mom and pop operation that wants to have gold and silver coffee at their little coffee shop in northern B.C. and whether or not their rights will be unfairly infringed upon.

We have been promised these rights by the VANOC committee and, I would like to believe, that it will be very judicious in their use, which is certainly comforting. However, it is a question that we would need to ask.

If we provide a large and wide interpretation of anything that could possibly be seen as potential abuse and then expect that it will only be used in certain circumstances, once we have given those rights to go after potential infringers, my sense is that people will go after potential infringers. We need to ensure that what we do with the legislation has a balancing act.

I want to reiterate that it is important to have a framework in place to ensure that the VANOC Games succeed in the way they need to succeed and in the way they are able to generate the revenue necessary. The only way they can do that is to ensure there are certain trademark protections brought into law and that we are very serious about going after bootlegging. That needs to be understood.

The question here is how we balance the rights, not whether or not we support the legislation. The committee will need to do some work to ensure these rights are balanced off and that we are not using a massive hammer to hit the little ants, the very small operations that will, quite rightly, have the ability and the right to partake in the celebration of something as important as the Vancouver Games.

We had the example of the Olympia restaurant in Vancouver and the fact that it already had been for some time using this term. We have had a number of similar trademark law cases in recent years. The famous Barbie's Restaurant was sued by Mattel for an apparent trademark infringement when there had been an established use of Barbie's Restaurant for some time. I believe Barbie was the name of the owner of the restaurant.

Therefore, we have had cases and we have seen how they have played out in the courts. They definitely will help guide us as parliamentarians to ensure that the legislation we bring forth will be balanced to protect the notion of trademarks but also not excessive to unfairly infringe and shut down the fair use of terms like “tents”, “winter”, “Vancouver”, “gold” , “sponsor” or “Whistler”. Those are public terms used in a wide variety of applications.

Whether it is a small mom and pop operation that wants to celebrate the fact that a young woman or man from their community is going to Whistler to celebrate a golden event, and they want to invite people to partake, we certainly do not want to see this law misused in that sense.

I am not suggesting for a minute that is the intention of the VANOC committee. It has done an excellent job so far of promoting the games but with trademark law and copyright law we must be very clear that we are not simply moving the yardsticks one day, popping the tent up and saying that there will no longer be any implications from dramatically changing how we see trademark and copyright , particularly on the issue of reverse onus because it sets a precedent and we will start seeing it in other areas.

As I have said, we have already seen it in some of the suggestions on digital copyright and the attempt to bring in the reverse onus on the use of website materials. This is not related at all to the Olympics but it does concern the issue of creating a precedent. What we are looking at in Bill C-47 is the single largest change in trademark law in Canada in 50 years.

Every effort needs to be made at all levels of government to ensure that 2010 is as successful as it possibly can be. One of the lessons we have learned from the Olympic experience is that we need to ensure that at the end of the day the residents of the city of Vancouver and British Columbia are not left bearing the financial costs of staging such a massive event, which is why we work with private sponsorship. Private sponsorship is essential for the success of the Olympics, and so it should be.

However, we need to ensure the balancing act between providing businesses, which want to invest, security in that investment, but we must also ensure that the legislation we bring forth does not unfairly change the basic ground rules for average citizens who want to partake.

As I said earlier, we have been reassured that this strictly looks at commercial interests and commercial use of trademark logos, which is very reassuring to New Democrats because we believe that out of the 2010 games there will be all kinds of public comment. People will participate on their own blog cites. Some people will be against the Olympics, for whatever reason, and they will want to say things. We certainly do not want to have a law in place that shuts down the open and fair discussion and the fair use of phrases.

We are looking forward to seeing where we can go with this bill by working with other parties. I think this is one area where all parties believe that this will be an amazing event for the 21st century and for setting Vancouver on the road to being a world-class city.

We are all coming together at this time but it is very clear that we need to put aside our partisans hats and try to do the best we can so that after the games there are no sour feelings at any level in society that we, as parliamentarians, somehow dropped the ball. At the end of this, it must be fully understood that we brought forward bills that did everything possible to ensure the Paralympic and Olympic Games were the best ever.

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

Mr. Speaker, in regard to the organization of the 21st Olympic Winter Games in Vancouver and Whistler in 2010, we are asked today in our role as parliamentarians to take an additional step toward the establishment of clear, specific rules applying to all companies that wish to take part in this celebration. As the Bloc critic for sports, I would like to add my voice to all the others debating C-47, An Act respecting the protection of marks related to the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games, introduced last March by the Minister of Industry.

I would like to say, first, that this bill will enable the Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, usually called VANOC, to comply with the requirements of the International Olympic Committee or IOC, with which it has a contract. In order to abide by the rules in the Olympic Charter, VANOC must agree to take appropriate steps to adequately protect the Olympic words and symbols, failing which it could be subject to IOC sanctions. Chapter 1 of the Olympic Charter states that “IOC approval of Olympic emblems may be withdrawn unless the NOCs concerned take all possible steps to protect their Olympic emblems and inform the IOC of such protection”.

The current Trade-marks Act already protects Olympic and Paralympic marks against fraudulent uses, but in view of the considerable contribution from private partners, VANOC would like the House to pass more narrowly focused legal protection in order to reassure all its partners and the IOC. Parliament already passed similar legislation at the time of the Montreal Olympic Games in 1976. In addition, other host countries over the last few years have met the requirements of the Olympic movement by passing legislation to protect Olympic marks. This was done in the cases of the Sydney games in 2000 and the future summer games to be held in London in 2012.

