[English]
EVIDENCE
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, May 3, 2000
• 1532
[English]
The Chair (Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.)): Thank you very much.
Welcome.
Gentlemen, just before you begin, it's important for us to have a short, one-minute summary. Most of us have worked on the report, Sport In Canada: Everybody's business. When we produced that report of 69 recommendations, 68 out of the 69 dealing with the amateur sport fabric in this country, many journalists, many people in sport, thought this work was just going to go into the trash can. As we sit in front of you today, we have over 40 of those recommendations implemented or being implemented.
Most of us who worked on the committee before—and our new members on the committee—feel passionate about Canada's commitment to the sport fabric, the sport industry, in this country. Our recommendation 51 for Statistics Canada was actually at the genesis of why we did the study, because we found that we didn't really have a complete set of books in this country on what was going on with amateur sport.
We're happy to have you here today. We welcome you and we turn the floor over to you. At the end of your remarks, we'll have some questions. Thank you.
Mr. Michael Sheridan (Assistant Chief Statistician, Social, Institutions and Labour Statistics, Statistics Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you and the members of the committee and to hopefully answer any questions you may have today.
I'll begin with a very short statement to bring the committee up to date as to where we are. Statistics Canada and Sport Canada have been working together over the last three years towards developing a comprehensive investigation of the sport sector in Canada, a sector, as you so well indicated with your opening comments, that cuts across numerous social and economic issues and domains, including health, and bridges into schooling, education, community development, and social cohesion.
• 1535
The first year of this partnership was defined as the inventory
phase. It resulted in an inventory of data sources; collecting sports
statistics; the initial development of a sports statistical framework
that could, and that we felt should, be used to guide the collection
and presentation of a consistent, comparable, and, where possible,
certainly standardized set of national sports statistics; and the
analysis and presentation of the available data on the sport.
[Translation]
A wide range of data sources were investigated including the Survey of Family Expenditure, the National Population Health Survey, the National Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating, the 1992 Sport Supplement to the General Social Survey, and the Survey of Amusement and Recreational Services, to name a few.
[English]
In the second year we moved into a specialization phase, which saw further development and refining of the statistical framework for sport, further data analysis on the economic impact of sport, government funding for sport, sport occupations, and consumer expenditures on sporting goods and services. These reports were released to Sport Canada, which actually sponsored, on a cost-recovery basis, their design development.
A final report was prepared for Sport Canada entitled “The Vitality of the Sport Sector in Canada”, in April 1998. This report included a set of recommendations as well as a possible work plan for consideration by our client, Sport Canada. I should note that these recommendations weren't specifically meant to be an outline to the steps that Statistics Canada would undertake, but rather were proposed as a help, or a guide or a framework, for further cost-recovery work or work funded from other sources to build an effective information system or infrastructure over the next two- to five-year period. It was in that spirit ostensibly that the framework was designed. Statistics Canada deferred to Sport Canada to fund any ongoing work on this particular initiative.
The government's response to the subcommittee on the study of sport in Canada regarding these recommendations—and you mentioned number 51—was that Statistics Canada collects sports-related data through a number of ongoing surveys and data banks. Sport Canada will examine the context and quality of available sports statistics, will explore topics for which statistical analysis would be useful and relevant, and will make recommendations for new statistical initiatives and enhancement.
The report, “The Vitality of the Sport Sector in Canada”, which was produced by Statistics Canada in conjunction with Sport Canada in April 1998, presents a comprehensive statistical overview of the sport and recreation sector in Canada as it stood then. Statistics Canada's involvement in the actual implementation of the recommendations to develop an infrastructure of national sport statistics is limited basically by resources, and those resources are both financial and human.
Another major component of year two was the development of sports questions and funding partnerships for the collection of sports participation data. Statistics Canada, in conjunction with Sport Canada and a number of provincial funding partners, developed a set of sports-related questions to be used and asked in cycle 12 of the agency's general social survey in 1998, to address the need for updated detailed information on sports participation. These data were released, and some of the data on that sports set of questions on the general social survey are available on Statistics Canada's website. A number of other studies have been completed on that data set and will be released in the upcoming months.
The cost of the sports supplement was approximately $60,000, of which Sport Canada funded $35,000 and the remainder was funded by our four provincial partners.
