;

SPOR Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Sub-Committee on the Study of Sport in Canada of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, June 4, 2002

1535

The Chair (Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.))

Ms. Shawnee Scatliff (Chair, Canadian Association for the Advancement of Women and Sport and Physical Activity)

1540

Mme Karine Henrie (Graduate Student, Canadian Association for the advancement of women and sport and physical activity)

Ms. Phyllis Berck (Chair-Elect, Canadian Association for the Advancement of Women and Sport and Physical Activity)

1545

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Shawnee Scatliff

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Ms. Shawnee Scatliff

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ)

Ms. Shawnee Scatliff

The Chair

1550

Ms. Shawnee Scatliff

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Shawnee Scatliff

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. Keyes

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Stan Keyes

Ms. Phyllis Berck

Mr. Stan Keyes

Ms. Shawnee Scatliff

Mr. Stan Keyes

The Chair

Mr. Stan Keyes

Ms. Shawnee Scatliff

Mr. Stan Keyes

1555

Ms. Shawnee Scatliff

Mr. Stan Keyes

Ms. Shawnee Scatliff

Mr. Stan Keyes

The Chair

Mr. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.)

Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, Lib.)

Ms. Shawnee Scatliff

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Ms. Shawnee Scatliff

1600

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Ms. Shawnee Scatliff

Ms. Phyllis Berck

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Stan Keyes

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Ms. Shawnee Scatliff

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Ms. Phyllis Berck

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Ms. Phyllis Berck

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

1605

Ms. Shawnee Scatliff

The Chair

1610

Ms. Shawnee Scatliff

The Chair

1615

Mr. Guy Blondeau (Hockey-Québec)

The Chair

Mr. Guy Blondeau

The Chair

Mr. Guy Blondeau

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

1620

Mr. Guy Blondeau

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Guy Blondeau

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Guy Blondeau

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Guy Blondeau

1625

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Guy Blondeau

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Guy Blondeau

The Chair

M. Dick Proctor

Mr. Guy Blondeau

M. Dick Proctor

Mr. Guy Blondeau

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Chair

M. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough)

Mr. Guy Blondeau

1630

Mr. Peter MacKay

Mr. Guy Blondeau

Mr. Peter MacKay

The Chair

Mr. Serge Marcil

Mr. Guy Blondeau

Mr. Serge Marcil

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

1635

Mr. Guy Blondeau

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Guy Blondeau

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

The Chair

Mr. Guy Blondeau

The Chair

An hon. member

The Chair

Mr. Guy Blondeau

The Chair

M. Guy Blondeau

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

An hon. member

1640

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

M. Dennis Mills

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Clerk of the Committee

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

M. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Serge Marcil

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Serge Marcil

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mme Dyane Adam (Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages)

1645

1650

1655

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Ms. Dyane Adam

1700

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

1705

Mme Dyane Adam

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Serge Marcil

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Serge Marcil

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Serge Marcil

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

1710

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Chair

M. Peter MacKay

Mme Dyane Adam

1715

M. Peter MacKay

The Chair

Mr. Serge Marcil

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Ms. Dyane Adam

1720

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

An hon. member

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Ms. Johane Tremblay (Director, Legal Services Branch, National Headquarters, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages)

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Ms. Dyane Adam

The Chair

Ms. Dyane Adam

The Chair

Ms. Dyane Adam

The Chair

1725

Ms. Dyane Adam

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Chair

Ms. Dyane Adam

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Serge Marcil

The Chair

Mr. Serge Marcil

The Chair

Mr. Serge Marcil

The Chair

Mr. Serge Marcil

1730

The Clerk

Mr. Serge Marcil

The Clerk

The Chair

CANADA

Sub-Committee on the Study of Sport in Canada of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

NUMBER 006

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, June 4, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1535)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.)): Welcome to the subcommittee studying and celebrating sport in Canada. We're privileged to have a very special group with us today, in the form of the Canadian Association for the Advancement of Women and Sport and Physical Activity.

Ladies, before we begin, I would just like to say a couple of things to members of the committee.

We're under tremendous pressure to move this bill forward, and we want to do it properly. This committee has always worked together. We've never been perceived as doing rubber-stamp work, so we'll accept constructive amendments. But I would ask that, in our experience today, we move the file along as expeditiously as possible so that we can get to clause-by-clause.

Ladies, I turn the floor over to you.

Ms. Shawnee Scatliff (Chair, Canadian Association for the Advancement of Women and Sport and Physical Activity): Hello, Chairman Mills and members of the subcommittee. On behalf of the Canadian Association for the Advancement of Women and Sport and Physical Activity, we appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this morning.

As a result of last minute changes discussed with the Secretary of State as late as probably eleven o'clock this morning, we have some speaking notes but we haven't been able to get those notes translated because of the lateness. We will do so, and they will be directed to all of you when we get them translated.

My name is Shawnee Scatliff, and I'm the chair of CAAWS. With me are Phyllis Berck, the chair-elect; and Karine Henrie, a graduate student, a triathlete, and someone who has worked with young women in sport.

For those of you who are not familiar with CAAWS, we were created in 1981 by leaders of national, provincial, and local sport and physical activity groups. We are committed to working, through cooperation, collaboration, and consultation, with governments at all levels and with Canada's sport and active living communities. We want to achieve gender equity for all girls and women in all facets of sport and physical activity.

We are pleased to see the federal government take this initiative to revise the current legislation, which is over forty years old, by introducing Bill C-54, the Physical Activity and Sport Act. CAAWS has a strong history of working with the Government of Canada and with both current Secretary of State Paul DeVillers and his predecessor Denis Coderre. They have both been willing to listen to our concerns and to work with us to find solutions along the way.

With these committee hearings being held and with CAAWS having the opportunity to present, the result has been positive discussion with Secretary of State DeVillers. Recent conversations and subsequent correspondence have addressed our concerns to our satisfaction, and they have given CAAWS the opportunity to work with the Government of Canada and Mr. DeVillers in the development and implementation of an accountability strategy that will ensure that national sport organizations are meeting national standards with respect to gender equity. We look forward to sustaining our dialogue and working relationship.

Since May 22, when we submitted our brief, we've been assured that future gender equity issues will be addressed through the terms “all Canadians” and “all persons”. Thus, the current legislation as presented does not require amendments in this area, as we had initially outlined. However, while appreciate all the assurance that we have received, we still want to take this opportunity to highlight the current concerns of women and girls in sport and physical activity.

Over the past several years, CAAWS has consulted with various groups, from the community level right through to our national sports organizations. We've reviewed plans for recreation buildings to ensure that appropriate facilities are in place for women and girls. Our “On the Move” program is a grassroots initiative that encourages inactive teenage girls and women to become active through fun-filled recreational activities created specifically for them.

We have provided tools for our national sport organizations to create gender equity policies within their individual sports. Working with the Canadian Hockey Association, CAAWS has helped to create “Speak Out!......Act Now!”, the first national public awareness program targeted to stop abuse and harassment before it begins. Its training materials and publications have now become a model used by a wide number of groups.

At the leadership level, we assist organizations in their strategy to recruit women to serve on their boards.

We can outline many other examples for you, but they all share one thing in common. We are more than willing to provide tools, programs, and advice, but the use of information is completely voluntary on the part of the organization. In the 21 years since CAAWS began, we have not seen the sweeping changes in our sport and physical activity programs that we had hoped for.

Danièle Sauvageau, coach of our Olympic gold medal women's hockey team, was unable to join us for this presentation today, but she has endorsed the CAAWS position. As she has said previously:

Women in Canada still need support and encouragement to be active, and to play sports at the highest level. We do not always see sports as a full-time career. Women still do not have enough opportunities to gain the experience and training to be head coaches, trainers and administrators. I would encourage the government to use its legislative power to create these opportunities for girls and women.

¹ (1540)

Danièle is a wonderful example for us. When you let a woman coach and she displays her talents, she can bring back world and Olympic gold.

[Translation]

Mme Karine Henrie (Graduate Student, Canadian Association for the advancement of women and sport and physical activity): This is no longer just a concern of the sport and physical activity community. It's a hot issue involving the health and improved welfare of the Canadian population as a whole.

We know that 62 percent of girls from five to 12 years of age are not active enough to derive health benefits and that that figure increases to 70 percent in adolescence. We also know that, when girls and boys take part in sports and recreational activities, they are in better health and are at less risk of cancer, osteoporosis, diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

Young people who are active are much less likely to use tobacco, alcohol or other drugs, achieve better results at school, have higher graduation rates and fewer undesired pregnancies.

We also know that active women enjoy many benefits associated with a healthy lifestyle and share them with the next generation. When mothers are active, their children are also active and more likely to retain an active lifestyle in adulthood.

Canadian men and women who are in better health will make it possible to reduce the health care costs that are directly attributable to physical inactivity by $2.1 billion across the country.