If used wisely, the new legislation will not infringe on the rights of citizens and athletic associations that want to join in the Olympic spirit but will help companies that commit large amounts of money to the Olympic adventure to protect their investment. In order to ensure that it will still be possible in the future to hold similar events, it is important to establish a climate of confidence that encourages sponsors to become involved.

Bill C-47 deals, therefore, with counterfeiters and unauthorized use of the fame or popularity of an event, something that experts call “ambush marketing.”

The main sponsors of the Vancouver Games support the early adoption of this bill, since ambush marketing is a form of parasitism allowing an advertiser to try to associate itself with an event or simply to take advantage of some of the advertising surrounding an event without really taking part in it. By facilitating legal remedies for hijacked Olympic and Paralympic marks, the bill will enable VANOC to guarantee exclusive rights to the authorized sponsors and thus contribute to the funding of the event. In other words, as I said earlier, this bill will assure the companies who are becoming partners in the games that their investment will be respected, and also give VANOC additional leverage to raise sufficient funds.

Although we support this bill out of respect for the players in Quebec’s and Canada’s sports community, I wish to say that we also want to support the small business owners who, without meaning any harm, wish to celebrate the holding of the games in their region. Accordingly I would remind the House that VANOC undertook to use this legislation as minimally as possible, exercising judgment and fairness. Exceptions are also provided for in some cases so as not to hurt companies that may have begun using a term linked to the Olympics prior to January 1998, and the act itself will be valid for only a limited time, that is, it will cease to apply, as provided in clauses 13 and 15, on December 31, 2010.

VANOC also intends to undertake a campaign to educate people about the Olympic mark and it will define clear guidelines pertaining to use of the mark, while encouraging communities to play an active part in the games so that all the potential players in this project, citizens, large corporations, associations and small business owners, feel included in the event and become fully involved in it.

Protecting Olympic and Paralympic marks—including all names, phrases, marks, logos and designs relating to the Olympic movement—guarantees that only authorized sponsors will be able to use them. As a result, no person or business will be able to appropriate them without contributing to the financial support of the games. It is very important to understand that, out of an operating budget totalling $1.7 billion for the Vancouver Games, commercial partners contribute approximately $725 million. Thus, according to VANOC:

Revenue from sponsors and licensees is critical to the successful staging of the 2010 Winter Games, increased funding for Canadian athletes, and sport and cultural legacies for all Canadians.

I would like to take a moment to examine that quotation. The sport and cultural legacy of the Vancouver Games referred to by VANOC also means that we have to give thought to respect for bilingualism, both in the preparations for the games and during the games themselves. I would remind the House that, in October 2005, a cooperation agreement was signed between the Government of Quebec and VANOC in order to promote linguistic duality and the specificity of Quebec's culture and identity. This agreement also provides that the Government of Quebec will support VANOC in its efforts to guarantee the presence of French at all stages of the games, which is also required pursuant to the Olympic charter, since the two official languages of the Olympic movement are French and English.

I would point out that, despite that agreement, in a report tabled in February 2007 entitled Reflecting Canada's Linguistic Duality at the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games: A Golden Opportunity, the members of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages stated:

—there are still a number of challenges to ensuring the full and fair consideration of the two official languages at the 2010 Games. The committee feels that concrete and immediate action must be taken to guarantee compliance with linguistic criteria in the selection of host cities, in the provision of adequate funding for French-language organizations in setting up projects for the 2010 Games, in the representation of French-language communities in VANOC and in the cultural celebrations associated with the Games, in the broadcasting of the Games to the entire English and French audience and regarding bilingual signage outside the host cities.

Although VANOC is committed to respecting both official languages, it still has to take the necessary measures in order to keep that commitment. One of the key problems concerns the televised broadcast of the events. We must absolutely ensure that the television viewers are respected, by asking the responsible broadcasters to assure the French and English audiences equal coverage of the events.

These games provide Quebec and Canadian athletes an opportunity to measure what they are made of, their talent, their strengths and their perseverance. For the spectators as well, whether they are attending the competitions or watching them with interest on television, the Olympic Games are important. During this international event they will see themselves in the athletes representing them, they will identify with their challenges and victories and they will be inspired. This sense of identification and pride is achieved by respecting French and its development.

Respecting bilingualism in Vancouver is especially important. Although French has official language status within the Olympic Movement, this status did not stop it from declining on a number of levels during the last games. As Grand Témoin de la Francophonie for the Turin Olympic Games, Lise Bissonnette said, “We should be telling cities which make a bid to stage the Olympics that they must make commitments set in stone when it comes to official languages, and they will have to demonstrate how they intend to meet these commitments”. For now, it is deplorable that the linguistic duality of the cities making a bid to host the games is not considered, whether within the International Olympic Committee or the Canadian Olympic Committee.

Looking beyond the confines of the Olympics, the members of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages also deplore, in their report, the fact that French and English are not accorded the same status in the Canadian sports system. For example, although Canada's sports policy provides for some measures to support bilingualism, this is not the case for the policy on sport for persons with a disability. According to all the witnesses convened by the committee, a great deal of work remains to be done to ensure that athletes are provided services and support mechanisms in both official languages equally.

Also according to the committee's report, Sport Canada acknowledges that there is still much to be done to ensure that francophone athletes have equitable access to high performance sport. Worse yet, in a study published in 2000, former official languages commissioner Dyane Adam stated that the shortcomings of the Canadian sports system with regard to language were detrimental to the overall development of francophone athletes.