• 1540
In the last year, Mr. Chairman, the scope of the cost-recovery
project was limited to the development of five information decks for
sports statistics. Each information deck addressed a different—we
feel anyway—appropriate, relevant sports issue, including the
framework for sports statistics; government spending on sports; a
profile of selected sports occupations, including a section on
volunteer and volunteer activity, which seems to be certainly heavily
linked to sport; spending patterns on sporting goods and services
associated with sport; as well as a preliminary attempt at an economic
impact of selected sports services.
The current cost-recovery contract with Sport Canada for 1999-2000 is limited in scope to the examination of sport participation in Canada. Statistics Canada was contracted to update a set of previous information on a report of sport participation by presenting a more detailed analysis of the information collected on that sporting supplement I mentioned earlier on the general social survey. Once this analytical report is complete in the summer of 2000, Sport Canada reported that no further research activities would be pursued for the remainder of the fiscal year.
If you would like, Mr. Chairman, my colleague, Mr. Murray, can take a couple of minutes perhaps for yourself and the committee members to perhaps go over what is in the matrix of that sport program or that framework for sports statistics.
The Chair: Is that from “The Vitality of the Sport Sector in Canada” report that you're referring to, or the new one that's sport participation only?
Mr. Scott Murray (Director General, Institutions and Social Statistics, Statistics Canada): No, it's the vitality document.
The Chair: Okay.
Why don't you take a couple of minutes? It's a good refresher for all of us.
Mr. Scott Murray: It's pretty simple, but I'm going to—
The Chair: Pardon me, Mr. Murray, but is there a reason why you don't have a handout? Is there something there that you have or is it just not fully translated?
Mr. Scott Murray: We have it in one official language only.
The Chair: Which language is it?
Mr. Scott Murray: In English.
The Chair: Then we'll let you just articulate from your notes during the meeting. Thank you.
Mr. Scott Murray: The framework we developed is rather straightforward, and I don't want to make it sound too complicated. It just provides an organizing framework for thinking about what the scope of the conceptual domain we're dealing with is and how to go about collecting data to fill it. It really has only two dimensions. One has to do with the levels of sport participation. There are six of those beginning at the highest level of high performance, competitive, professional, recreational, and physical fitness. So for each one of those separate domains there's a need to have data on the incidence and volume of participation, the amount of money involved, and how it's funded and organized.
On the other dimension it is seven different components. For each one of those domains you want to know a specific set of things: the athletes and active participants; all of the support services related to the domain, coaches, referees, officials; any medical intervention related to it; heritage and preservation organizations devoted to capturing the history of the domain and voluntary activity related; the facilities that are used; the equipment that's used, manufactured, wholesale and retail; the passive consumption of the sport by the populace; media involvement; and finally the sponsorship.
So you picture this six-by-seven matrix. You have 42 elements, and we try to get survey vehicles to populate each one of the cells in that matrix.
The main problem is that we only have data mostly on the last two of those, the recreational and the physical fitness, from current sources. So we're practically absent on data on athletes, on coaches, trainers, officials, and referees, on even government spending in sport, on the national and provincial organizational structures and multi-sport organizations, and we have quite limited data, irregular data, on sport participation.
• 1545
The actual data elements themselves are also divided into three
different layers, and it's pretty basic stuff; it's basic numbers.
There's no place in Canada where one can go and get a basic set of
numbers for each variable—not the sorts of things we have for the
education system, which is in the same part of the organization at
StatsCan. And we have practically no value-added analysis on the
economic impact, direct and indirect.
Mike referred to the first document we've put out that estimates that in 1994-95 the average contribution, direct and indirect, to the economy, as a percent of GDP, that sport contributed was 1.1%. And 2.73% of all jobs were associated with the sports industry.
We have nothing on sport trade and investment, so if you were to compare sport to practically any other traditional industry sector that Statistics Canada collects data on, or to the cultural sector, which is a pretty close parallel, we have a good framework but practically nothing in it.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. Mark.
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to thank both of you for being here today. On Monday we spoke to the CRTC, and we asked a question about definition in terms of what amateur sports was, so my first question relates to that. How does Statistics Canada handle the distinction between sports and recreation and leisure? In what statistical area do they represent separate figures and when do they have to be combined?
