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.