If, on a daily basis, the French language is used improperly or neglected in the Canadian sports world, we must be even more vigilant in order to ensure that it is given its due at the Vancouver Games. Ultimately, French must be integrated into the development of Canada's Olympic philosophy.

According to the Olympic Charter, olympism is a philosophy of life exalting and combining in a balanced whole the qualities of body, will and mind. Blending sport with culture and education, olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy of effort, the educational value of good example and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles. Olympism is more than just an attitude, it is a way of life, a mindset passed from generation to generation. The Vancouver Games will serve to promote sport and develop athletes. The young athletes whom I recently encouraged at the Canada Games were inspired by those who came before them and, in turn, will inspire those competing in 2010.

As well, every year, the Quebec Games make a not insignificant contribution to development of the Olympic spirit. Sports-Québec and everyone who contributes to organizing this great coming together are motivated by a desire to pass on the values of Olympianism to young people. This sporting event, an innovative initiative on the part of Quebec, helps to encourage the emergence of the sports elite of tomorrow. The young athletes who participate are, like the Olympians, motivated by an exceptional desire to surpass their limits. They put all their heart, the best of themselves, into every competition. For them, these championships are the Olympics, on their own scale. These meetings are often where they find the motivation they need to pursue their efforts and achieve ever higher objectives.

Because these games are an important step on the road that leads to the Olympiads, I also want to thank the volunteers who commit themselves body and soul to events such as these, and I am not forgetting the host cities, which put vast storehouses of energy into carrying out their mission. Here, I am thinking particularly of the RCM L'Assomption, which hosted the Winter Games last March, and the city of Sept-Îles, where the 43rd finals of the Quebec Games will be held from August 3 to August 11 of this year. In fact, I will take this opportunity to issue an invitation to everyone who would like to come and witness the vitality and enthusiasm that are the hallmark of the next generation of Quebec athletes

When I think about the Olympic spirit, a few names immediately spring to mind. For the Hamelins who live in Sainte-Julie in my riding, speedskating is more than a sport, it is a fundamental part of family life. Everyone in Quebec is now familiar with Charles Hamelin, who won silver in Milan last March at the short-track speedskating world championships. A few days later, he won the world team championships in the same event. Charles also left his mark in Turin in 2006. It seems that before long the name of his brother François will be equally familiar to sports fans in Quebec.

At the 2006 Soirée des lauréats montréalais, François, who already held the national junior 1000 metre record, was named most promising athlete, while the father of these two champions, Yves Hamelin, was named development trainer of the year. The two brothers started skating at a very young age and have benefited from the wise counsel of their father. This invaluable spirit of emulation is the spirit that the Olympic Movement seeks to promote.

Along the same line, the successes experienced today by Charles Hamelin, François-Louis Tremblay, Olivier Jean and Kalyna Roberge, to name just a few, are not unlike the past successes of the great skater Marc Gagnon, who was recently inducted into the Canadian Olympic Hall of Fame. Gagnon, a four-time world champion and two-time silver medalist, and a member of the Canadian team since the age of 15, ended his prolific career after the Salt Lake City Olympic Games in 2002, where he became the most decorated Winter Olympics athlete in the history of Quebec and Canada. After participating in three Games and winning five Olympic medals, three of them gold, he overtook Gaétan Boucher, another iconic figure in Quebec sport. Perhaps even more than the impressive number of titles and medals he collected, it is Marc Gagnon’s energy and personality that made him one of the leading Quebec athletes of recent years. It is that spirit that he has passed on to the next generation, so that they can, in a way, carry on the Olympic lineage.

In other disciplines as well, this lineage is very clear. If Alexandre Despaties, a triple god medal winner at the Grand Prix de Montréal just a few weeks ago, is now one of the most highly regarded Olympic hopefuls in Quebec, it is because others have shown him the way. Sylvie Bernier’s victory at the Los Angeles Olympics, in 1984, is linked to the success of Despaties, who recently was presented with an international award as best diver in the world, in recognition of his performance in the past four years.

The Olympic spirit is very much alive in the Quebec sports community. Among the people who exemplify this ideal in a very striking way, I would also like to mention the great wheelchair racing champion, Chantal Petitclerc. Since 1992, Chantal Petitclerc has won 16 Paralympic and one Olympic medal. She is the holder of several world records and continues to campaign for recognition of her sport as an official Olympic event. Since 1995, she has been the spokesperson for Défi sportif des athlètes handicapés, which this year included nearly 3,000 competitors. In addition to being an exceptional athlete, Chantal Petitclerc has a gift for expressing the passion that motivates her, so that she is a much sought-after speaker. She was recently included among the list of most-admired personalities in Quebec not only because of her success in sports but also for her glowing personality. Strength, courage, tenacity, balance, and good humour: Chantal Petitclerc is, outside the sporting arena, an incredible source of inspiration.

Before concluding, allow me to salute Christiane Ayotte and her entire team of researchers who tirelessly devote their efforts to overcoming the devious methods of those individuals for whom gold justifies any means and who do not hesitate to put the health of young people at risk in their search for super-human performances. Thanks to their laboratory police work, the great striving for excellence, in the spirit of the Olympic motto, “Swifter, Higher, Stronger”, can be carried out in a healthier manner.

While couch potatoes are increasingly taking the step to a more active life, we must provide an opportunity for everyone, on a daily basis, to draw inspiration from the examples of courage and perseverance of our athletes. For that reason, we must give VANOC all the necessary legislative tools for completing the colossal task of holding a modern Olympiad, where financial and commercial interests must be blended as closely as possible with environmental, social and, of course, sporting success.