Mr. Michael Sheridan: I don't think we've developed a specific concrete definition that actually precisely would enable us to put people in those particular boxes. One of the difficulties certainly in collecting information about sports is that a lot of it is self-perception. Even in terms of the level or calibre of sport that they're competing at, there's almost a continuum along those three definitions. I don't think within our standards and classifications that we've developed a specific set of definitions that would enable us to take the population, or to take expenditures, and particularly slot them into those three categories you've defined—at this juncture, certainly.
Mr. Inky Mark: My next question is, how well does our system of national statistics compare with those of other countries?
Mr. Michael Sheridan: I'm going to have to defer to my colleague Mr. Murray on that one. I don't know. I haven't looked at the international comparison data.
Scott, can you comment on that?
Mr. Scott Murray: Sure. I have one aside to your first question. The way to think about this is evolutionary. We have a theoretical framework that you can't improve until you actually get data and look at it and see if it seems reasonable and have people argue about the parts that seem to be in conflict. Using culture statistics as an example, we're much farther down the road, where we have estimates of the economic impact, direct and indirect, and have people arguing at a very fine level about what to include—for instance, whether to include the production parts of advertising, and we have an estimate of what that part is and whether it should be included or not. So we're nowhere close to that with sport, because we haven't even got the first look at the data.
On the question of comparing us to other jurisdictions with respect to sports, we look pretty terrible. The example I'd draw would be the Australians, who have this entire matrix pretty well complete. It's the one I'm most familiar with. If they're a ten, we're a two.
Mr. Inky Mark: What's the reason why we're lagging behind other countries in terms of taking statistics?
Mr. Scott Murray: From my point of view, as managing the program, it's simply a matter of money. It doesn't require any new technology. It's not as if it's measuring something that we didn't know how to measure before.
• 1550
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): They need money.
The Chair: Madame St-Hilaire.
[Translation]
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am not used to feel like I do now, but this afternoon, I am somewhat disappointed with the Statistics Canada's presentation. It may be that it's new for me. I don't know much about that organization. I would have expected to get some numbers on sports as well as more specific data on what is going on in the sport world, especially in Canada.
I understand that this is not a major concern or a priority for Statistics Canada, either because the agency is short of money, or for some other reason that you are certainly going to explain me. I would like to know where sport exactly stands among your priorities on a scale of one to ten.
In line with my colleague's question, I would like to ask you whether you make some distinction between sport and leisure, between amateur sport and leisure, or whether, like some other organizations do, you just mix all those notions up instead of sorting them out since, being yourselves actually confused, you feel it is less complicated that way.
That was my first question and comment. My second question is about the official languages. In the study of the Mills Report, in which our chairman participated, concerns had been expressed about the official languages. I personally lodged a complaint on that. I am wondering whether you already have done some research, whether you have some data on that matter or whether you intend to do a study on the issue of the official languages in the area of amateur sports.
Thank you.
Mr. Michael Sheridan: About your request for information on sport, I would say that several Statistics Canada surveys could be used as sources of information on sport. However, at this juncture, the problem is that we are not the main pollster, we are not the agency specifically responsible for the collection of data on sport.
It's a matter of priority in terms of determining in which areas human and financial resources are to be used. Our primary goal is to find a way to do more research based on existing survey results and data. We had not done much work in that regard before we started seeking funds in order to put in place the framework which Mr. Murray tried to describe here today.
In response to your second question, which was about the official languages, I would say that just like we have not done much research on sport, we neither have much data on the official languages in connection with sports. We surely have through the census a lot of information on the official languages, but that information has not already been linked to sport.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: And, as I understand, you don't intend to do so in the future either.
Mr. Michael Sheridan: It is for that type of situation that we are seeking to establish other partnerships within the government of Canada. For example, with regards to children, it's the Department of Human Resources Development which is concerned by the development and growth of children. That department allocated to Statistics Canada 2.4 or 3.4 million dollars per year for a longitudinal survey on children.
We have launched a somewhat more extensive research program on sport by trying to establish partnerships with other government agencies, with provinces and with the private sector. As mentioned by Mr. Murray, it is an evolutionary process aimed at meeting an existing demand, at helping us to find the money required to put in place a program on sports.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Mahoney.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
• 1555
Madame St-Hilaire was much more gentle than I would have been were I
in her shoes, because it's the second meeting in two days that I've
attended with a presentation from ministry staff in one language. I
don't want to beat anybody up on it, but I would have thought we were
at the stage in this country where that is automatic, particularly
when you're coming before a committee. Hopefully that can be
corrected.
