SPOR Committee Meeting

SUB-COMMITTEE ON THE STUDY OF SPORT IN CANADA

SOUS-COMITÉ SUR L'ÉTUDE DU SPORT AU CANADA

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, March 21, 2000

• 0932

[English]

The Clerk of the Committee: Honourable members, I see a quorum. Our first order of business is the election of the chair. I'm ready to take motions to that effect.

Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): I nominate Dennis Mills.

The Clerk: Mr. Proud, seconded by Mr. Mahoney, nominates Mr. Mills as chair of the subcommittee. Is everybody in agreement?

(Motion agreed to)

The Clerk: I would invite Mr. Mills to take the chair.

The Chair (Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.)): Thank you. I'm overwhelmed.

We will move to the election of the vice-chairs, so we'll take nominations.

Mr. George Proud: I nominate Steve Mahoney.

Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): I second it.

(Motion agreed to)

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Do I get to make a speech?

Some hon. members: No.

The Chair: We have to wait until Doug Fisher's here before you make any speech.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: My publicist.

The Chair: Okay. Now we have the election of the second vice-chair, the opposition vice-chair.

Mr. George Proud: I'll nominate Inky Mark.

(Motion agreed to)

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a suggestion.

[English]

The Chair: Yes, go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: One of the things that should be noted about amateur sport as it arises in Parliament is the fact that the Bloc Québécois has a member who acts as its official critic for amateur sport. In my opinion, it is the only political party, apart from the government of course, that has a person responsible exclusively for that. I wonder what the Chair would think about having a third vice-chair, given that this is an important year for women and amateur sport. The Bloc Québécois critic for amateur sport is Caroline St-Hilaire. I would therefore suggest that there be a third vice-chair, if this is possible.

• 0935

[English]

The Chair: I will listen to that, and I'll also hear Mr. Riis.

Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Just as a point of clarification, perhaps my old friend isn't aware also that the NDP has a sports critic. So another opposition party has a person who is designated to represent the sector of sports, both professional and amateur.

Mr. Richard Marceau: I'm sorry.

Mr. Nelson Riis: That's no problem.

The Chair: Ms. Jennings.

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): I believe that the rationale for having a third vice-chair has just disappeared. Our colleague from the Bloc Québécois thought that his party was the only opposition party to have a member acting as the critic for sport. In his eyes, that would justify the position of a third vice-chair, but since we have just learned that the New Democratic Party has also designated a member to act as sport critic, I suggest that we stick to the usual formula: one chair and two vice-chairs. We have already elected the two vice-chairs. However, if the opposition parties would like to have their spokesperson for sport sit on the committee, that's another kettle of fish.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Riis.

Mr. Nelson Riis: I like that suggestion. We are not obligated to have two chairs, or one chair, or whatever. It's up to the committee, of course, to decide.

Perhaps I could make a suggestion. I'm not opposed to my colleague's suggestion. In a sense we're dealing with a very interesting issue with this subcommittee, and we're moving into turf that we're perhaps not normally looking at. I would like to just put on the table the following thought, and I'm not necessarily promoting this. Why not have a vice-chair from each of the parties? I think this would go a long way to showing our commitment as a committee to this issue. I don't think this is a big deal, but if this would somehow bring some comfort and so on and involve people perhaps more seriously....

I'm going to go back, just as a reminder, to the last committee that was looking into some of these issues. Often there wasn't a packed house is what I'd like to say. Perhaps by having more people buying in through a position of some status on the committee, there would be more of an inclination for more continuous attendance and perhaps more interest in the issue itself. So I just put this on the table as something for our discussion.

The Chair: Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): I have no problem with everyone becoming a vice-chair of the committee, providing that when the chairman is absent certainly the first two vice-chairs should assume the chair.

The Chair: Ms. Phinney.

Ms. Beth Phinney: Mr. Chair, I agree with my colleague here. If they do already have the spokesman for the sport, I can't understand why they would pick somebody who is not the spokesman for the sport to sit on the committee. Why not have the spokesman from the sport be the representative on the committee?

The Chair: Ms. Jennings.

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Mark has just said that he sees no reason why all the committee members could not be appointed vice-chairs, as long as the first two vice-chairs be the only ones authorized to replace the chair, when the chair is absent or unable to serve. We have something similar in Quebec, with administrative organizations having a chair and a vice-chair. Sometimes there is more than one vice-chair, and one of them is designated in the relevant legislation to replace the chair or the head of the organization when this person is absent or unable to act as chair. If everyone agrees, then, we could indeed say that we have a chair, a first designated vice-chair, a second designated vice-chair and an unlimited number of vice-chairs.

The Chair: Mr. Marceau.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Let's forget this and move on to other things. I withdraw my proposal.