[English]

Our record of women in leadership has also not seen sweeping changes. Currently, 47% of national team athletes are women, but only 17% of national team coaches are women.

Ms. Phyllis Berck (Chair-Elect, Canadian Association for the Advancement of Women and Sport and Physical Activity): There are, however, examples of how forcing people to consider equity within their organizations is having a significant impact. Canadian Interuniversity Sport is the national governing body for university sport in Canada. Its gender equity initiatives have been policy-based, with a focus on leadership. They have entrenched gender equity in their bylaws and governing documents, ensuring a lasting impact regardless of the leadership of the day. The bylaws dictate that the board of directors must reflect a 50-50 gender split. In order to be able to cast two votes at the annual meeting, universities must bring a male and female delegate to that annual general meeting. The “two genders equals two votes” bylaw has changed the landscape of the CIS annual meetings, and it has increased the opportunities for female leadership.

The Canada Games Council instituted gender equity principles for both participating provinces and territories and for the host cities. There is now an equity principle to ensure a gender balance for all sports in the games. If women are on a team and more than one coach is accredited to attend, one of the coaches must be female. As a bid requirement, host cities must have equitable gender opportunities for all their volunteer and staff positions. These principles are strictly adhered to, and they are working.

Outside Canada, there are also examples of legislation that has had dramatic results. The impact of Title IX legislation in the United States is well known. Since the U.S. government enacted this legislation in 1972, the percentage of girls participating in organized sport at the high school and college levels has vaulted from 1% to 41% in high school and to 42% in colleges. At the same time, athletic scholarships for women have increased from 1% in 1972 to 40% in 2002. The legislation is making a difference.

We are very encouraged to see that changes have been made to the previous Fitness and Amateur Sport Act. Bill C-54 is an important piece of legislation. As you know, women represent 51% of the population in Canada. Women are also persons of colour and of ethnicity, and women are disabled and impoverished. We are here today representing all those women. We know voluntary compliance, while often well-meaning, does not work. We do know that legislation can work, and we look forward to this legislation facilitating the participation of under-represented groups, including girls and women, in the Canadian sport system.

As was stated earlier, as a result of these committee hearings being held and of CAAWS having the opportunity to present, positive discussions have been held with the Secretary of State. Recently received correspondence addresses our concerns in a satisfactory manner. We asked this government to entrench equity as a social norm in the sport and physical activity environs of this country, and we believe it has agreed to do so. Members of this committee, you have the opportunity to change the landscape of sport and physical activity in Canada by passing this bill in a timely manner. This is an important opportunity to inspire a healthier generation of Canadians.

Thank you. We're ready to answer any questions you might have.

¹ (1545)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Thank you for coming. I appreciate your participation and I appreciate hearing about some of the success stories from here and around the world in terms of increased women's participation rates. That's great encouragement, and we can only hope those rates approach the actual number of women in the world, which is that 51% rate. It does seem to be heading that way, so that's good.

I was just reading through your brief, in which you've mentioned several times the need for specific language on the equity issue. I take it that was written before you came to your new conclusion.

Ms. Shawnee Scatliff: This brief was written May 22. A lot has happened since then, and we feel very comfortable that our issues have been addressed.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I'm comfortable with the original wording as well, and I think the real proof will be in the actual budgeting. That's what you're going to have to watch.

When we had the minister here the other day, he had no budget figures. He had no tentative figures, no draft numbers, or whatever. Until we see those, we can't know how effective this will be, how sincerely your concerns are going to be addressed, and so on.

So I encourage you to keep those discussions going—I'm sure you will—and to make sure that, as the budgetary process proceeds, you keep your eye on it. We'll no doubt have other opportunities for you to be represented in the future.

Ms. Shawnee Scatliff: Yes, we do hope there is equity in the budget procedures as well.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

[Translation]

Mr. Lanctôt, do you have any questions today?

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): I have fewer today than last week. I hope I wasn't too hard.

First, before asking any questions, I would like to thank the Chairman and the Sub-Committee on the Study of Sport for allowing me to go to the World Anti-Doping Agency this evening. As you know, I had a hand in the World Anti-Doping Agency's coming to Montreal and I appreciate the fact that we are not doing the clause-by-clause consideration this evening because that will enable me to leave for Montreal at the end of this meeting. So I want to thank all the Sub-Committee members for their understanding and for allowing this to happen. The clause-by-clause consideration will take place next week, perhaps on Tuesday, as was said a moment ago.

Last week, I absolutely wanted to hear you. We wanted to do that quickly. I especially want to congratulate you on the conference or seminar you did. I was there on a few occasions and at a few receptions. I also congratulate you for having such a large organization. I wanted you to be heard because you have things to add and I thought it important that you explain to each of the Sub-Committee members the amendments you are asking to have made to Bill C-54.

[English]

Ms. Shawnee Scatliff: First of all, thank you for bringing that up.

We were able to present at the board. Because of that, I think it generated some discussions with Secretary of State DeVillers. As a result, we are fine with how the bill is now. We feel it addresses all Canadians and all persons, women being part of those groups. We still wanted to come to present, but we do find that the bill is okay the way it is now.

The Chair: No amendments?

¹ (1550)

Ms. Shawnee Scatliff: No.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Next week, I'm going to bring an amendment to include you and persons with disabilities in the preamble so that we have a complete vision of the situation. It is not stated in the preamble that there should be no discrimination against women, persons with disabilities and Aboriginal persons, or on the basis of age and sex. I thought the wording suggested in your brief were important. You request no amendments, but I'm going to bring one to this effect. Are you for or against that kind of amendment?

[English]

Ms. Shawnee Scatliff: We would be for it, in that women would like to be named in the act. The problem with that arises from the fact that we make sure everyone is named in the act as an under-represented group. I think that's where our discussions came in. Are we missing someone by naming those groups? We were worried about that as well. But if you want to put “women” in there, that would be great.

The Chair: Mr. Proctor.

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): If the witnesses are satisfied with no amendments, I don't think we need to....

The Chair: I agree.

Mr. Keyes.

Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): I'm starting to feel a little bit like an opposition member. I'm going to pick up—

Mr. Chuck Strahl: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Stan Keyes: No, it's called experience, Chuck. I've been there and I've done that. I was there for five years and I don't want to do it again, Chuck, so you're SOL, “sport on leisure”.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Safe on land.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Safe on land, yes.

I have a document that says you made a presentation to the subcommittee in May 2002. In that document, you made references to, for example, clauses 3, 4, 6, etc. I thought they were brilliant suggestions as amendments to this bill. For example, in paragraph 3(c), you went from

to assist in reducing barriers faced by Canadians that prevent them from being active.

assist in reducing barriers related to poverty, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability faced by Canadians that prevent them from being active.

That sends a strong message, so what changed between your May presentation and today?

Ms. Phyllis Berck: What changed from the submission that we presented then to our presentation today came about because of subsequent discussions that we had directly with Secretary DeVillers. We were able to express our concerns to him and he was able to assure us that this overall reference to “all Canadians” did indeed cover the specific references that we had asked for. This kind of inclusive language was understood to include all the particular groups that we had specified.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Unfortunately, it doesn't say “all Canadians” in paragraph 3(c) the way it stands now. It just says “by Canadians”.

Ms. Shawnee Scatliff: It would be nice if it said “all Canadians”, but there is a point where it says “all persons”, which supposedly covers all Canadians.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Maybe we need an amendment there to ensure that, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: I like their recommendation.

Mr. Stan Keyes: I do too, but they're satisfied.

If we insert the word “all” at paragraph 3(c) instead of just having “by Canadians”, then we don't have to get specific to each. And you don't want to be exclusive.

Ms. Shawnee Scatliff: Exactly, and that was our concern. But if it always says in every point, and not only in that point...every time it mentions and refers to Canadians, if it refers to “all Canadians”, then women are part of that group.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Yes, so for continuity's sake, maybe our clerk or our researcher can ensure that it says “all Canadians” or “all persons” throughout the bill.

In the throne speech of 2001, Mr. Chairman, we're well aware that the Government of Canada said it would strengthen its efforts to encourage physical fitness and participation in sport. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I think this bill is sadly lacking in its dedication to physical activity and sport. It is weak at best. On clause 3 for example, I would ask the witnesses...I'll go to a more specific clause. Let's go to clause 6, Mr. Chairman.

Clause 6 says:

For the purposes of this Act, the Minister may provide financial assistance in the form of grants and contributions to any person.

To my way of thinking, “may” is certainly an open door. It means nothing. The word “may” means anything you want. Quite frankly, I think it should say “shall provide”, so that there's no ambiguity there. It's not “may”, it's

shall provide financial assistance in the form of grants and contributions to any person.