The Chair: On that point, Statistics Canada reports to what minister of the Government of Canada?
Mr. Michael Sheridan: It reports to the Minister of Industry.
The Chair: The Minister of Industry.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: That's interesting, because it was the Ministry of Industry when it happened to me yesterday, with one of our francophone colleagues within the Liberal caucus. We showed up for a presentation only in English. I was more angry than he was. Anyway....
The Chair: The point is made.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: I'd like to talk to you about whether or not you think collecting data perhaps in a more aggressive way could benefit the country in terms of things like the cost of health care, education, the economic benefits, that kind of thing. I would refer you to probably the single most successful communications program I've ever seen any government undertake in my lifetime, a program called ParticipACTION.
It led the way in establishing a sort of floor, if you will, for governments to communicate to people. I think it led to communities getting on with stop smoking campaigns and with drunk driving campaigns. Everybody saw the impact and the power a properly run communications campaign can have on a particular sector.
On ParticipACTION, if we compare—and I don't know if this is true, but maybe you do—I suspect if we were to compare our relative societies of the United States and Canada in this regard, there are more Canadians per capita running, jumping, throwing, batting, skating, and skipping than there are Americans. I may be wrong, but I just sense that's the case.
The Chair: Mr. Mahoney, I can tell you that of all the G-7 countries, we are the worst. We did that study, and we're the lowest.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Okay, we did that study.
Given that a program like ParticipACTION was as successful as it was, I wonder if you have any information or if you've done anything in relationship to sports that would compare...or are we just not counting the ducks, so to speak? If we're the worst in the G-7, I'm astounded.
Mr. Michael Sheridan: We're counting the ducks; we're just counting them in a little different way.
In 1976 we conducted a major survey of sports and participation in Canada. That survey was conducted by Statistics Canada for a consortium of sponsoring agencies.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Sorry, but do you include things like casual jogging, someone who works out, all that kind of stuff?
Mr. Michael Sheridan: Right. That particular survey—
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Not that jogging is casual, but you know what I mean.
Mr. Michael Sheridan: That particular survey in 1976 covered the full gamut of sports activity.
The Chair: So 1976 was the last time Stats Canada did a comprehensive analysis.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Really. That may be why we rank so poorly.
Mr. Michael Sheridan: I guess what has happened over time is that the potential funding consortia for that survey have basically broken up. The issue of collecting information and data on sporting activity and fitness per se are embedded in a number of our other household surveys within the household survey program. I guess we have not, up until this time, specifically focused the extraction of a special set of information or data, or an analysis thrust, on all those other sources or potential sources for information on sport.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Do you think if we were to compile, disseminate, and celebrate those statistics specifically in that area it would have the impact of increasing activity in the country and perhaps thereby reducing things like health care costs?
Mr. Michael Sheridan: I would be guessing on that question, sir. Certainly if we could, it would bring some more focus on the issue of sport and its impact in Canadian society.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Okay.
Mr. Michael Sheridan: What changes that would precipitate....
Mr. Steve Mahoney: I'd like to talk to you about facilities. It also seems to me as I've travelled the country that some communities have outstanding facilities, whether it's soccer pitches, hockey rinks, or whatever, and some don't. Some communities set up criteria that say there shall be a swimming pool for every 50,000 people, and so on.
• 1600
Have you been able to compile any information as to whether or not we
have any kind of national standard? I suspect the answer is no, but I
don't know. Has anyone ever looked at that?
Mr. Scott Murray: We have practically no data on the available infrastructure.
The Chair: It doesn't exist.
Mr. Scott Murray: Yes, it doesn't exist.
The Chair: Beth.
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for coming here today.
Who funds Stats Canada?
Mr. Michael Sheridan: Well, in the end, I guess it's the taxpayers of Canada.
The Chair: Where do you get your envelope?
Mr. Michael Sheridan: We have a departmental appropriation as part of the Industry portfolio.
Ms. Beth Phinney: Could you tell me approximately what that is a year?
Mr. Michael Sheridan: In a non-census year, it's approximately $390 million.
Ms. Beth Phinney: So that's $390 million.
In all the conversation and all the things I've heard you talking about, whether it's the 1976 study where you said the funding consortium dried up or disappeared, or a study in April 1998 that you talked about on cost recovery and you have some information in two different categories, it sounds like no federal money is going to sports information collecting at all. Would I be correct in that statement, that everything you have in sports has to be cost recovery, which would mean it's not coming out of that $390 million?