The Chair: Excuse me?

Mr. Richard Marceau: I said that I withdraw my proposal. If that's the way it's going, let's forget it and go on to other things.

• 0940

[English]

The Chair: I'd like the clerk...he has listened and we'll chat, and at the next meeting we'll come back with a response to this.

I was approached last night by Madame St-Hilaire before she left to support the Minister of Sport in Lausanne. They're over there working for us. I said that I would do my best, on behalf of her and the Bloc, to explore ideas on how the Bloc's commitment to and participation in the committee could be reinforced, as Nelson has described. Anything that we as members can do to reinforce the idea that this is a committee where all parties come together and really try to make things happen—any way that we can send that signal out there is a productive and useful measure.

So when we come back at the next meeting we'll have a couple of formal ideas, and then we'll go from there to where we can all win.

Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I was going to agree, since it was withdrawn, because my concern is that this committee has a really good opportunity to do some great work with all parties participating, regardless.

The vice-chair role, in my view, is one that is really just there in case you're not available to run a meeting and not to do all that much more. I wouldn't want to denigrate the committee by having all of us climbing over one another to see who can be the vice-chair. It then becomes a little silly, frankly.

As a matter of fact, I was quite impressed that at 9.30 a.m. when the meeting was started we had all opposition parties and everybody here eager to go.

I sit as vice-chair on citizenship and immigration and it's like pulling teeth to get a quorum. So obviously everyone is eager and interested, and I think we should just get on with the business.

The Chair: Perhaps I could be permitted just a minute to respond to that, Steve. I thought up until two weeks ago that being the vice-chair of a committee was essentially to be there in case the chairman couldn't make it. But two weeks ago I had an experience as the vice-chair of the heritage committee where the press were calling me over this issue of the small independent booksellers being put out of business. I was actually shocked at the fact that to the media and to the public at large—and we don't seem to realize it here—the extra designation does go a long way.

So if Nelson Riis is giving a speech, whether it be in British Columbia, Atlantic Canada, or wherever it is, and he's the vice-chair of the committee, it sends an added thrust to the audience that we're out there looking for support and encouragement.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Not as the fifth vice-chair....

The Chair: Listen, you don't measure vice-presidents of banks as to whether they're number one or two.

Anyway, we'll come back to the next meeting with some...the clerk has a couple of ideas, after hearing everybody today, and we'll go from there.

Okay. What else do we have here?

The Clerk: Do we want to hire somebody from the Library of Parliament?

The Chair: Yes, we need a motion to have permission to have support from the Library of Parliament for research. Is that agreed?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: We have Mr. Tony Jackson from the library who gave us help before.

So, Tony, you're in business.

The Clerk: The next one is to have meetings in the absence of a quorum.

The Chair: Did you want to speak to the next one?

The Clerk: The next one is a standard motion to hold meetings before a quorum is present. Sometimes members are delayed or they can't make it to meetings, so if you can just name a minimum.... A standard motion for a subcommittee is say three members, including one from the opposition. That way you don't have witnesses waiting to be heard.

The Chair: We wouldn't abuse that. In other words, if it were a minister or the president of the CBC, we would wait until members were there. There are some times when a member may be caught in the House, or whatever, where a witness may get on with his presentation.

Mr. Riis.

Mr. Nelson Riis: I so move that this would be helpful at this point.

The Clerk: Do you want to put any numbers in there? Is it three and one?

The Chair: Is three and one okay?

Mr. Nelson Riis: Fine.

(Motion agreed to)

The Clerk: The last one is basically for the questioning of witnesses. Every committee has, as you know, rules for the questioning of witnesses, and every one is different.

• 0945

Mr. Inky Mark: I would suggest we follow the same schedule as we used in the heritage committee.

The Chair: Okay, that's fine by me.

Mr. Nelson Riis: Which is?

The Chair: I don't know what it is.

Mr. Inky Mark: Well, we went back and forth.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Ten and five.

Mr. Inky Mark: Yes, ten and five.

Mr. Nelson Riis: I'd like to make one suggestion for this. I'm fine with the ten and five and back and forth, but would it be possible at some point for the chair to entertain, say, a single supplementary question? If there was a good exchange going on and somebody just wanted to add on a little tidbit or a point, he could ask for a supplementary and the chair would recognize a supplementary question.

The Chair: Well, why don't we just leave it to the discretion of the chair? I'll tell you, in my humble opinion, one of the things that made our committee so successful and so productive the last go-around was the fact that there were times when Mr. Mark was seized with a particular witness and maybe members of the government side weren't, so we just said “Well, go for it, Inky.”