We're not setting an amount. We're just saying we shall provide it, in order to make it certain and clear that money will be there for that.

The other amendment would be to subclause 7(1), in the third-last line, so that it would say:

in undertaking programs including but not limited to those designed to encourage, promote and develop physical activity or sport.

Mr. Chairman, I truly believe in it, and I've been a staunch fighter for a return to the program called ParticipACTION, which was so successful. The word mark itself was very successful in this country, but some deputy minister—I won't say his name—decided that wasn't going to be around anymore. We lost hugely when we lost that program.

Would our witnesses agree that we should change “may” to “shall” in clause 6, and revise subclause 7(1) to say “including but not limited to programs designed to encourage, promote and develop”? That way, we can ensure that there is an opportunity for the minister responsible to have the lever of legislation to say we're going to start a program. It does not limit the minister to saying there really isn't anywhere that he can do so. It's right there.

¹ (1555)

Ms. Shawnee Scatliff: Exactly. We feel very comfortable that the minister of the day, Mr. DeVillers, is definitely on our side. What happens if he's not around is exactly our concern. Saying “shall” covers us and gives us that security.

Mr. Stan Keyes: So you would support that amendment changing “may” to “shall”?

Ms. Shawnee Scatliff: Yes.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Marcil, do you have any questions?

Mr. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.): It's all right. They've been answered.

The Chair: Mr. Cuzner.

[English]

Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, Lib.): In my past life, I had some direct dealings with your group. Getting on your mailing list is like getting on the Columbia House list for the record of the month, but I have to commend you as far as the quality of your publications is concerned. Your information communication is excellent, and I know it's really worthwhile to the people in the field. What you do obviously has an impact.

I want to deal not so much with the legislation, but with what you've identified about the numbers for the participants. You're still a little disappointed with the number of coaches, which is at 17%. Could you give us some kind of indication about whether or not you have any reference to what the growth was for the last Olympics as compared to the Olympics prior to them? What was the growth in the number of participants and in coaching?

Ms. Shawnee Scatliff: As far as the participants were concerned from Olympics to Olympics, we were very close to 50-50 as we started out. That's as far as the athletes were concerned for Team Canada.

As far as coaches go, the numbers are getting better. They are increasing, but I think the last statistics showed that for head coaches, there were maybe four or five female coaches out of maybe forty or fifty coaches overall. Some of those coaches are coaches of all-female teams, like synchronized swimming and rhythmic gymnastics.

We are not there yet. We are still working very hard. We're working with the Coaching Association of Canada in their women's coaching program, to provide initiatives, apprenticeship programs, or whatever, to get our women certified so that they are able to attend the high-level competitions and work at them. Danièle Sauvageau is a very good example.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: I'm sure you would anticipate that as your participation numbers do increase, the long-term benefit is going to be having more females, more women, involved with the actual sports and competing at a higher level. The end benefit should be more people involved in coaching if they are allowed access to leadership programs.

Ms. Shawnee Scatliff: Leadership programs, yes. There are some barriers that female coaches face, and those have to be broken down as well. As participants, as athletes, we are hoping they will choose to coach or officiate after they finish—and officiating has the same drastic numbers. We would hope they would choose to coach and officiate and give back to their sports, but we have to help them break down some of those barriers that are not allowing them to coach.

º (1600)

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Are the barriers attitudinal more so than structural?

Ms. Shawnee Scatliff: There are attitudinal ones and there are things having to do with family and family commitments. We therefore have to change our way of thinking to allow them to coach.

Ms. Phyllis Berck: But sometimes they are structural. The point is that it can't be assumed that, just because we've made such great strides in participation, we'll automatically see the same increases in coaching, because we haven't. We have had a considerable amount of success on the athletic participation side, but we have not yet seen the breakthrough on the coaching side.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Finally, I'm very happy that you had the opportunity to meet with the minister to discuss things. I'm pleased to hear you are able to support the bill as is.

Thank you.

Mr. Stan Keyes: But with my amendments.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Chuck.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Cuzner already made most of my points. However, we often tend to look at these things at the elite level, because that's where the showcase people are. They're very useful for getting a message across, and they're also symbolic, both good and bad sometimes. But at the elite level, I'm going to guess that elite players, Olympic-level players, pick the coaches they think can get them the best shot at whatever, and they don't pick them by gender. I wouldn't think so, anyway, because at that level you're just going for the best you can find.

It does seem to me that if we've only moved from 1% participation to 42% participation at the college level in the last thirty years, then to work through that system, I agree that we have to make sure there aren't the structural barriers or the attitudinal ones. That's partly done through education and so on. But I'm going to guess that it can't all be addressed by saying 50% of the coaches are going to be one gender or the other. I just don't know that elite players would put up with that. They're going to say they have coaches that they really think are the best coaches, and they're going to take those coaches. They probably don't care if the guy's got six arms or legs, or what gender the coach is if he or she is effective.

That's how it seems to me, which is why I prefer the language written here. To try to make it equity-specific would in some ways make it impossible to fulfill, at least at the elite level. Of course, if you're talking about getting people to be physically active on local soccer teams or in sports at that level, then there's no reason that I can see for why there can't be some really good programs to make sure men and women are involved in equal numbers.

Ms. Shawnee Scatliff: We believe men were always allowed to coach, but now we're trying to up the level and get the females into coaching. Maybe it will be 50%, and maybe it will be more.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: That's what we're afraid of, actually.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Ms. Phyllis Berck: There's an honest answer.

The Chair: That's recorded, you know.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I know, but it's still true.

Ms. Phyllis Berck: Just because women can't get to certain positions because of certain barriers, one should never assume they're not the best. I think Shawnee's reference to Danièle Sauvageau was a good example. Indeed, she was the best, but people didn't think that initially. In some quarters, they felt that because hockey is still perceived to be a man's game, a man should be behind the bench. But I think she demonstrated to the country as a whole and to hockey fans everywhere that she indeed was the best and could support the team to survive incredibly difficult circumstances.

Women very often are the best, but the assumption is that perhaps they're not. That indeed is one of the structural barriers that women have to overcome.

Mr. Stan Keyes: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, as the father of two teenaged daughters who went through soccer and all the rest, I'm going to support Chuck Strahl's bill that all coaches in the future be women.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Chair, to complete the point of order, how does that saying go? Women have to be twice as good as men to get the same recognition. Thankfully, that's very easy for them.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Let's put it in the bill.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay, I'll put it in the bill.

Anyway, thanks for coming.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Lanctôt.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Be careful, because this is being recorded. And by the way, there are now more women studying at university, be it in medicine or any other field, than men. So I have nothing to fear on that score.

I won't make the same comments as last week because I was hard on a few people who appeared before the Sub-Committee. I am pleased that you met Mr. DeVillers. If you do it 20 times to get what you want, I'll be very pleased, but don't forget that we are talking about an act. Whether Mr. DeVillers is here tomorrow morning or not, or whether it's Denis Coderre, it's the act that is important. I'm somewhat disappointed. I've said it a number of times, and I repeat to you that I'm a bit surprised at you coming and saying that you have no amendments. You are a woman and you are here to state your point of view, but you are not seeking any amendments. In view of the explanations that have been made to you, you believe that everything is in the bill.

As if by chance, next week, I'm going to have at least 20 amendments to improve the bill, not to undermine the bill, but to improve it. I think it somewhat unusual that I can find 20 amendments to improve something, whereas you're telling me that everything is perfect and good. So I'm a bit disappointed, but I'm used to that situation in this Sub-Committee. It surprises me a great deal because that's not how it is in the other committees. People say they want something because they're working for their own interests. I find it somewhat disappointing that you aren't doing that, but I'm definitely going to bring amendments for you and for other persons as well.

The testimony we heard last week was very constructive. I heard 10 others who came and supported what I had done to improve things. Since you have experience and your movement is global, I would have expected you to get more involved, but you're telling me that you met Mr. DeVillers and that everything is good and perfect. So much the better for you, but I believe some work could have been done.

In my amendments, I talk about jurisdictions, official languages and improving the Dispute Resolution Centre. There are a lot of things to improve. In any case, I'm going to do it, but I would have liked you, given your experience, to help me improve this act because this act is going to govern everything. It's true that it's broad, but it's going to govern everything.

Earlier, we almost started the clause-by-clause consideration with Stan, but one word is important: “shall” instead of “may”. You said yes. Do you understand that I'm going to propose a lot of things like that? Adding that word will enable everyone to work together, in Quebec, in the other provinces and at the federal level. We want this act to be sound. On second reading, everyone agreed in principle, and I said so myself in a speech, but that doesn't mean that I'm closing my eyes and that everything is perfect.

Even after the amendments, it won't be perfect, but we're at least trying to improve it. That's what I was expecting from you. I would like to have your comments on what I've just said.

