Industry Committee on June 5th, 2007

[Cynthia Rowden]

I think 2010 is one of the official marks that's been protected. Even the number “10” is been protected as an official mark right now.

I think we believe there is strong protection already. The point is that publicly stating that activities that are designed to suggest an affiliation, endorsement, or approval by the Olympics when that is not the case.... It is probably useful legislation to educate people of the possible risks of ambush marketing before the Vancouver games start.

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

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. McTeague.

We'll go to Monsieur Malo.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My question is for AthletesCAN. To fully appreciate the ramifications of your proposed changes, it is important to understand that Bell Canada is the official sponsor for the games for telecommunications. Are you suggesting that Rogers, for example, which usually sponsors a given athlete, should be allowed to use the Olympic mark to publicize its association with the athlete in question?

[Jasmine Northcott]

Thank you for your question.

We're not going so far as to say that Rogers should be able to use that Olympic mark, because certainly that's not the case. But we are saying that if an athlete is supported by Rogers, they should have the ability to say that Rogers is really proud to support this Olympian and that the Olympian and their supporter should be able to reference their accomplishments and past experiences at Olympic and/or Paralympic Games.

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

You want to limit the association to referencing the individual athlete; it would not be able to mention the games or Vancouver. Is that correct?

[Jasmine Northcott]

Yes, exactly. It's for the Olympian or Paralympian to be able to factually reference themselves and their experiences as Olympians and Paralympians at Olympic and/or Paralympic Games.

[Guy Tanguay]

Athletes need to train for about 10 years, or 10,000 hours, before they can compete at the international level. We are trying to protect the investments that their communities and sponsors will have made during all these years. If an athlete's success leads to the creation of an association, we want to be assured that there will be no legal intervention. People will not set up associations with the express aim of undermining the games. It is related to the individual and the work that has been done.

[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?

[Jasmine Northcott]

Certainly, within the legislation as presented, the terms “Olympian” and “Paralympian” are protected expressions.

We're seeking a provision within the legislation similar to the freedoms that universities and media may have so that an athlete who is an Olympian or a Paralympian would be able to use those terms, because certainly only those athletes who have competed at Olympic or Paralympic Games can claim that title and refer to themselves individually. So it's certainly the ability for the individual athlete to factually reference themselves and their experiences at those games and be provided the freedom within the legislation to do so, given that those terms are currently protected.

[Cynthia Rowden]

Can I add to that? I think it will be difficult for U.S. athletes to obtain sponsorship from organizations that are not official sponsors if they too cannot freely indicate that they support athletes or teams; therefore, I think it's necessary to address not merely the use by athletes of these terms, but the use by companies that have decided over the course of particular athletes' lives to support them in their endeavours, whether they go to the Olympics or not. I think if you prohibit it, you'll restrict that type and level of financial support from athletes and teams.

[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?

[Jeff Bean]

Before raising these issues with members of VANOC, I reflected upon what inputs I could offer as an athlete. They told me that Bill C-47 would not adversely affect athletes, and that really spurred me to come here and speak in favour of the bill.

I am confident that the regulations that will be adopted after the bill has been passed will take the needs of athletes into consideration. The aim of this legislation is to protect the large companies that have invested several million dollars in the Olympic Games, not undermine athletes. I have complete confidence that the regulations will take athletes into consideration.

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

Have you communicated AthletesCAN's concern directly to VANOC officials?

[Jeff Bean]

That was the first question I raised with them—I gave them the example of an auto industry sponsor who wanted to advertise his support for a given Olympic athlete on a car. They replied that as they could not be sure of the words that would be used, they wanted to protect the terms “Olympic” and “Paralympic”. But that is not really the objective of the bill. The true objective is to protect the millions of dollars that are given to athletes now and that will be given after Vancouver 2010 as well. To my mind, that is very important.

I was around before the existence of VANOC and all of the sponsors. It is an entirely different ball game now that we have all these funded athletes. It cost me a lot of money to get where I am today. Today's athletes have a huge advantage. There is a big difference between the amount of money provided by major sponsors and the amount provided through VANOC and Mr. Jackson's Own the Podium 2010 program.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Malo.

We'll go to Mr. Van Kesteren, please.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for appearing.

I want to continue with what Mr. Bean was talking about. At first glance this legislation looks like protection for large corporations, and it is that, and also for the Olympic organization in Vancouver. It certainly is that too, but often we really miss the impact it has on athletes.