Mr. Scott Murray: As perhaps some context to put the $390 million in perspective, there are 19 people in the section that's devoted to collecting data on matters cultural, including sport. Over the past five years the context has been that they've gone from a program of some 26 annual surveys to making many of those surveys biannual, because there's just not enough money to keep the program going.
My guess is about half a person year worth of time is devoted to the collection, processing, analysis, and dissemination of data on sport.
Ms. Beth Phinney: I'm asking you who's paying for that.
Mr. Scott Murray: That is coming out of Statistics Canada. Two new products have been funded in large measure by money from Sport Canada and several provinces.
Ms. Beth Phinney: Are your instructions from your bosses that you don't do any studies on sports unless they are cost recovery?
The Chair: May I help you with that question a bit, if I could have your permission? Is there any particular reason Statistics Canada wouldn't honour this unanimously approved House of Commons recommendation that came from this committee over a year and a half ago?
Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Money.
Mr. Michael Sheridan: No, there's no reason Statistics Canada would not honour the recommendations, particularly recommendation 51. The issue is in the allocation of the existing funds within the agency. If those funds are diverted, existing funds from existing programs to new programs vis-à-vis sport, we don't do something else.
Ms. Beth Phinney: So for whoever is setting these priorities—I presume it's the top person in your section under Stats Canada—it's not that person's priority; therefore it's not put on the list. It's just one on the side that can only possibly be done if we take money from something else. Nobody wants to do it.
Mr. Michael Sheridan: I wouldn't characterize it that way. I would say that the agency has a set of advisory committees and does a lot of work with respect to inputs in the area of social and economic statistics. One of the areas that has emerged as a contender for funding and as an opportunity for Statistics Canada to try to build partnerships and build up the program is sport. It's emerging. It has our focus, but nothing has happened since 1976. We're looking at possibilities to try to find a set of partnerships to put together where Statistics Canada could, in its priority setting process, certainly balance off contributions from Sport Canada, from some of the provinces, and from the private sector to help put together this particular matrix that we've evolved now.
• 1605
Ms. Beth Phinney: Would there be any demand from municipal governments, which is where sports facilities are usually funded from, or is there any attempt on your part to partner with municipalities to get funding? Also, wouldn't companies like running shoe companies be interested to know how many people in Canada do this particular sport or that particular sport? Then they could order their materials accordingly.
To follow up on that question, to get these partners, do you have to go out and get them, or do you only think there are partners...? If you have to go get them, that means the one-half person-time that is dedicated to sports would have to be the one who goes out to get the partners, I guess.
Mr. Michael Sheridan: It's an excellent question, and it's almost a chicken and egg sort of thing. We have built a number of partnerships with provinces, and certainly to a lesser extent with municipal governments, and a number of federal government departments and agencies, as well as the private sector.
Ms. Beth Phinney: All this is in sports?
Mr. Michael Sheridan: No. It's in other areas that work with us. What we're saying now is that we have to take the kind of framework we have in place that has funded those kinds of activities to look to see how we might respond to recommendation 51, the recommendation of this committee to move the agenda ahead. I think the first part of this was looking at where we need the data. That process has taken a while to shake that matrix down, and a lot of thought has gone into that.
I think we're at part two of that now, which is looking at where we can move this ahead. How can we get the funds to populate and make that matrix work?
Ms. Beth Phinney: This is just a little question.
The Chair: Of course. Enjoy.
Ms. Beth Phinney: You said a lot of thought has gone into that. Is that by the advisory committees who are setting priorities, as you said, or is it by the half-person who is dedicated to sports?
Mr. Michael Sheridan: That's the half-person, along with a lot of help from....
Ms. Beth Phinney: I hope it was the top half.
Voices: Oh, oh!
The Chair: Ms. Jennings.
Ms. Marlene Jennings: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for your presentation. I appreciate the fact that vous avez pu faire votre présentation et répondre aux questions dans les deux langues officielles. But I have to tell you that what I've gotten out of it is that Stats Canada has no money to do comprehensive statistical data collection, gathering, processing, and analysis of the role that sports play in Canada in all the different spheres that we want to look at it: how it impacts on our health and well-being; the economic impacts of sports; sports involvement; sports engagement; whether or not there are jobs being created; if we put a dollar into sports, how much that levers in terms of the economy, etc. You don't have it.