You will, therefore, understand why the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-47 in principle at second reading and we will listen with great pleasure to the witnesses who are called before the Industry committee in order to learn more.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by the member for Vancouver Centre. One of the things she talked about was a business owner in her riding who was pressured to remove any mention of “olympic” or "olympia” from signs that had been on his business for years. This surprises me, because Bill C-47 allows businesses to use names related to the Olympics if they have been using them for some time.

I would like the member to tell us who was putting pressure on this businessman. How did he react? Is that the type of witness she would want to appear before the committee, people who, just like this businessperson, were pressured, so they can explain how they have been doing business for years? And how keeping this word in the company name would bring back regular customers? Alternatively, could changing the name for one year cause major harm to his business and its long-term viability?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-47 because this is an bill respecting the protection of marks related to the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games, and protection against certain misleading business associations and making a related amendment to the Trade-marks Act. That is what this bill is going to do.

Bill C-47 was introduced, as always is the case when there are going to be Olympic Games in any country, to protect existing trademarks, for words and symbols associated with the Olympics and Paralympics. It was also introduced to prevent unauthorized third parties from advertising in a manner that would suggest a link between their business, goods or services and the games. This is known as ambush marketing. This bill is being put forward to prevent ambush marketing.

The House needs to know that for those of us on this side of the House, especially those of us who live in Vancouver, these 2010 Olympic Games are for us an important moment in the life of British Columbia.

I recall being in cabinet when our government supported fully and whole-heartedly these 2010 Olympic Games. I recall standing there and watching our Prime Minister at the time, Jean Chrétien, standing shoulder-to-shoulder with our provincial Premier Gordon Campbell and others, absolutely shouting in glee when we won those games. We have the province, the federal government, business, and consortiums of people in British Columbia and across Canada for whom the 2010 games are an enormous issue for our province.

We know that British Columbia is a gorgeous province. We know that Vancouver is a beautiful city. We all know this. We also know that when Expo came about in the eighties in British Columbia and Vancouver that Vancouver moved from just being a pretty town to being a beautiful lady. We know the 2010 Olympics will actually make this beautiful city of mine a diva on the world stage.

There is huge support from this party, on this side of the House, when we were in government and now that we are the official opposition, for the 2010 Olympic Games. We understand fully and we support fully the principle of this bill that seeks to ensure that the existing trademark protection for words and symbols associated with both the Olympic and Paralympic Games are in fact enshrined.

Having said that, there are a couple of cautionary words that I want to put on the record. When this bill first came to my attention, I thought as critic that I would actually speak with many people within British Columbia, with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, with athlete's groups, et cetera, to see if this bill was fine, if they liked it as it was, or if there were any amendments that they felt would make the bill better.

I heard some things that caused me to have a bit of concern. For instance, I actually talked with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and it had no problem with the bill at the time.

I also spoke to many other people. The Canadian Business magazine had a huge article on this issue. There is some concern that what this bill is doing is actually changing the important part of the legislation. This bill would remove the usual criteria that has been in existence to date wherever Olympic and Paralympic Games have been held. It would remove the criteria that courts usually require if someone were to bring an injunction against a third party to demonstrate that in fact the games or the sponsors would suffer irreparable harm. That has now been removed.

In fact, this is causing some problems because there may be small businesses and other groups who unwittingly might do something that might cause them to have an injunction if they were to have their property and their goods, that they have been selling, seized without first demonstrating that they have caused irreparable harm and allowing them the ability to actually pay for damages that were done.

First and foremost, I think this is a little bit disconcerting to everyone involved, that people are going to be found guilty and then have to prove that they are innocent. It is completely different from the way the laws are applied. The bill would be seeking injunctions against businessmen and entrepreneurs who work in grey areas.

VANOC, to its credit, has said that it is very sensitive to this issue and that it will use its own good judgment and promised not to use this particular new power indiscriminately or without thinking carefully about it. That is good. I am glad to hear that. I have no reason to believe that this will not happen.

There are those who are slightly concerned. For instance, the BCBusiness Magazine was a little concerned about the enforcing of unregistered trademark rights where some general words in the Olympics are now going to be used, words that concern everyone like the simple word “winter”. Used alone, “winter” could be an infringement of a trademark. The simple word “gold”, which is a word that one uses all the time, could be used to infringe on a trademark. The simple word “medal”, or the word “tenth”, may infringe this particular piece of legislation. There are 58 such words and symbols that are going to be brought in and may cause concern.

Many people, especially legal people who have been involved in looking at intellectual property laws et cetera, have asked for some caution. For instance, we have heard from a Canadian research chair in Internet and ecommerce law, from the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law, who has said that experience in other countries during an Olympics suggests that this legislation would create a chill for artists, bloggers, and social commentators who fear that their legitimate expression may lead to a date in court.

What does this mean? What is it going to mean to them carrying on their ordinary work and in fact even asking questions about the games in a blog or asking questions in an email about the games? This could infringe on their rights. This could infringe on their ability to simply put forward any kind of social commentary on the games.

Second, because the bill gives VANOC the power to obtain an injunction to stop the distribution of goods that might violate the law, this provision eliminates the traditional requirement, as I said earlier, to demonstrate irreparable harm. Many people are concerned that they will be found guilty before they have even proven that they will not.

We have heard from a UBC professor, who does intellectual property law, who has said that she has a problem with the games because while everyone understands, and we on this side of the House are in full agreement, that one must protect the interests of corporate sponsors of the games, this is going to make it very difficult for the little entrepreneur who does not have the ability to go to court to support his or her claim in terms of not infringing this property right. This is another problem.