º (1605)

[English]

Ms. Shawnee Scatliff: With the addition of “all Canadians” and “all persons”, which we have been assured will be put in, we feel that covers all the groups. With the other addition for the minister—“may” instead of “shall”—that addresses some of our issues as well.

There are a few other areas to which we've added words here and there, and they are amendments we would still like to go forward with. The two main ones, though, were that women be included and that they be identified in this bill. That way, someone has something to go back to in order to be able to say women have to be included in everything you do in sport and physical activity. By saying “all Canadians”, we have been assured and feel comfortable that they are being addressed there.

With the minister saying “shall”, we feel comfortable that whoever the minister of the day is and whatever the political atmosphere of the day is, we will also be addressed there as well.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Lanctôt, we have other witnesses to hear.

[English]

I think the point has been made. The government members will also have amendments, so all of your concerns will be dealt with.

Thank you very much.

º (1610)

Ms. Shawnee Scatliff: Thank you.

The Chair: Our next witness will be Monsieur Guy Blondeau, from Hockey Québec.

[Translation]

Mr. Blondeau, welcome to the Sub-Committee on the Study of Sport in Canada.

[English]

The floor is yours.

º (1615)

[Translation]

Mr. Guy Blondeau (Hockey-Québec): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have copies of my brief, but in French only. That's why I'm not distributing it.

The Chair: There's no problem with that.

Mr. Guy Blondeau: If people would like to have one...

The Chair: French is not a problem for us.

Mr. Guy Blondeau: All right. A few are missing. I believe the clerk has gone to make additional copies.

The Fédération québécoise de hockey sur glace, better known as Hockey Québec, is a non-profit organization mandated by the Quebec government to govern ice hockey within Quebec. Its members come from the 15 regions covering all parts of the province. There are approximately 85,000 male and female players, 8,000 coaches, 3,500 officials, 2,500 instructors for the youngest players and approximately 1,500 volunteer administrators.

Hockey Québec's mission reads as follows:

The Corporation is a governing and service organization which, in cooperation with its main partners, shall promote and oversee all forms of ice hockey throughout Quebec in all classes of participants in the introductory, recreational, competitive and excellence sectors with a view to fostering the development of ice hockey and of those who play it.

Hockey Québec is a member of the Canada Hockey Association, the governing body for Canada as a whole. The Canadian Hockey Association is subsidized by Sport Canada.

Hockey Québec took part in the National Summit on Sport and can only support this bill because, as stated in the preamble to Bill C-54, sport, and therefore hockey, can only benefit from the federal government's official recognition. That recognition should result in the creation of a Department of Sport, Recreation and Physical Activity, if the government wishes to give it that name. That department, however, will have to be given the necessary tools to achieve the ends described in the various recitals in the preamble to the act.

Sports-Québec is our representative organization. As you were told at the National Summit, official recognition should result in adequate funding, failing which the government bill will remain a statement of wishes, without any concrete action being taken.

Until material and financial resources have been invested in it, ice hockey will be destined to become a sport for the well-off, less and less accessible to the other classes of society. One need only think of the cost of equipment, sports centres or social constraints to understand that it will become imperative that we find ways of lightening the financial burden of participants and their parents, if we want to promote ice hockey.

In this connection, our attention was naturally drawn to paragraph 5(m) of the chapter entitled “Objects and Mandate”. Through its funding, the federal government should create a financial partnership with the provinces, failing which, all these wishes will remain just that. Consequently, the words “may enter into”, which appear a number of times in the bill, should be replaced, in our view, by “shall enter into”.

With regard to the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada, we can only repeat that we think it is very important because not a year has passed when such an organization would not have had to sit during Canadian or international competitions.

An independent organization, working quite openly, could reestablish a positive image for sport, and God knows sport needs it. One need only think of the case of Nancy Drolet, of the Canadian women's team at the last Olympic Games.

With regard to official languages, as representatives of Quebec within a Canadian organization, we can only hope that Canada's linguistic duality, mentioned in sub-clause 14(4), is reflected in constant, concrete action in dealing with clientele.

On everyday practical matters, although we recognize the efforts made in this regard by the Canadian Hockey Association, we must always remind it of its obligations in order to obtain service in French. A linguistic policy will therefore have to be introduced so that no information is published in English without the same documentation also being published in French. Why must we always complain in order to assert this right?

On this point, we wish to repeat what Sports-Québec has already told you in its comments on official languages. I cite a passage from Sports-Québec's position: “I will close moreover by lamenting the fact that little is said in the bill about the obligations under the Official Languages Act.”

And yet the problems involved in the francization of sport services were confirmed in the report of the Commission of Official Languages. Francophone sports stakeholders face the language barrier every day, in documentation and in program delivery itself. Francophone athletes are often at a loss and discouraged at a system in which little effort is made to serve them in their language. That is why we feel that Bill C-54, at least with regard to services provided directly to athletes, should include obligations relating to respect for both official languages.

With respect to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, we strongly deplore its lack of effort to promote amateur and professional sport, and protest the recent decision to stop broadcasting La Soirée du hockey on Radio-Canada French-language television. As a result of that decision, Francophones who cannot afford pay TV will be deprived of La Soirée du hockey, an important component in the promotion of ice hockey.

In closing, I will say that we are very much encouraged by Bill C-54 and hope to be able to take part in improving it so that all Quebeckers can play ice hockey, regardless of their financial means. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Blondeau.

[English]

Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you for the presentation, although your argument about the need for everything published in English to also be published in French would have been stronger if your document had been in both official languages today.

Mr. Chair, I notice a different standard. This morning when you were chairing our meeting of the full committee, you didn't want a document distributed when it was in English only, but you allowed the French-only one to be distributed to our Bloc member. That's a terrible double standard and I feel left out.

The Chair: I thought you could handle it, Chuck.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thanks. I'm going to get over it.

Being a hockey fan, and a fan of the Montreal Canadiens at that, I've always thought the status of hockey in Quebec was reasonably healthy. Many of our Canadian hockey stars are from Quebec. In a very small way, that's how a lot of us are introduced to the other official language. When we live in British Columbia, that's where we start to hear it: in the anthem, in some interviews, and so on. That probably was my introduction to the French language. It was in a sports role, so I think sports can be a great bridge builder between the two languages. Most of your presentation was about the need to do that in both languages.

Is this what you would like to see happen on the national stage? Is this par for the course within Quebec? Is everything done in both official languages at the amateur level or at all levels, or is this just something you'd like to see from Ottawa?

º (1620)

[Translation]

Mr. Guy Blondeau: When our Quebec athletes compete nationally, they often have trouble obtaining services in their language and, as a result, often find it difficult to fit in, particularly in team sports, where instructions are often given in only one language. If there's no one on the team to supervise in their language, they often find themselves in situations in which they cannot perform or to fully display their talents.

[English]

Mr. Chuck Strahl: So you're thinking of examples like the Canadian national junior team, on which you will have 16- or 17-year-old boys, young man who have never left home, so to speak. They would like to play on the national stage, but by not having the language they were reared in available to them, that's just one more intimidation factor. Is that the example?

[Translation]

Mr. Guy Blondeau: I'd say it goes deeper than that. It even affects recruitment. Recruiters are the ones who conduct the first interviews. If the player has never left Saguenay--Lac-St-Jean, for example, or other places where English is not used very much, how can he display his real worth and have a fair chance at making the national team? And yet he's a Canadian athlete.

[English]

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Just so this is clear, I can see that as a problem, but it could also be a problem for English-speaking athletes in Quebec who are trying to make their way through the system. They may have lots of English-speaking coaches at the national level, I suppose, but would they face a similar problem in Quebec? That was what my first question was getting at.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy Blondeau: I would say that problem doesn't exist for two reasons: most of the time, young Quebec Anglophones are very much integrated into a bilingual community and therefore frequently use both languages. In addition, the coaches in the major junior and triple A midget leagues can talk to players in both languages.

[English]

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Lanctôt, do you have a question?

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: First, I would like to make a comment. I'm not pleased that Chuck had the experience of receiving a document that was not in his language, but that often happens to us. On all committees, before the documents are distributed, care should be taken to ensure they are in both languages, but perhaps action has to be taken quickly. It's true that it's a bit unpleasant for Chuck, but I can tell you that, when I receive them, which happens very often, I find it unpleasant too.

Mr. Blondeau, we met the Sports-Québec representatives last week, and you're somewhat repeating what they told us. In our speeches, we request more funding and greater cooperation between the provinces, Quebec and Ottawa. Did you consult with or meet legal counsel to see whether we could talk about funding in this bill?

Mr. Guy Blondeau: I have to tell you that we didn't do that. This isn't an excuse, but the president of Hockey Québec died last week, and his funeral was held on the weekend. We didn't receive confirmation of our appearance here today until last Thursday, and we also had our annual general meeting. So you'll understand that we didn't have the time to do a lot of consulting on this.