Mark, you were here. Didn't you think it worked fairly well the last time, whenever we took that...? We have a situation here where we're not into tension a lot, so I think we should keep it loose. Okay?

Yes.

Ms. Beth Phinney: In the same vein, so that nobody feels something is being dumped on them without any notice, should we put in the 24-hour clause so that, no matter where an amendment is coming from, we're all aware of it ahead of time and can look at it and study it?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: It is agreed to have 24-hour notice on a motion.

Ms. Beth Phinney: Yes, so we're all aware of it, whether it comes from our side or your side or whatever.

The Chair: Terrific. Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: On the agenda, under the heading “Opening statements and questioning of witnesses”, are the words “(See attached 5)” at the end of the paragraph. What does that mean?

The Chair: It's the clerk's mistake.

The Clerk: It's something that I deleted yesterday but it didn't come off the computer. It's a technical mistake.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Okay.

The Chair: So, what the computer...

[English]

The Chair: Does everybody have a copy of the recommendations? I don't see.... Oh, you have them.

Mr. Riis.

Mr. Nelson Riis: Is there a package?

The Chair: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Excuse me, but I suppose that is the memo that you sent on the 20th... I have a memo which reads:

[English]

“two members of the Sub-Committee on the Study of Sport in Canada”, and it's from Dennis Mills, MP, chair.

[Translation]

I was somewhat...

[English]

Ms. Beth Phinney: [Inaudible—Editor]...who were here?

The Chair: Oh, this was just the names of the members?

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Naturally, you will not be in the least surprised to hear me say that I was somewhat amazed to see that the memo was in English only. I hope that, starting today, all the documents submitted to the committee will be drafted in both of Canada's official languages, as was pointed out a few minutes ago by my very good friend opposite.

The Chair: I apologize. This is a serious mistake on the part of my staff. It is not the clerk's fault. This is the last time that I will make this mistake. Please accept my apologies.

[English]

The Clerk: I'll translate it and send it around.

[Translation]

I will translate it and send it around.

The Chair: This is the first time I make this mistake, but it will be the last. I apologize.

Mr. Richard Marceau: I am merely replacing Ms. St-Hilaire who, as you said, is with Mr. Coderre. To ensure that this doesn't happen again, would it be possible to say in the regular motions that documents must be distributed in both official languages for everyone's benefit?

The Chair: Absolutely. This is not a problem.

Ms. Beth Phinney: I think that is the rule. It's something—

Mr. Richard Marceau: It depends on the committee.

[English]

The Chair: It's not in this committee?

A voice: No.

The Chair: There's no debate on this.

[Translation]

You're right. It's not an issue.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Can that be put in writing and included in a regular motion? Perhaps the clerk can write it down and we can vote on it next week, when Ms. St-Hilaire is back.

The Chair: If you feel that's necessary, it can be done.

The Clerk: I can put it in the minutes, if you wish. That will make it official. If you agree, I will say something to the effect that all documents must be distributed in both official languages.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Absolutely.

The Chair: No problem.

• 0950

[English]

Okay. Now, our meeting is basically about structure today, but I thought maybe we'd just take a couple of minutes to talk about the overview of what we were going to try to achieve during the next two and a half months.

Yes, Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark: I'd like to go back to the memo. Could we deal with the days when we're going to meet?

The Chair: Okay. I thought we had agreed, through discussions back and forth, that it would be Tuesday mornings at 9 o'clock for an hour and a half and Wednesdays at 3.30 for an hour and a half.

Mr. Inky Mark: Then it says “and/or”. I have a problem with Thursdays.

The Chair: No, forget Thursdays.

Mr. Inky Mark: Forget Thursdays. Thank you.

The Chair: I do too. We all do, especially as we head into the summer season—and getting witnesses too, especially ministers.

Is everything okay? Tuesdays at 9 a.m. and Wednesday at 3.30, an hour and a half, that's it.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Yes, I agree, Mr. Chairman. In the same paragraph, it says that the report has to be completed by May 15. Why is that? It took several months to strike this committee. Why does the report have to be completed so soon?

[English]

The Chair: I can answer that. First of all, most of our work will be in making accountable those departments and those ministers who are responsible for specific recommendations that came out of the report. We talked about accountability in our last report. That was one of the sub-themes. Well, this is really the phase of our work that deals with ministerial accountability, and our basic foundation work in terms of analysing the business of sport in Canada has been done, is reflected in our report. Our challenge now, as members of Parliament, will be to cause the departments to implement those recommendations, and as we all know around here, the best way to make ministers or departments accountable is to bring them into an all-party House of Commons committee.