The second thing I retained is that you say Australia has in place a whole matrix where they're getting all of that information. Do you have any idea how much it costs Australia to put into place the process they have and to maintain it on an annual basis? If you don't know right now, do you think you could get that information?
Mr. Michael Sheridan: I don't know. Perhaps my colleague does. I can certainly say that we have good relations with the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and I am sure they would be more than happy to give us the cost of that particular element of their program.
Ms. Marlene Jennings: That would be very important.
Mr. Scott Murray: We don't have good cost estimates from them. It isn't just the Australian Bureau of Statistics; they also have a national sport governing body that's very active in collecting the high-end information on the high-performance and competitive athletes.
Ms. Marlene Jennings: Well, I'd like that as well, then.
Mr. Scott Murray: It comes back to Michael's point. We have a huge database at StatsCan that's full of stuff, a lot of which is related to sport.
Ms. Marlene Jennings: But you don't have the people in place.
Mr. Scott Murray: To mine it?
Ms. Marlene Jennings: You don't have the budget to say you're going to designate a team of 10 or 20 people, or whatever, whose sole job is that they're dedicated to getting that information out of the database—
Mr. Scott Murray: That's correct.
Ms. Marlene Jennings: —and then processing it and analysing it and disseminating it, and then from there being able to determine what's next. Do we have complete information? Are there gaps?
• 1610
What I need to know, and what this committee needs to know, is
whether you have done any kind of analysis as to what kind of money
you would need in order to be able to do that in terms of additional
funding. If that's the issue, if the funding you have now in a $390
million non-census year is the annual budget, that allows you to go
and get a significant amount—maybe 50%, 60%, 70%—of the sports data
you actually need, but you're unable to pull it out of all these
different studies you've done. How many people do you need? What
would it cost to get that going? Then we can try to push the
government to increase the budget so that can happen.
I understand it's kind of difficult for you guys to come and tell us that, but I'm telling you that's something that.... At this committee, we don't make recommendations for nothing. If implementing the recommendation means that extra money has to be pumped into a particular government department or sector, then tell us.
Mr. Scott Murray: First I want to comment and then I'll answer.
Mike referred to the kinds of partnerships we have. Almost all the program enhancements to StatsCan in the last five years have been directed ones. There's a lead policy department that talks somebody into giving us money, but it's for a specific use. It doesn't go into the core. So you have a shrinking core and these new things all added, and none of that directed money has gone the way of sports.
We estimate that we could make a difference with something like $300,000 annually and three or four people.
Ms. Marlene Jennings: That's it? And you would leverage that with the private sector and the government?
Mr. Scott Murray: We would leverage that with a whole bunch of partners and do something on a three- or four-year cycle, where we didn't do every survey every year but went through a survey of athletes, a survey of coaches and trainers. That would at least get us started.
These things are very much vicious and virtuous cycles. If you get a little information, it builds the demand for more. If you have none, then people make decisions anyway, so they don't think they need any information.
Ms. Marlene Jennings: Thank you. That's a hard piece of fact that this committee can definitely use. That $300,000 doesn't sound like a lot to me.
I'm finished.
The Chair: Madame St-Hilaire.
[Translation]
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: I will try to keep myself as gentle as I have been in my first intervention. In your answer to Ms. Jennings' question, you said you would need $300,000 per year, as I understand, to do such surveys.
I can't stop thinking that there was a report from the House of Commons in November 1998, which was adopted almost unanimously and which contained specific recommendations asking Statistics Canada to put sport among their priorities.
I'm getting seriously disturbed by the fact that sport is still considered as part of culture. I think that the first thing you should do is to make a difference between sport and culture. Though sport might be part of a culture, of a national identity, you should make a point of sorting things out. That was a personal comment.
I would like to add something to what my colleague said. The report was tabled one and a half year ago. Today, you are saying that you need more money to do surveys on sports. What do we have to do then? Should we intercede with the minister of Industry on your behalf? On which ministry should we exert pressure on your behalf when you need money? You should tell us if such is the case.
You surely have a large budget base from which you determine how you are going to allocate that money and in which areas you are going to do your surveys. When the House of Commons recommended that you do further studies on sport and you rather decided to ignore that recommendation and not to make it a priority because you think it's not so important, as a parliamentarian and as an opposition member, I personally feel somewhat shocked. I find myself forced to make you know that now, because I would not want to get out of here without having expressed my frustration.