º (1625)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: But do you appreciate the fact that we're trying to add provisions on funding to the bill?

Mr. Guy Blondeau: Of course, because it's said that money is the life blood of war. The share that is allocated to sport and physical activity under the bill should be increased if we want to ensure that changes occur in the attitudes, perceptions and living habits of Canadians, to lead them to get involved in regular physical activity so that they improve their health, which would result in lower costs related to all these health problems.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: But you haven't made the effort to see how that could be done and to give the committee members an explanation on how that could be done.

Mr. Guy Blondeau: I'll talk just about hockey. With regard to lowering participation costs, various scenarios have been put forward in the country. There was talk about tax deductions for parents whose children take part in physical activities or a sport recognized by some kind of organization.

There are also possibilities on the provincial end. Funding could be provided through lotteries. A portion of lottery revenue could be applied to sport. Then, as I said, if we manage to make physical activity a much more permanent lifestyle among Canadians, we could no doubt recover money from other sources such as medical costs and apply it to physical activity and sport.

[English]

The Chair: We're going to move along here, because we're running out of time.

Mr. Proctor, do you have some questions?

[Translation]

M. Dick Proctor: Thank you.

Mr. Blondeau, your organization thinks it is necessary to include official languages obligations in the act. Do you have any specific amendments to propose to the committee?

Mr. Guy Blondeau: I think it should be specifically stated that players must receive services in their official language when they are members of a national hockey team, whatever it may be, particularly if they do not have the opportunity to be in contact with the second official language.

M. Dick Proctor: I have a question on the subject of La Soirée du hockey. Is the situation solely attributable to a lack of money?

Mr. Guy Blondeau: I believe it's a choice by Radio-Canada to broadcast very little in the way of amateur or professional sport, but particularly La Soirée du hockey. This is a professional sport, but it's an excellent vehicle for promoting ice hockey.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. MacKay.

M. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Blondeau, for your presentation.

I have a brief question on the subject of official languages in your organization. Do you think it would be necessary to give players language courses? Would that be a solution to the problem?

Mr. Guy Blondeau: That might be a solution to the problem, but it is difficult to send a 16-year-old player to an immersion course to make him ready for the next national team. Rightly or wrongly, our junior coaches give a lot of instructions in English only.

º (1630)

[English]

Mr. Peter MacKay: In terms of the overall question of funding and how this bill would impact on the availability of funding, are you suggesting that money should be particularly earmarked for the sport of hockey because of the place it holds in the Canadian psyche and because of the importance of hockey? Further to that, in keeping with the presentation and the information brought forward by the Canadian Association for the Advancement of Women and Sport and Physical Activity, should there be greater parity in the availability of funding for men's and women's hockey?

Mr. Guy Blondeau: For the last part of your question, the answer is yes, but there will always be some....

[Translation]

Excuse me. There will always be a disparity between men and women in mass participation. I would say that, given equal participation levels, the direct answer to your question would be yes, but a great deal of investment will probably have to be made in promoting women's hockey in order to attract more women, and we could then see what amount of money could be invested in men's or women's hockey.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Mr. Marcil.

Mr. Serge Marcil: Mr. Chairman, I would like to express a thought that is also a question. We're always talking about official languages. In theory, an act on sport should be an umbrella act, an act that provides a framework for the development and practice of amateur sport in Canada. However, the Official Languages Act is an act in itself and we should refer to it and not incorporate it in our act.

The same can be said about discrimination. There is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and, consequently, we should not incorporate notions from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in this act because those notions already exist.

In practice, however, matters are different. The general public tends to believe that the Official Languages Act is an act that applies more to the public service and to government services across Canada. We don't have the natural reflex of saying that the Official Languages Act applies to all the acts that the Canadian government may pass, exactly like the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

So I have some reservations about incorporating the notion of official languages in the act because we already have an act for that purpose. However, that may be a problem for people who play hockey every day. I see that there are a few Francophones on the national junior hockey team. That's a boundary. A unilingual Anglophone instructor tends to select an Anglophone player because it's easier to communicate with him. We know that things move quickly in hockey. So there's no time to prepare for a training camp. Consequently, there is a certain form of unconscious discrimination in that regard.

My question is direct, Mr. Blondeau. You who are in amateur sport, do you think that, even though there exist an Official Languages Act and a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is included in the Constitution of Canada, mention should be made in this act of bilingualism and amateur sport?

Mr. Guy Blondeau: I think that, if no mention is made, people are going to fall back into their old habits. As you say, it's highly involuntary. Most people do not automatically think of the second language because, most of the time, they work or live in only one language. So I think that we should at least mention it if we want to continually remind people that we have two official languages in Canada and that every citizen is entitled to services in his mother tongue.

Mr. Serge Marcil: Thank you. That's all I wanted to know.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Marcil.

Mr. Cuzner.

[English]

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Could you expand a little bit on your concern, specific to your sport, as it pertains to languages? I'm very aware that at the elite levels, like those of the Canadian national under-17 team that competes, the world junior team, and our recent Olympic teams, they all had French coaches on staff. When you attend an advanced II coaching clinic, there is full translation or access to full translation. I know all the manuals through the coaching and development program are in both official languages. So I see those opportunities.

Let me ask you this first: Does the CHA have an official-language policy?

º (1635)

[Translation]

Mr. Guy Blondeau: The CHA definitely has a policy, and we recall it regularly. I have intervened just recently. People produce a de facto English program; it's ready and it has to go out. However, the board of directors has passed a resolution that every program published in English must be published in French at the same time. We continually have to remind them of this.

As for teams, there is no bilingualism policy on national teams, on the junior teams among others. Last season and in the previous season, there were no coaches on the junior national team who could speak French fluently, and the representation of Quebeckers was reduced as a result. So for there to be a Francophone coach on the team, we have to ensure that Quebec coaches decide to apply for the position. There has to be a certain amount of influence brought to bear so that one of the coaches comes from the Ligue de hockey junior majeur du Québec. That's how we will ensure that the French fact is respected for players, at least on junior national teams.

[English]

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: We just came back from a tournament in Quebec. I coached a team in Quebec. Of the three officials, the referee could not speak any English and one of the linesmen couldn't speak any English, but we had one linesman who could. We got screwed anyway, but it had very little to do with the language.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Guy Blondeau: Was it a sanctioned tournament?

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: No.

The Chair: Mr. Blondeau, is your organization responsible for the Quebec International Pee-Wee Hockey Tournament?

Mr. Guy Blondeau: Yes.

The Chair: Fourteen years ago, I had occasion to attend that tournament, and I just—

An hon. member: As a player?

The Chair: I wish. That's a nice compliment coming from you.

I just think it was the best-organized tournament experience I've ever seen for young people anywhere in the country. I think your team does a magnificent job of bringing young kids together from all over the country—from all over the world, for that matter. It's just a magnificent piece of work.

Mr. Guy Blondeau: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much for coming today.

[Translation]

M. Guy Blondeau: Thank you very much.

[English]

Mr. Chuck Strahl: You should come to the Chilliwack tournament. That's a peewee jamboree where it really happens.

The Chair: Do you bring them together from all over the world?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: No, they're from British Columbia only, but you still should come.

The Chair: If you invite me, I might.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: It goes between Christmas and New Year's.

The Chair: Okay, here we go with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages.

At the rate we're going, we might be able to....

[Translation]

Robert, perhaps we can then move on to the clause-by-clause consideration.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: It's already 4:45.

[English]

The Chair: By the way, what do you think about doing clause-by-clause on Thursday, since we're going to be around here for—

An hon. member: What time?

º (1640)

The Chair: In the afternoon.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I would like it to be Tuesday because I have to attend four meetings of the Justice Committee next week. I'll only be free on Tuesday afternoon.

The Chair: Perhaps Thursday of this week.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: That's impossible.

M. Dennis Mills: Before the vote.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I won't be here until Sunday; I'll be in Africa.

[English]

The Chair: We have to be here Thursday for the votes. We're going to be here all night.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Next Tuesday...

[English]

The Clerk of the Committee: We'd need leave from the standing committee because of their motion that restricts this subcommittee from meeting more than once per week.

The Chair: We could get that done. The heritage committee meets tomorrow.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Tuesday afternoon, I'll be here, and the Justice Committee won't be sitting.

[English]

The Chair: Do you have another colleague

[Translation]

to bring your amendments?

M. Robert Lanctôt: No. I want to be present for the amendments.

Mr. Serge Marcil: It will be Tuesday afternoon.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Yes, in the afternoon.

Mr. Serge Marcil: In the morning, I have to go to an Industry Committee meeting.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: That's it, Tuesday afternoon. That's why I asked for it to be Tuesday afternoon.