I am going to give the House two examples, one of them is quite humourous. In 2005 a small group was trying to get funds in order to save endangered ferrets. This group organized something called the ferret olympics in which ferrets were going to do feats of daring and out of that this group would raise money to protect the ferrets.

As a result of the 2005 U.S. Olympics committee's changes and protection, the organizers could not call their games the ferret olympics so they had to cancel them. We heard very clearly that the decision came as a special disappointment to a ferret named Spaz who was actually hoping to win the gold in the ferret olympics. We can see how this, which was well meaning, can have some consequences. This case is humorous but another case may not be.

I have a pizza parlour in my riding called the Olympia Pizza and Pasta Restaurant. Many Greeks use the word “olympics”, “olympia” or “olympian” because this is a part of Greek tradition and Greek mythology. The owner has been asked to remove signs from his restaurant because of these coming Olympics. It is alarming because we have found in the Vancouver region alone 15 businesses that use the word “olympic” and have been using it for years, ranging from a real estate office to a boat centre, and actually to a local sex therapist who uses the word “Olympics” in the name.

We have to be careful of the unintended consequences of what in effect is a very good bill and one that this side wishes to support. Of all of the principles that it entails, we feel that there are some elements that should be looked at.

We would like to see the bill actually go to committee. We would like to see the committee ask for witnesses to come forward, not only VANOC alone, but representatives of small business, some of the legal teachers and professors who deal with intellectual property law. We would like to see the actual athletes because we have spoken to Athletes Canada and it has told us that it has some concerns.

For instance, an Olympic athlete living in a small town in Canada will have all of the little sharks in the area wanting to help the guy or the girl to get there and win gold, so they raise money to help the athlete with travel and with all of the things he or she needs. In raising that money, they may hold an event in the city, in the little town, and the event may say “Help Joe Smith get to the Olympics” and “Help Joe Smith win gold at the 2010 Olympics”. Right now Athletes Canada fear that it may not even be able to say that because that would be infringing on the trademark. The fundraising that goes on in little communities who are so proud of their athletes may be jeopardized. I am not saying it will be, but I am saying it may be.

I am asking for a bit of caution to occur at committee and that we ask certain groups to attend. Athletes Canada should come and be present as a witness. We would like to ask the intellectual property law people to come and be present as witnesses. We would like to ask small business communities to come and the Federation of Independent Business should come as well as VANOC.

If there are any things that could create negative, unintended consequences in the bill, then we would be able to amend it at committee. Therefore, we will not have some of these negative, unintended consequences, which I know, having spoken with VANOC and having been a strong supporter of the games, is really something that it would not like to see happen.

I do think we would like the bill to go to committee. We would like the right number of witnesses to come to committee, so that this could be dealt with and then we would be able to stand in the House and, in an unqualified manner, fully and completely support an amended Bill C-47.

Right now I support Bill C-47, but with the qualifications that I spoke about. They are simple things to do. With good intentions we can all come to committee and deal with these issues very clearly in an open and transparent manner, get them fixed, get some of the little things that concern people looked at, so that we can be able to finally say that here we go, these will be the best Olympic Games that Canada has ever seen. And of course, Whistler and Vancouver will shine and we will suddenly have everyone wanting to come to a province and to a city, to the most unusual Olympic Games that have ever happened in the history of the Winter Games.

People will come to a place where they can ski on the mountains, and play golf and soccer on the green grass of Vancouver at the same time. I do not think there have been any other Olympic Winter Games anywhere that people could do that because it has always been winter everywhere. People can have winter up in Whistler and come to Vancouver and cycle under the cherry blossoms that tend to bloom in early March and February in my province of British Columbia in the city of Vancouver.

We are proud of the games and support them. We support the intent of Bill C-47.

I would just like to reiterate that we do have some concerns. This did not just come out of the Liberal caucus. We have spoken to business. We have spoken to professors of intellectual property law. We have spoken to many people who would like to have some assurances and some clarification that in fact this will do exactly what it was meant to do, which is to protect the Olympic and Paralympic symbol, but that it will also protect the small business people who are also trying to be part of the games and who want to ensure that their athletes get to do the best they can. They want to join in the support. They want to use with pride some of the things that at this moment they are very concerned that they may not be able to use.

Having said that, I am prepared to answer any questions that anyone may have to ask me and to make it very clear that I hope the bill will move to committee, so that we will get the kinds of problems we are concerned about discussed and amend the bill so that everyone can enjoy what I know will be the greatest Winter Olympics that the world has ever seen. They will be held in a multicultural community having huge cultural and artistic forms of expression, with the aboriginal people of the west coast, a proud people, being there to display the beauty of aboriginal culture along with all of the many other cultures there including the Chinese, Asians, Ukrainians, Scots and Celts, all of whom have a huge role to play in our part of the world.

One of the things that sold us on the 2010 Olympics was that this was not just going to be about winter sports but this was going to be a place where Canada would show that it is the global nation. Canada is going to show that it is a place where everyone from every culture can come together and stand together with common values and experiences while being very proud of that global culture that is theirs. They want to showcase it to the world, to showcase a remarkable city and a remarkable mountain that is Whistler. It can be a winter Olympics at its best with beautiful green grass and flowers as one travels half an hour down from Whistler to see what Vancouver can be like during the winter, green and beautiful.

This is going to mean a lot for Canada. We wish that the games will be successful. We wish to see this piece of legislation being amended in a way that makes it extremely successful.

[James Moore, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics]

Mr. Speaker, the legislation we are debating today is Bill C-47, which is important legislation for protecting the integrity of the Vancouver Whistler 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games and also protecting the economic health of the games.