You say that you need an additional $300,000. At a time when the government of Canada shows its interest in sport by creating a Secretary of State, I think that it should pertain to Statistics Canada to act consistently by putting surveys on sports among its priorities.
I would also like to... Pardon me?
The Chairman: a Minister.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: I'm sorry, but he remains a Secretary for now. He can always go for wishful thinking, but he is still a Secretary.
Another thing could be interesting, and you are going to tell us if you need more money, because I know that millions of dollars are going to be allocated by the government of Canada for infrastructures.
• 1615
If you do surveys to know if Quebec and Canada need more
infrastructures in the area of sport, we, as parliamentarians, as well
as the Canadian citizens, will know whether more sport infrastructures
are actually needed. On the other hand, if you, at Statistics Canada,
don't do any research on that, what are we expected to do?
I hope I kept myself somewhat gentle, or at least as gentle as I was in my first intervention.
Mr. Michael Sheridan: I agree that a signal was given in the report; there's no doubt about that. We tried to react, to find a way to implement the recommendation, to do more work and research in terms of analyses and data collection on sports.
At this point, we must recognize that we don't have enough money to make further significant progress. We are now trying to find a way to get that money through partnerships or from Statistics Canada's financial resources. But it won't be easy and it could take some time.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Excuse me if I digress, but could you tell us how you apportion the amounts which are allocated to you by the government? Is it possible for us to know that, or is it secret?
Mr. Michael Sheridan: The way we...
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: You get 390 million dollars. How do you use that money? Can we know in which areas?
Mr. Michael Sheridan: Yes, you can find that information in our report on Public Accounts. It's in the report.
[English]
The Chair: Public Accounts. We can get that for you.
Mr. Sheridan and Mr. Murray, I want to assure you, on behalf of all of us, that as members of Parliament we're here trying to do our jobs, and we totally respect the fact that you're officials—you do not speak for the government on policy; you implement and work with what you have. So if you sense in our approach with you energy or frustration, it's not directed at either of you on a personal level. Please understand that.
Before I go to Mr. Mark, I have to tell you why we're passionate about this. The purpose of titling the report The Industry of Sport, versus just A Study of Sport in the Cultural Context, is that we realized going into the study two and a half years ago that we didn't have a set of books on economic impacts, number of skilled jobs, semi-skilled jobs, unskilled jobs, value-added spinoffs, etc. It doesn't exist. As you, Mr. Murray, have so accurately described, in comparison to Australia—a small country such as Australia—we're two; they're ten. They're implemented; we're just looking at it. So our duty is to try to assist you in achieving the objective of what Parliament has approved here.
Mr. Mark.
Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Unlike the rest of the committee, I'm rather disappointed that the information is not available, certainly on the impact sport has in our economy. Being a former municipal official, I know that's usually the first question asked anytime money is spent in the area of sports, and the response has always been, “Well, if you don't know, ask the Government of Canada. They can provide you with the statistics.” And the provincial government does the same. They don't have the stats either.
So obviously there is an expectation out there across the country that the Government of Canada has the information, the data, on how sport impacts on communities. And it does, in a huge way. It is a large part of our culture. So there is an expectation that this information should be readily available. I hate to say it, but it is this type of information that helps local communities move ahead and create jobs.
My question is about future trends you predict or are involved in projecting. Have you done projections on the impact of aging and youth on how we play sports or how Canadians are involved in sports?
• 1620
Mr. Michael Sheridan: Statistics Canada doesn't do projections. The only place we do projections is with respect to demographic projections based on age and sex. So the short answer is no, we haven't.
The Chair: Ms. Jennings.
Ms. Marlene Jennings: To follow up on the $300,000 a year, do you already have in writing an action plan that would say if we had access to $300,000 a year, here is how we would be able to use it in order to get information that we already have in our comprehensive data system, leverage it with partnerships, and so on? Do you have anything in writing? That's the first question.
Secondly, to follow up on the comments made by the chair and some of my colleagues around the table on both sides, the frustration you're obviously seeing is very real, but it's definitely not directed at either one of you, and to a certain extent it's not even directed at Stats Canada as an organization. It's directed at this situation.