[English]

The Chair: Dyane Adam, welcome. The floor is yours.

[Translation]

Mme Dyane Adam (Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages): Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, because there are no ladies here today, members of the Sub-Committee, thank you for giving me the opportunity today to comment on Bill C-54, an Act to promote physical activity and sport in Canada.

Before starting, I would like to introduce my two colleagues here with me. They are Ms. Johane Tremblay, Director, Legal Services, at the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, and Mr. Gilbert Langelier, Director of Special Investigations.

It is my job as Commissioner of Official Languages to do everything I can to ensure recognition of the equality of status of our two official languages in federal institutions, and the promotion of that equality in Canadian society. This equality of status is entrenched in the Constitution of Canada and, of course, in the act.

The discussion paper entitled Building Canada through Sport, presented at the spring 2001 National Summit on Sport, noted the importance of physical activity and sport as factors in societal cohesiveness. Physical activity and sport make it possible to forge closer links among various stakeholders and to bring together participants from both official languages communities. The Salé-Pelletier pair, as well as our national women's hockey team, are certainly striking illustrations of how we can pull together: representatives of our two language groups striving together for a single objective, their success transcending our differences and reflecting well on Canada as a whole.

º (1645)

[English]

Given the importance of physical activity and sport in Canadians' lives—over 8 million Canadians practise a sport, and we'd like to have even more Canadians doing so—it is essential that this field aim at creating a strategic framework for federal government policies on physical activity and sport and at defining the measures the minister may take to that end, in order to reflect the fundamental values of our society, including the linguistic duality.

As early as the 1990s, the working group reporting to Canada's minister responsible for sport identified problems in providing services in French, as well as significant barriers to the full participation of francophones in various sport activities. A few years later, the 1998 report by your subcommittee, headed by your chair Mr. Mills, recommended that the Government of Canada ensure the development and delivery of services and programs in both official languages. That report also acknowledged that sport is an important facet of our culture.

[Translation]

As well, a study published by my Office in June 2000 pointed out that the problems noted in the two reports I mentioned persisted. Francophones, who accounted for only 18% of top athletes, were concentrated in only a few sports. As well, training and a number of essential support services such as health care, psychological care and sport science, were unavailable in French in many sport disciplines. Although some progress has been made, particularly concerning the language requirements to be respected by the national sports organizations, the extent of the catching-up that needs to be done still calls for major effort.

Thus it appears that the Chair of your Sub-Committee and a number of other parliamentarians share my Office's view, a situation I am pleased to note. It is time for new legislation, in the form of this bill, to reflect properly the official languages dimension of Canada's sport system.

Although Bill C-54 does contain some provisions on the official languages, I consider these clauses insufficient in light of the importance of linguistic duality and the scope of the federal government's obligations under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Official Languages Act and, of course, because there are already weaknesses and deficiencies in the present system. It is time to take corrective action.

[English]

The passage of new legislation is an excellent opportunity to strengthen the framework that upholds government activities in the field of sport by ensuring that linguistic duality forms a solid girder in that framework. As a clinical psychologist, I must also say that prevention is a lot better than a cure, so we really need to act accordingly in this piece of legislation.

I will give you a number of amendments that I suggest would help to really achieve the objectives that we would like to achieve. To start, I deem it essential that the preamble to Bill C-54, which defines the government's commitment, refer to the principle of linguistic duality. This basic feature of Canadian society, along with the other important benefits of physical activity and sport for Canadians, must be set out in the first paragraph of the preamble as follows:

WHEREAS the Government of Canada recognizes that physical activity and sport are integral parts of Canadian culture and society and produce benefits in terms of health, social cohesion, linguistic duality, economic activity, cultural diversity and quality of life,

It's a single addition, but it clarifies things.

[Translation]

We also consider that the principle of linguistic duality should be included in certain clauses of the bill. For exemple, given the important contribution of physical activity and sport to forging links among Canadians, il is important that sub-clause 4(2), which sets out the objectives of government policy on sport, include the following objective:

to help bring Canadians, in particular the two official language communities, closer together.

Now here's another proposed amendment. Clause 5, which sets out the objects of the bill and defines the measures the Minister may take to promote physical activity and sport, does not refer explicitly to the official languages. To remedy this shortcoming, we recommend that the introduction to clause 5 be amended to read as follows:

(1) The objects of this Act are to encourage, promote and develop physical activity and sport in Canada and to provide an environment favourable to the equitable participation of the two official language communities in Canada's sport system.

(2) In accordance with subsection (1), the Minister may take any measures that the Minister considers appropriate to further those objects, and in particular may...

[English]

Another proposal relates to clause 6. Clause 6 deals with a vital component of Canada's sport system. It authorizes the minister to provide financial assistance in the form of grants and contributions to any person. Under this provision, the government provides funding to a large number of national sports organizations that support activities in most sport disciplines and that greatly contribute to the development of top athletes in both official-language communities. Because our 2000 study on this noted significant shortcomings in this regard, we recommend that it be made explicit that the power is to be exercised in accordance with parts IV and VII of the Official Languages Act. Clause 6 would then read as follows:

For the purposes of this Act, the Minister may provide financial assistance in the form of grants and contributions to any person, in accordance with Part IV and Part VII of the Official Languages Act.

º (1650)

[Translation]

Given the prominent role played by the provinces and territories in the field of physical activity and sport, clause 7, which deals with agreements the Minister is authorized to enter into with the provinces and territories, should include a third sub-clause, providing as follows:

In developing contribution and policy implementation agreements, the Minister shall take into account the needs of the English-speaking and French-speaking minorities, in accordance with the Official Languages Act.

I am pleased to see that the government intends to create a Sport Dispute Resolution Centre that may help find solutions through an extrajudicial mechanism if disputes, including language disputes, arise. I am also interested to see that this part of the bill takes into account a number of principles based on linguistic duality. For example, sub-clause 9(5) states that: “The Centre shall offer its services to, and communicate with, the public in both official languages of Canada.”

One could argue that the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre will be a federal institution within the meaning of section 3 of the Official Languages Act, and thus subject to all the language obligations set out in that Act. That said, in order to avoid any future ambiguity about the extent of the Centre's language obligations, it is essential that sub-clause 9(5) be replaced with the following:

The Official Languages Act applies to the Centre as if it were a federal institution.

[English]

This clause would have the effect of clearly confirming the language rights conferred by the Official Languages Act, particularly concerning services to and communications with the public, language of work, equitable participation by English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians, and, lastly, the right to file a complaint with the commissioner in case of a failure by the centre to fulfill its obligations. This proposed clause is not unusual. It is found in other statutes, including the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Technology Development Act and the Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act. We are not creating any precedent here.

[Translation]

In itself, the passage of this bill will set in motion a societal vision with repercussions for the well-being, and particularly the health, of Canadians. It is therefore important that both communities be treated equitably and that the new legislation not allow for any ambiguity regarding the language obligations it imposes. More than once, history has shown that in the absence of clear legislative provisions Canadians' language rights are not respected. This point has been clearly made by the three studies I mentioned earlier. The government cannot merely talk; it must act, thus ensuring that inequitable situations for Francophones are not perpetuated.

In closing, I would like to remind the Committee that, according to data presented at the National Summit on Sport, over 90% of Canadians consider that sport strengthens the sense of belonging, at both the community and the national levels. In the January 2001 Speech from the Throne, the government clearly affirmed its commitment to protecting our two official languages and supporting the development of our official language minority communities. Encouraging physical activity and sport is a means for fulfilling this commitment and the amendments I have proposed are aimed at ensuring it takes form in the new legislation.

In closing, I thank you for your attention, and I shall now be pleased to answer questions on the subject.

º (1655)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Adam.

Mr. Strahl, do you have any questions?

[English]

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you for coming.

What would be your recommendation on, for example, subclause 4(2), in order for it to help to bring Canadians, and particularly the two official-language communities, closer together? In my community, it would probably be easier to support it if it said it was to help to bring Canadians and particularly aboriginal communities closer together.

What the minister was trying to say the other day is that if we start singling out...I realize we have an Official Languages Act and so on, but when we start to single groups out like this and give direction more specifically, then we're going to start leaving groups out. Isn't that a concern?

Ms. Dyane Adam: You have to realize—and I'm sure you do—that both the charter and the Official Languages Act are quite clear that there are two languages of equal privilege and equal rights in Canada. This is the basic, important, fundamental basis of our country. In fact, it does condition the actions of the government, so I'm just recommending that the action of our current government be in line with the definition of our country.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I laud the goal. I already said in earlier testimony that I think it's a great opportunity to increase understanding and bring Canadians together, but it's exactly this kind of language that drives people in my part of the world nuts because they just don't see themselves in it. They just say they'd love to see the government be keen on bringing all Canadians together regardless of their background. When they see this language in here, it's like they're not in it. The whole Stó:lõ Nation—seventeen Indian bands—don't see themselves in that.