Mr. Bean, and maybe somebody else who's involved in that as well, would you care to expand on how the sponsorship program has changed the climate and the success of the program? There is first of all the Olympic success, because of course most of us here remember Canada's participation in, say, 1967, and we all want to see some medals; we want to see some successes there. Since we've taken on this type of sponsorship program, how has the success been in terms of medals? We'll just get really blunt about it.

I think you started to touch on the other thing I'm curious about: what about the athletes after they're finished? Has this program been successful for athletes in the workforce after you're finished? Could you expand a bit on that?

[Jeff Bean]

Yes, and I can give an example on your first question, as far as winning medals and what this money has done.

To take an example, when I started on the Canadian national team, my first year cost me about $35,000 out of my own pocket and, thankfully, my parents' pockets. I was extremely fortunate.

Right now, thanks to the Own the Podium program, there's a program recruiting top-level acrobats to become freestyle aerialists. They are being fully funded and recruited to win medals in Vancouver 2010. They're in Quebec City right now, training to become Olympians, with every single expense covered as part of that program. It will be great for our success.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

I don't want to cut you off, because you're on a roll here, but I want to ask about moving forward. If they start at the young age of 13, when they go to college, are these kids offered jobs while they're in this program?

[Jeff Bean]

They aren't offered jobs while they're in this program. The kids in the Jump 2010 program are actually making a little bit of money above and beyond what it costs to train and compete. They're making enough money to maybe go out for dinner once a week.

You mentioned college and education. It's always been a very large sticking point with me, and it's something I think the Canadian government does a very poor job on. The Canadian government provides free university education for every single carded athlete for every year they are carded. It's a fact that I don't think a lot of people know about. I think it's a great thing that the Canadian government itself does.

As far as post-career, it's where I think these sponsors are going to be huge, and it's why I referenced the RBC Olympians program. They're putting money into Own the Podium and into VANOC, but outside that, they've created a program to help support Olympians afterwards.

They're recruiting Olympians, and they have 35 right now. Between now and Vancouver, they're planning on doubling the field to 70 current and retired Olympians who are working in the bank and are flexible on training. People who are still competing can work a little and do a lot of community involvement. People who have retired spend a lot more time actually working in the bank.

I think if they feel confident they can invest that much money, they're going to keep investing outside the sponsorship and grow the Olympic brand.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Is it encouraged? You're telling me the banks do it. Is it encouraged that all sponsors know part of this program isn't only to benefit from the advertisement, but it's to also make sure the athletes have something down the road after they're finished?

[Jeff Bean]

Those programs are ever-expanding, with all the sponsors. I think it is promoted to all the organizations involved that they do it, because being an athlete is a tough life. To be a professional athlete--or an amateur athlete, I should say--you have to train, and it's a full-time job. It has been my full-time job for basically 30 years. I worked in a ski shop when I was a kid, but that's it. I've been a full-time athlete. Then a month ago, I woke up and wondered what I was going to do now.

Thankfully, RBC was able to step in and give me a year that I can work. I can be a little flexible, and I can gain some experience and see what's out there. I don't even know what the real world looks like. It's kind of scary.

[Lou Ragagnin]

I can give you three other examples on some of our sponsor groups.

RONA is currently funding 100 athletes at $5,000 per year. They've made a five-year commitment. They not only fund the athletes for training and competition, but they allow them to do community work in their stores. It's a great program.

The Hudson's Bay Company is currently funding 200 athletes at $8,000 per year. You have probably seen the HBC Run for Canada and other fundraising events that they conduct strictly in support of athletes.

Petro-Canada has a legacy from the 1988 games. All of us probably still have the Petro-Canada glassware in our homes. We currently have a $10 million fund that Petro-Canada raised for 1988. They've made a commitment in the lead-up to 2010 to again support athletes. Those athletes are very much at a grassroots level.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much, Mr. Van Kesteren.

We'll go to Mr. Masse, please.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the panel members for appearing here today.

On some of the concerns you raised, Ms. Rowden, I've submitted some amendments based on some of those concerns.

On showing up today, I'm quite frankly surprised that the government showed me amendments yesterday, but they haven't been tabled here. Mine have been tabled, so I'm kind of surprised that we haven't seen them. I think it would help the debate here this morning.

One of the things you raised quite specifically, for example, is the difficulty when there is an injunction against someone. To go through the legal process takes a long time. One of the things we've suggested is the potential for a special judge to be appointed during this time who would have to make a decision within 48 hours.

Is it something that could be considered so that, once again, the court system is not relied upon and we might achieve some type of balance on the independent ability to make decisions outside VANOC, and so forth, which would help the situation?