Besides trying to go and get that $300,000 a year, how can we, sitting around the table as a committee, assist you? What if we got the mayors of our municipalities in our ridings to write letters to the chief statistician, to the Minister of Industry, to the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport, and to the Minister of Heritage, to say we need this information? In which case, Stats Canada could turn around and say, sorry, we don't have the money; if we had $300,000, we could at least start pulling that information out. That could create a certain amount of pressure on the different ministries that could have an impact on that. Is that something...?
The Chair: Ms. Jennings, I think that is almost a political question, and I think I should answer that.
Ms. Marlene Jennings: Then let me rephrase the question. If the advisory committee you use to set your priorities were receiving a lot of requests from different areas in Canadian society and different sectors, saying we need this kind of information so that we can make decisions on how we spend our money, do you think that could have an impact?
Mr. Michael Sheridan: Sure. The short answer is yes.
As to the other part of your question, this is clearly on our radar screen. It has been on it for 18 months now. I can understand the frustration.
If I could draw an example in terms of putting together information and data, we're going to do a large project in the voluntary sector. The voluntary sector is hugely important, not just in relation to sports in communities but in the totality of social cohesion. We have done one large household survey. It has information on participation in terms of time and giving to sports, sports activity, sports clubs, and so on. That survey cost almost $1 million to do. I just want to sort of shape the notion of that. It was very broad.
Also, as part of that survey, we are going to develop what is called “a satellite account”, that is, in the national accounts, to put together a complete account of what volunteering is worth and contributes to the Canadian economy. It will take about two and a half to three years to complete that satellite account. So I want to underline for the committee that if we were given a couple of million dollars tomorrow morning and you had us back in six months, you would probably still not be happy with us, because it takes time for us to get these programs and systems in place.
Do we have a specific written plan? Yes, there is an annex to our report that contains a proposal for how we would progress on this.
The Chair: Is it costed?
Mr. Michael Sheridan: I'm not sure.
The Chair: I would like to receive, in both official languages, as soon as possible, the Australian model you described there, the matrix, with cost, with and without partners. We'll circulate it to the members of Parliament who sit on this committee, and then we'll do our duty.
Mr. Mahoney.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: I have two brief questions.
• 1625
When you do your statistical gathering, do you look at things like
demographics and potential future changes, the David Foot type of
stuff that helps communities formulate whether they should continue to
build hockey rinks or whether they should go to bird-watching
stations, that type of thing?
Bird-watching is big stuff, I'll tell you. When you get old and slow, you go into bird-watching. I heard that.
So I wonder if you do that kind of thing and if that information is available, and if you do, do you then share it with other agencies?
Mr. Michael Sheridan: We haven't specifically done anything of that nature. We certainly have done the population projections. As to the actual outcomes, with respect to what the impact is, that's David Foot's domain in his Boom Bust & Echo 2000. All the data is Statistics Canada's. He simply put it together and carried it that next step. We've provided him with the first building block.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Maybe we should do a quid pro quo and use some of his stuff.
Do you think there's a problem in Canadians relating to Statistics Canada in terms of the significance, the efficacy of Statistics Canada, that maybe they don't relate and it's not necessarily high on the priority, and when governments go into the cutting modes they've been in for the past 10 years, plus or minus, the first and easiest things to cut are things like Statistics Canada?
Mr. Michael Sheridan: Well, I can say with respect to Canadians' confidence in Statistics Canada, we certainly see that in our response rates, which remain in the high 90% range.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: You see what?
Mr. Michael Sheridan: We see response rates for the majority of our household surveys and our household surveys program in the high 90% range. So the agency enjoys the trust of the Canadian public.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: I just have to get you to enjoy the trust of Parliament.
The Chair: I've always been a supporter of Statistics Canada, but I must tell you that I think the Minister of Industry had a very difficult time explaining to Canadians a few months ago what small-market professional hockey teams or sports franchises meant in this country in an economic sense.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: He wasn't the only one.
The Chair: But the point is that the minister didn't have the real hard numbers on the economic impact, the number of jobs, both direct and indirect, the impact that sport in all phases means to the economic pie of this country.
I really want to thank you for coming today and shedding light on what has happened in the last year and a half at Statistics Canada in relation to our recommendation. We totally appreciate your candour, your honesty, in saying where we are. We'll do our best to see if we can't get some support over the next four or five hours.
Thank you very much.
The meeting is adjourned.