Ms. Dyane Adam: There are native people who speak both official languages in this country. There are some who are English-speakers, aside from their aboriginal language, and there are also French-speakers, so it does not exclude.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I find that it is exclusionary. That's why women aren't listed. That's why the minister made a point of not listing gender as one of the criteria either. He says “all Canadians” covers everybody. When you put more of that language in there, I don't know that it's necessary. It covers all Canadians already.

Let me go back to one of the questions I had from before. Your office administers the funds for the Games of la Francophonie, is that correct?

Ms. Dyane Adam: No, my office is the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. I'm not a department, I'm an agent of Parliament. I don't manage any funds. I'm there to oversee that the federal institutions do respect the Official Languages Act and to in fact be the conscience of Parliament.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Yes, and you do a good job of that. You keep us on our toes.

The Games of la Francophonie aim specifically to promote physical activity in part, but also cultural activity in part. They have a huge budget by sports standards in this country. That budget is specifically targeting the promotion of French-speaking athletes and international games, bringing in French-speaking countries. There's no English equivalent to that, of course. The Commonwealth Games get about a twentieth or a thirtieth of the amount of money that the Games of la Francophonie get. Is that the way it should be? Is that the way it has to be? In your opinion, is that equality of promotion of the languages, or is this a special case that just needs to be that way?

Ms. Dyane Adam: Like most Canadians, I happen to believe linguistic duality is an asset. It brings to Canada the possibility to participate in the concert of nations internationally. Canada is part of both the Commonwealth and the Francophonie. Both of them group around more than fifty nations. That is a plus for all Canadians, whatever our first official language is.

As for how much money each games receives, you'll have to ask the Minister of Canadian Heritage. I cannot comment on this.

» (1700)

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I agree that it is an asset and something we can be proud of. I was just pointing out that you may want to check into this. While we are a member of the Commonwealth and the Francophonie, the Games of la Francophonie get thirty times as much money as the Commonwealth Games as far as federal government support is concerned, so I just wondered if you had a comment on that.

Ms. Dyane Adam: I would like to suggest, Mr. Strahl, that maybe you should check the figures. I will not dispute the figures since it's not in my specific area of responsibility, but based on our information, I think the comparison is not right.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I'll get you those numbers.

The Chair: Chuck, just out of curiosity, where did you get that number of thirty times as much?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I brought an article in two or three sessions ago. It's what Commonwealth Games funding for athletes was....

The Chair: It was in the press?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Yes.

The Chair: You wouldn't believe everything you read in the press, would you?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: No, I wouldn't, Mr. Chairman, not unless you were quoted in it, of course.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I'll dig up the article as a start.

But it is also hard given the way the estimates process works around here. It is difficult to manoeuvre your way through the quagmire. You may be right. I'm working off press clippings because that's what I had to work with before. I didn't bring them with me. I wasn't....

The Chair: Can you follow through on that? If other groups are not getting enough, we should make sure we collectively lobby to get more money for them. That's one area in which the Canadian Alliance has been terrific over the last three years in our journey along this renewal of sport in Canada. Your party has been fantastic in supporting the idea that we press the government and the executive of the government to put more money into sport. It's one of the exceptions in your party. Normally you're either cutting here or cutting there, but in sport, you said, “No, let's put more in.” So let's not miss the moment.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: And I keep saying that when the budget comes through to go with this, we'll all know how serious the government is. There are a lot of good words, but until there's money attached to it, whether the concerns are about official languages or otherwise, we won't know what our resources are. The budget is going to be more telling than the legislation itself.

The Chair: I agree.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Lanctôt, do you have any questions?

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, I want to thank you for the first report you published on the official languages and for your 16 recommendations because they underscored the reason for our official languages requirements here on the Sub-Committee and in the House.

Unlike Mr. Marcil, I believe we must take the opportunity afforded by this act on sport to entrench compliance with the Official Languages Act in its preamble. That's essential in my mind, particularly since the 16 recommendations which are supposed to have been complied with since April 2001 have not yet been complied with. That's why I'm making this such an issue, as I also did with the Mills report. There must absolutely be a guideline on this matter. It's fundamental, and I thank the Commissioner for saying so. I appreciate that very much. She has also submitted amendments that will help us prepare our own.

Coming back to the amendment you proposed to subclause 4(2), at the National Summit on Sport and in all the agreements that have been reached between the federal government, Quebec, the provinces and territories, the parties wanted to rule out the minor problems such as those you foresee in subclause 4(2). Helping bring Canadians closer together, that's going to be done. We don't need to state that if we require respect for the official languages.

That's one of the elements. There are a number of things I want to point out, such as “all Canadians”. I think it's good to have added that, as Stan has done, instead of mentioning everyone, so as to make no distinctions. I think that both DeVillers and we have respected that: we haven't made it a topic of propaganda. I want to propose a few amendments to clarify the jurisdictional issues, but that has nothing to do with Canadian identity. That's the only place where I could see this thing coming up again in the bill, but I don't want it.

We can draft this amendment by simply talking about compliance with the Official Languages Act. Nowhere, be it with Richard Legendre or the Secretary of State, did we manage to put anything on national identity into this bill. We wanted it to be about education, physical activity and sport in their pure state. That appears nowhere, and if we added something on the subject, that would bother me a bit.

» (1705)

Mme Dyane Adam: May I react to that? As worded, the bill talks about social cohesion. I don't know how you define social cohesion or what you mean by social cohesion, but to my mind, at a sociological level, it means the ties that bind people together. Since a country such as ours is very diversified culturally, geographically and linguistically, when you talk about social cohesion, that means forging ties and bringing people closer together. In my mind, I'm stating outright what is being expressed. I don't think that's making propaganda. It's entirely in the spirit of the Constitution of Canada.

How will we go about it? When you promote physical activity and meetings among the young people of the country, where there will necessarily be Anglophones and Francophones, and we ensure that we correct some of the problems we have identified in the Canadian sport system, we create opportunities for Canadians of various origins and from various regions to meet, each other, appreciate each other and come closer together. That's how we promote social cohesion.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: We simply want to help bring people closer together. We're not going anywhere. We shouldn't start to discuss that again. We have all agreed on that.

Mr. Serge Marcil: Talking about Canadians is not propaganda. We're still in a country here. Come on!

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: We'll talk about that later.

Mr. Serge Marcil: Yes, we're definitely talk about it again. I think it's a very good amendment.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Incredible! We had succeeded. He hasn't sat on the subcommittee often enough to speak like that. It's too bad. That's a comment that is utterly uncalled for. It serves no purpose. We're here to work together.

Mr. Serge Marcil: If we were here to work together, you wouldn't be advocating Quebec's independence.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, order.

Mr. Proctor.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'd like to thank the Commissioner of Official Languages.

Personally, I find it very helpful that you have specific recommendations here. I also wanted to stay with your proposal on subclause 4(2) to help to bring Canadians together, and particularly the two official-language communities.

In your rationale, which was included in the appendix, you have indicated—and I'm quoting directly from it:

Experience has clearly shown that established policies and good intentions have not sufficed to establish adequate co-operation, or implement an effective system, in ensuring that individual and community language rights are respected in Canada's sport system

I just wondered if you might provide for the committee some examples of what you're referring to when you say, “Experience has clearly shown...”? What are you drawing on there to justify the need for this addition?

» (1710)

Ms. Dyane Adam: What we found was that, for example...I can use different institutions, but I'll stick to the federal institutions. Part of our legislation right now, part VII of the Official Languages Act, states that the Government of Canada is committed to promoting French and English in Canadian society. It is also committed to supporting the development and vitality of the official-language communities in minority settings.

The language that is used in that particular section of our act is interpreted differently by different parties. The justice department tends to see it as just declaratory, with no kind of executive, true commitment. It's more or less left to goodwill. When this kind of thing happens, it creates a state of ambiguity that leads to stagnation, inertia, and inaction in an environment like federal institutions, in the parts that are very complex. I'm not saying our government and our federal institutions are not active, but this ambiguity permeates the actions and there's always a way out when it comes to not doing it.

When legislators have an intent, it's better if they can make that intent more explicit. It's a preventive mode and a proactive approach, and it also guides the decision-makers better. It means they'll still have some judgment calls, but at least they'll have a clear idea of what is expected of this. That is probably your objective as legislators. You want this to be clear.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thank you.

The Chair: Peter.

[Translation]

M. Peter MacKay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for your work and your amendments.

My question is similar to that of my friend on the subject of the fifth amendment. Ms. Adam, do you think that amendment is necessary? Don't you think it would be sufficient to say that the Official Languages Act applies to the centre?