Bill C-47 is a relatively short piece of legislation and it is time limited. It contains schedules that clearly identify the various words, symbols and insignia that are protected as an Olympic and Paralympic mark. It also defines the entities that will be protected by the legislation, namely VANOC, the Canadian Olympic committee, the Canadian Paralympic committee and their partners.

I should also add that in the event that Canada plays host to another Olympic and Paralympic Games in the future, the legislation can allow for new marks to be added to the relevant schedules.

The bill provides for two main types of prohibited conduct.

First, it would prohibit persons from using Olympic and Paralympic marks, any translations of such marks, or any mark likely to be mistaken for an Olympic and Paralympic mark, in connection with a business, without the consent of VANOC or, once the games were over, the consent of the Canadian Olympic or Paralympic committees.

Second, it would prohibit persons from using their own trademark or other mark to promote or advertise their business in a manner that misleads or is likely to mislead the public into believing that their business, goods or services are endorsed or otherwise associated officially with the games, VANOC or one of the committees.

What happens if one of these prohibitions is triggered? That is the focus of the bill.

In terms of remedies, one important area where the legislation differs from the Trade-marks Act is in the test VANOC must meet to obtain an interim or interlocutory injunction against a suspected offender. As many members of the House know, the court normally applies the three part test in deciding whether to grant this type of injunction. The parties seeking it must establish that there is a serious issue to be tried, that it will suffer irreparable harm if the offending conduct continues pending trial and that the balance of the convenience is in its favour.

The bill weighs the onus on VANOC to prove the second part of the legal test and often the most difficult to establish, that of providing irreparable harm. The bill greatly facilitates VANOC's ability to enforce its rights in a fair and balanced manner and will provide certainty to businesses thinking about entering into a partnership agreement with the games.

I should note that due to the timeline of this legislation, it is to cover the duration of the games, period. This exception to the legal test will automatically sunset before the end of 2010.

The waiver of the irreparable harm test is tremendously important. It will make it possible for VANOC to act quickly and effectively in dealing with people and businesses that are infringing on the licensing and partnership program. Make no mistake, there are already many examples of that kind of behaviour. With the legislation in place, the games will have an even clearer protection in law.

Do these protections mean that the Olympic organizers will have a free hand to do what they want, as long as they want? The answer is no. The bill has been drafted very carefully to ensure that it meets the objective of facilitating partnerships for the 2010 games, without adversely affecting the lives of Canadians.

Let me make four points to demonstrate what I mean.

The first point is that Bill C-47 only applies in the commercial context. For example, the use of a protected Olympic or Paralympic mark is only prohibited when it is in connection with a business. This “in connection with a business”, a phrase that is a direct quote from the legislation, was taken from the Trade-marks Act and has been interpreted very narrowly by the courts.

This is important because some of the news coverage that we have seen about this bill suggests that it would be used outside of a commercial context to muzzle citizens' right to free speech and prevent people from parodying the games or protesting the games, but that is not this legislation's intent or effect. Therefore, if people want to parody the Olympic games in a sketch, publish an editorial cartoon, make comments on a website or through a newspaper article, or criticize the games in any way, they can refer to an Olympic slogan or include a photo of an Olympic mascot as they see fit.

The second point is that Bill C-47 has a time limit aspect to it. All the special enforcement measures it confers lapse on December 31, 2010, with the end of the games' year.

The third point is that the bill contains a grandfathering provision that prevents it from applying to anyone who adopted and began using a protected Olympic or Paralympic mark before March 2, the date of the bill's introduction in the House. As a result, persons or companies that are already using an Olympic or Paralympic mark in connection with a business will continue to be able to do so as they had before.

The fourth point is that this bill contains a number of safeguards to protect the legitimate use of an Olympic or Paralympic mark in the business context. For example, a person may use such a mark in an address, in a geographical name of their place of business, or the extent necessary to explain a good or service to the public.

Finally, I am pleased to inform the House that in its capacity as temporary steward of the Olympic movement in Canada, VANOC has committed to avail itself of the special protection provided by Bill C-47 in a disciplined, sensitive, fair and transparent manner and will be issuing public guidelines to that effect in the coming weeks.

I want to comment on one last point on the importance of this debate on Bill C-47, and that is the international context for this legislation. As I said earlier, corporate partnerships have become fundamentally important to major events, particularly international sporting events, and governments have recognized the need to protect the intellectual property rights of the events in order to attract needed corporate partners.

In fact, similar legislation has already been passed in Canada in relation to the 1976 Montreal games. This legislation enabled the Montreal organizing committee to act swiftly in the face of potential commercial misuse of the Olympic symbols, just as this bill does. The kind of legal protection we are proposing in the bill became the norm during the 1990s.

Olympic Games in the United States, Australia, Greece and, most recently, in Italy were all successful by having strong legal protections in place for their intellectual property rights. The coming games in Beijing and London already have passed similar protections into law. Canada can and must provide the same kind of protection through Bill C-47.

People in Vancouver, Whistler, throughout British Columbia and across Canada are looking forward to 2010. We are excited to welcome the world, to showcase our wonderful country and beautiful province to the thousands of visitors and billions of viewers who are eager to see Canadians compete against the world's best athletes and succeed right here on our home turf.

We know, like in Montreal and Calgary before, these Olympic Games will provide an invaluable legacy to our country. Bill C-47 would guarantee that Canada would provide the protection that would allow VANOC to attract the corporate support necessary to ensure that the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games are the best we have ever seen.

The games will present Canada in its most favourable light and will energize our tourism industry. These games will inspire a new generation of athletes, the next Pierre Lueders, Cassie Campbells and Beckie Scotts, and provide them with a legacy of world-class facilities so they will become our next great Canadian champions.

Like Montreal and Calgary before them, these games will occupy a unique and enduring place in the hearts and minds of millions of Canadians and citizens around the world.

I urge all hon. members to support the 2010 Vancouver Olympics and our athletes through their support of this very important legislation, Bill C-47.

The House resumed from May 15 consideration of the motion that Bill C-47, An Act respecting the protection of marks related to the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games and protection against certain misleading business associations and making a related amendment to the Trade-marks Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[James Moore, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Conservative federal government, I am proud to rise in this House to begin second reading debate on Bill C-47, the Olympic and Paralympic marks act. The bill is part of the Government of Canada's effort to support the upcoming 2010 Winter and Paralympic Games.

The games, a great honour for British Columbians, are a massive endeavour that will bring the world to Vancouver, a sense of pride to every Canadian and, hopefully, championship glory to our athletes.

As reflected in the short title of this bill, the Olympic and Paralympic marks act, its purpose is relatively straightforward. The government is proposing this legislation for two main reasons: first, to follow through on a commitment made by the International Olympic Committee during the bid phase of the 2010 games to adequately protect the Olympic and Paralympic brand if the games were awarded to Vancouver; and second, to assist the Vancouver organizing committee, VANOC, to maximize private sector participation in the games that will be critical to the success and legacy of the Vancouver 2010 games.

To open the debate on Bill C-47, I would like to offer a brief explanation of how the bill will help provide a legal framework for the marketing of the games and compare that to the legislative approach taken in other countries that have hosted or will be hosting future games.

In 2010 Vancouver-Whistler will become home to 6,000 athletes and officials from more than 80 countries. An army of more than 20,000 employees and volunteers will help make the games run smoothly. The competition will be covered by 10,000 members of the media and witnessed by more than three billion people worldwide. Simply put, the Olympic Games are the world's largest sporting event. This is part of the reason why our government is so proud to be an active partner.

Our government knows that these games are about commitment whether as an athlete or as an organizing committee. Our financial commitment extends to provincial services essential for an event of this magnitude, such as security, health and immigration, as well as border and meteorological services.

Our commitment will include a legacy endowment fund that will provide operational funding for the 2010 games sporting venues and fund high-performance amateur sporting programs across Canada.

However, direct financial contribution is only part of the support that we can provide. We must also ensure that our intellectual property framework is not only up to international standards but will also foster maximum participation of the private sector in the games.

Since the 1988 Calgary Olympic Games, corporate partnerships have become a significant source of revenue for events of all kinds, from the local hockey tournaments to international sporting events. Businesses sign on as partners with particular events because the objectives that the events are in line with happen to be in line with their own. Corporate partnerships work because the value of the association enhances their corporate brands.

The Olympics are no doubt the best known sporting event in the world. Billions of people watch them on television and follow the events on the radio, in the newspapers and on line. As a result, the Olympic symbols, such as the five rings, are among the best known around the world.

The passionate global audience that is attracted to the Olympics, and increasingly to the Paralympic Games are of obvious interest to companies wanting to connect to that audience.

In response to this increased corporate attention, the Olympic movement has developed a sophisticated approach for working with those companies. The IOC, the International Olympic Committee, and the national bodies, such as the Canadian Olympic Committee, work closely with companies and organizations that want to become partners of the games or our national teams.

They work closely with companies and organizations that are interested in using Olympic or national team symbols of various kinds in their marketing and communications. Companies can compete and become official partners in specific product categories or the entire Olympic moment for a national Olympic body and for specific games.

Companies compete to receive licences that allow them to use the Olympic symbols and terms on products. They compete for the right to produce items with Olympic themes from something as simple as a souvenir T-shirt to a marketing campaign focused around the entire product line. These partnerships are now a critical part of the business plan for the event.

For the 2010 Olympic Games, VANOC has projected that it will receive 40% of its operational funding from games-related partnerships and licensing agreements.

In 2006 alone, VANOC announced that it had signed partnership agreements worth $115 million. However, corporate partnerships and licensing agreements depend on the ability of the games organizers to ensure that the Olympic partners and licensees have the unique rights that they competed for and should therefore expect.

Why does this matter? Let me use the example of the T-shirt that I just suggested a minute ago. If I operate a T-shirt company, I can compete for a licence with VANOC to sell T-shirts that have the official Vancouver-Whistler 2010 Olympics symbol on it. When I pay for that licence, I am paying for an exclusive right to produce those 2010 games T-shirts, but if others are able to use those same symbols or ones that are likely to be seen as essentially the same, what business reason do I have to compete for the licence in the first place?

We need a legal framework with clear rules on the use of Olympic symbols and associated words. We need sound, prompt and effective remedies that will deter free riders who seek to cash in on the Olympics to the detriment of the games or the official partners. Put simply, we need to protect the commitment of our partners.

That brings me today to Bill C-47. Canada has a strong intellectual property rights protection regime in place today. For example, the current Trade Marks Act provides a certain degree of protection for Olympics related marks and symbols. Under section 9 of that act, by virtue of their status as public authorities, the Canadian Olympic Committee and VANOC enjoy a certain degree of protection for various Olympic related marks.

However, in light of the upcoming 2010 Winter Games and changes in the marketplace since the Trade Marks Act was written, the protection of Olympic and Paralympic marks is of sufficient importance as to merit a dedicated stand-alone piece of legislation in addition. There are reasons for this.