Mme Dyane Adam: I think it should really be mentioned. I heard a comment by Mr. Lanctôt during the testimony of the previous witness. He said the official languages were mentioned, but that it was perhaps not necessary to incorporate that in the bill since the act applies in this case. The centre is an organization which is intended to be somewhat at arm's length from the Minister, although, when I look at the Minister's powers, I see that there's nevertheless a very direct link.

We're only talking about communication with the public. The Official Languages Act is much more than serving the public. It is also about ensuring that Anglophones and Francophones participate and about the equitable representation of the two linguistic groups. It's also about ensuring that people who work there can work in the language of their choice. Lastly, it's also about ensuring that, where the act is infringed, there is completely independent recourse, thus the Commissioner.

By adding a simple sentence, that is to say that the centre is subject to the Official Languages Act as a federal institution, we would be clarifying things. I'm going to cite the specific case of Air Canada, a private business which is not even financed out of public money, which is not the case of this centre, because it is taxpayers who will be paying. The act governing Air Canada clearly states that the company is subject to the Official Languages Act, as though it were a federal institution, but there are problems of implementation of and compliance with the act. In this case, there is no legal recourse. We have already had to go to court in the case of Air Canada because it did not want to recognize that this small sentence applied to its regional carriers. We had to have the last act amended to clarify that. We went to court with Air Canada.

So to clarify this and to avoid such a thing, I suggest that you clarify it. There are some who will say that it's superfluous and adding more. For my part, I think it's better to prevent problems. Experience shows us that it's better.

» (1715)

M. Peter MacKay: I understand your argument in substance, but I think it is already clear that the centre has a national involvement, that it's a centre for the entire country. It's a bit of a punch line: “The Official Languages Act applies...”. Would the centre be exempt from the application of the act without this amendment?

Ms. Dyane Adam: Well, it's far from clear that it's fully subject to the act. As this is worded, it's not clear at all.

M. Peter MacKay: All right. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Mr. Marcil.

Mr. Serge Marcil: You've responded to the concern I cited earlier to the previous witness, as to whether it was preferable to incorporate notions from the Official Languages Act into the bill. So that responds to my concerns precisely. It troubles me less. On the contrary, it encourages me to accept these amendments.

[English]

The Chair: Rodger.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: I have two questions.

With regard to the ADR, we're certainly hearing loudly and clearly from the sport organizations that this agency is a private organization. As a private organization, I would surmise that it would fall under the provisions of provincial law. If the ADR looked at setting up within the province of Quebec—in Montreal, let's say—would there be confusion with the application of provincial law?

Ms. Dyane Adam: I've read this legislation, and our interpretation is not clear at all that it is under provincial law. I don't know where that's written.

» (1720)

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: No, but it's a private....

An hon. member: Independent, Rodger.

Ms. Dyane Adam: I'm not sure that it's private. It's not clear at all, either, that it may be independent or arm's-length. Even then, though, if you look at the language that is used, it has to report to the minister.

The minister can make decisions. Agents of Parliament are a lot more independent because we go directly to Parliament and we do reports. No one can really tell us how we will run our business in any sense as long as we follow our acts. That's a real arm's-length....

The way the bill is written right now, I just don't see that.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Would you concur with that? You don't see any....

Ms. Johane Tremblay (Director, Legal Services Branch, National Headquarters, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages): Our point is that it could be argued that they are federal institutions. Because there is uncertainty about that, though, we propose the amendment to subclause 9(5).

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Let me ask another question. Just knowing the nature of sport and knowing how things evolve, we have a speed skating group from Baie-Comeau that wants to host a major event. In conjunction with that, they may want to host a coaching symposium as well. It may be predominantly French in Baie-Comeau, but if they were to apply for and subsequently secure moneys from the government, then with the changes you're putting forward, would the requirement be so rigorous that full translation wouldn't require that? Would you be handcuffing community groups from undertaking such initiatives when a major component of the budget would have to be attributed to a second language?

Ms. Dyane Adam: Under our Official Languages Act, not all of our own federal institutions need to offer bilingualism from coast to coast. As you know, many of them have offices that are designated to deliver bilingual services. There are provisions in the regulations with respect to that. We're talking about a centre that would be fully subjected to the act. We're not talking about provincial organizations.

When we did our study, there were problems in national organizations, as you know, in terms of delivering services to the athletes in both official languages. We will be doing the follow-up to our study this summer, and we will be in a better position to find out about Monsieur Lanctôt's earlier comment that none of these recommendations were implemented. I'm not in a position to say that yet, because we haven't done a follow-up on this. It was really where organizations offered services to different athletes across Canada that the question of bilingual services was an issue. We hope this situation has been corrected, but we can't say.

Based on the question you asked about the Official Languages Act, there might be a misunderstanding of the obligations. The amendments we're proposing are not aimed at all at applying to specific provincial organizations. This is not the case.

The Chair: Would there be any possible conflict with certain provincial labour laws because of the the way these proposed amendments are put forward?

Ms. Dyane Adam: Can you give a specific example? Labour laws in terms of what, exactly?

The Chair: I'm just asking the question. Would there be any conflict here? In other words, I believe the centre is independent. I'd rather think of it as a quasi-crown organization because of the influence the minister has on the board. With all of those recommendations—which are really, for clarity's sake, reinforcing the Official Languages Act—would there be any conflict with any provincial labour laws because the centre is only a quasi-crown and not totally a crown organization?

Ms. Dyane Adam: I cannot see that. We have other agencies—

The Chair: So nothing comes to mind. You've looked at that. That's fine. I don't mean to belabour it. I just want to make sure we're not in....

» (1725)

Ms. Dyane Adam: I cannot think of any example of any problems with respect to that. Even in Quebec, for example, where they have the langue de travail because the bill says the language of work in Quebec is French, the federal institutions, Air Canada, VIA Rail, and other crown corporations, are subjected to our act. Those designated offices have two languages of work, French and English.

The Chair: Thank you. This has been very good.

Are there any other questions before Madame Adam and her team leave us?

Mr. Dick Proctor: I have a very brief question, if I may, Mr. Chair.

In your presentation, you indicated that francophones accounted for only 18% of the top athletes. If it were reflective of Statistics Canada's latest census numbers, what should that figure be?

Ms. Dyane Adam: It should be about one in four, or 25%. But that figure of 18% was from 2000. We'll see if it's better now.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thanks.

The Chair: Thank you very much for reviewing the bill and for all of your proposed amendments.

Ms. Dyane Adam: Thank you so much. We're at the service of Parliament.

The Chair: Colleagues, are there any questions about process before we adjourn? No? So for next Tuesday, then, you could give your proposed amendments to the clerk and we could prepare?

Mr. Dick Proctor: What are you asking us to do? Are you proposing the draft for—

The Chair: I'd like to do clause-by-clause next Tuesday.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: So when do you want proposed amendments? When do you need them?

The Chair: What would be good, Andrew?

The Clerk: Technically, as this is a matter on the floor before committee, a member does in fact have the right to propose amendments on the spot. It's just that we can give better procedural advice and legal advice if they're routed through legal counsel and the legal clerk well before time.

The Chair: It makes the process a lot easier. We don't want to be sitting here for hours. We all know where everybody's heads are on this.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I love this institution.

The Chair: Let's get it done.

Serge.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil: I have two questions. The first concerns the suggestions and recommendations made by Ms. Adam. If we want to move these amendments, must they come from a member or can the committee adopt them as its own and study them when there is...?

[English]

The Chair: Any member of Parliament can take all or any part of any proposed amendments that we've received from the witnesses over the last few days and can put them forward. We then vote on whether to accept them or not. I'm sure Mr. Lanctôt will be recommending that all of these official-language amendments should be locked in exactly the way they are, and others may support him. If you want to do the same, that's your prerogative. As long as we do not change the basic direction of the legislation, we should be in good shape.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil: All right, but here's what I wanted to know. When we hear witnesses, they make recommendations. Does the subcommittee adopt the proposed amendments to see whether they should be incorporated in the bill, or whether a member should propose them? In other words, when we hear witnesses and they suggest amendments, can the officials working on the bill table a new, amended bill that would come from the committee, and not necessarily from the members, or must that absolutely come from a member?

[English]

The Chair: Yes, you can. You can actually bring an amendment in as late as the meeting at which we're doing clause-by-clause. It's then up to the committee to accept or reject it.

Mr. Serge Marcil: Okay, good.

[Translation]

Second, how do you convene the committee?

[English]

The Chair: We're going to convene the meeting at the same time next Tuesday.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil: How do you normally do it? I'm a member of the committee, and I have attended a few meetings. I'm told orally when there is to be meeting. Are there written notices?

» (1730)

The Clerk: On the e-mail system.

Mr. Serge Marcil: Just that? If you're not an e-mail user, you don't know.

The Clerk: Precisely.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you. The meeting is adjourned.