The first reason is the significant expense required to host Olympic and Paralympic games, to build the world-class sporting facilities and infrastructure needed and, as I have mentioned, an increasing reliance on the private sector.

The second such reason stems from the concern that current laws are insufficient to prevent non-partner companies from using their own trade marks in a manner that misleads or is likely to mislead the public into thinking that they have some business relationship with the games. We need the legal frameworks in place to deal with what are referred to as ambush marketers. We need legislation to address the free riders who jump on the Olympic bandwagon at the last minute for a quick buck.

Finally, there is the concern that current remedies under common law are insufficient to prevent suspected trademark infringers and ambush marketers from continuing their offending behaviour during the limited timelines involved. What is needed are fast but responsible remedies as the games may be over by the time a court ruling brings a case to a close and brings a decision to a given case.

What no one wants are Olympic organizers potentially spending more time and money on litigation to protect their brand than they do on organizing the actual games. As the bulk of the brand policing would take place at a time when Canadians would prefer that VANOC, the Canadian Olympic organizing committee, and the IOC focus on delivering the best Winter Olympics and Paralympics ever.

That is why in 2002 the Government of Canada committed to the IOC to provide necessary legal measures in line with what is asked of Olympic host nations to protect the Olympic symbols, emblems, logos, marks, and many other Olympic related marks and designations. That brings us to why we are here today.

[Carol Skelton, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

moved that Bill C-47, An Act respecting the protection of marks related to the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games and protection against certain misleading business associations and making a related amendment to the Trade-marks Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Environment and Sustainable Development

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we will try this one and hopefully opposition members will have consulted with their lobby before they give an answer. There have been discussions and I think you would find, if you were to seek it, unanimous consent that Bill C-47, an act respecting the protection of marks related to the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games and protection against certain misleading business associations and making a related amendment to the Trademarks Act, be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to a committee of the whole, deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at the report stage, and deemed read third time and passed.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, this week is strengthening accountability through democratic reform week. It has been a busy week for the democratic reform family of bills.

We sent out invitations for the first birthday of Bill S-4, the Senate tenure bill, which Liberal senators have been delaying for almost a year now.

While we are disappointed with the behaviour of Bill S-4's caregivers, we did have some good news this week with the successful delivery of two new members of the family: Bill C-54, a bill to bring accountability with respect to loans; and Bill C-55, a bill to expand voting opportunities.

There is more good news. We are expecting.

Tomorrow, I will be introducing an act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, on democratic representation, which is on today's notice paper.

Bill C-16, fixed dates for elections, was finally allowed by the clingy Liberal-dominated Senate to leave the nest when it was given royal assent last week.

With respect to the schedule of debate, we will continue today with the opposition motion.

Friday, we conclude strengthening accountability through democratic reform week with debate on the loans bill, possibly the Senate consultation bill and, hopefully, Bill C-52, the budget implementation bill.

Next week will be strengthening the economy week, when we will focus on helping individuals, families and businesses get ahead.

Beginning Monday, and continuing through the week, the House will consider: Bill C-52, the budget implementation bill; Bill C-33 to improve our income tax system; Bill C-40, to improve the sales tax system; Bill C-53, relating to investment disputes; and Bill C-47, the Olympics bill, which help us have a successful Olympics. Hopefully, we can get to Bill C-41, the Competition Act.

If time permits, we will also call for third and final reading Bill C-10, the minimum mandatory sentencing bill.

Thursday, May 17 shall be an allotted day.

Wednesday, May 16, shall be the day appointed, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a), for the purpose of consideration in committee of the whole of all votes under Canadian Heritage of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2008.

Thursday, May 17, shall be the day appointed for the purpose of consideration in committee of the whole of all votes under National Defence of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2008.

Finally, there is an agreement with respect to the debate tomorrow on the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion.

I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, the debate pursuant to Standing Order 66 scheduled for tomorrow be deemed to have taken place and all questions necessary to dispose of the motion to concur in the 13th Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts be deemed put and a recorded division be deemed requested and deferred to Wednesday, May 16, 2007, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the government House leader would be kind enough to indicate to us his business plan to carry through for the next week right up until the Easter break.

Specifically in that report, I wonder if he could indicate his plan with respect to what was Bill C-55 and is now Bill C-47. Opposition House leaders have been asking about this bill for some time now. We have been asking for a report from the Minister of Labour as to exactly what is wrong with Bill C-47 and how the Minister of Labour proposes to correct it. The minister made some favourable comments in question period a few moments ago, so I wonder if the House leader could indicate if we will see that bill in the properly revised form within the course of the next 10 days.

Second, I wonder if the minister could tell us about Bill C-16, the bill dealing with the timing of election dates. I understand that is subject to a technical amendment in the other place today. I wonder if the government House leader would give us the assurance that the unelected Conservative senators in the other place will not delay that bill. Perhaps we could deal with it tomorrow or at the beginning of next week.

Olympic and Paralympic Marks Act

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-47, An Act respecting the protection of marks related to the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games and protection against certain misleading business associations and making a related amendment to the Trade-marks Act.

Mr. Speaker, as a new minister, this is the first occasion I have had to introduce a government bill on behalf of a cabinet colleague. Therefore, it is a great pleasure for me to rise today to introduce the Olympic and Paralympic marks act, an act to protect marks related to the Olympic and Paralympic Games.

This bill will help to ensure that the 2010 winter games in Vancouver-Whistler will leave lasting memories for all Canadians and an enduring legacy for our athletes.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)