So I sent out a letter, and the clerk sent it out as well, reminding ministers of the specific recommendations in the report that dealt with their departments, and we told them that we wanted to report back to Parliament before the summer recess. In other words, if we were to say we didn't really want to report until the fall—you know what happens around here—it would just go on and on forever. I'm hoping that in a constructive way, in an all-party way, we can come together here so that we can cause....

By the way—I'm going to interrupt myself here—you mentioned that we took a couple of months to get this subcommittee started. Well, we did that on purpose, because we really didn't feel we could even bring ministers before us until we got by the budget. In other words, really they now have their new plan, their new envelopes of financial resources. If we had met the ministers before the budget, they wouldn't have been able to talk, they wouldn't have known, so it would have been a waste. Now they have their new business plans, or budget plans, whatever you want, and now is our time to close in on them and get them right while the iron's hot.

That's why we waited until one week after the budget. Does this explain? Are there any questions on that?

Ms. Beth Phinney: I just might add that by the time we get to the beginning of May, the regular committees are so overloaded trying to get their bills finished so they get through the House on time that you're going to find, come the last two weeks of May and June, that you won't want to be sitting here, because you're going to have long, long meetings or double meetings in your other committees.

The Chair: Exactly.

I think this sheet sorts out the various ministers who are responsible for various recommendations in the report. I can tell you that the mere fact that the clerk has already sent out the letter to the ministers.... We've had EAs to deputies to chiefs of staff to ministers calling and saying “Are you guys serious? What do you want?” Well, we want you to come in and say what you're doing, what's going on, what's happening.

• 0955

I think if we can create some momentum here...because we want to give our report back to Parliament. Our report on accountability probably won't be more than about 30 or 40 pages. The most important thing is that we're going to be reporting on what those specific departments are doing on those parliamentary recommendations that were tabled a year ago.

Nelson.

Mr. Nelson Riis: Dennis, this list is very attractive in terms of the yeses and nos, and what's been done and so on. The yeses presumably will be brought to the committee to elaborate on exactly what has been done, and then we can in a sense evaluate that to see whether it meets the recommendation, in our judgment, as a committee.

The Chair: We're the judge, not the department.

Mr. Nelson Riis: Yes. It's not perfect. It's very good work, I must say.

The Chair: Now, the chair of the heritage committee, Mr. Lincoln, has asked me to present to you the name of a mayor in his riding who is a passionate supporter of amateur sport and wants to explain the whole notion of infrastructure in communities and the importance of our continuing to support it. I hope I get your support to have him come before us. Other members may have a witness or two for a specific reason, but that's not the focus. Our focus is to make the government move on the basic 68 recommendations that are in the hopper right now. If we can get all those recommendations acted upon, in a serious way, not as just a lip-service operation, then I think as parliamentarians we've done a hell of a job for revitalizing amateur sport in this country.

Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I have a question about an individual mayor coming. I don't particularly have a problem with that, but I wonder if that might then trigger a landslide of requests, because I would suggest most municipalities have real interest in the issue of infrastructure around this issue, and we could be inundated. I wonder if we might not be better off going to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and asking them if they wish to come and talk to us about that overall issue.

The Chair: Well, it's interesting that you should bring the Federation of Canadian Municipalities up. We tried to get their involvement in the committee the last time. We wrote to them several times, and we had a very difficult time moving them and getting them enthused about our work. They were practically indifferent. I think it would be great if we could get them enthused, to get the will of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities supporting our work. Maybe they could come in conjunction with this mayor. That's not a problem.

That's just a little tidbit of information.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: In Ontario, the provincial representatives are the AMO. I'm not sure what they're called across the country.

The Chair: Well they were here, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: No, FCM I know.

The Chair: But I'm open to that.

Yes?

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: It may seem funny, but I feel my colleague, for whom I am substituting, trusts you. I agree with what Clifford Lincoln said. Let's highlight the actions taken by the ministers and the government in response to your report's recommendations, but we should give ourselves an opening if need be. I say this in passing, but perhaps we should leave the door open to allowing each party to call an additional witness in order to avoid having to deal with the flood of new witnesses which we just talked about. We can make it an unwritten rule: we'll just focus on ministers, but if a party wants to call another witness, it will be able to do so. Let's agree to this and move on. It's simply to give us a little breathing room. We may not need it, but it's something we should have.

[English]

The Chair: I'm sorry, I forgot your first name.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Richard.

The Chair: Richard, let me respond that our priority is making sure the recommendations are implemented.

• 1000

I think if other members are being approached...and I don't think we should advertise that we want a lot of witnesses. We've already done that for two years. But if for good political reasons—and whether it be the Bloc, NDP, Reform, whatever, this is the way this committee works—if it serves the particular member or the party well that they have a witness they really feel passionate about, they can just bring it to us. If we have to hear another 8 or 10 witnesses on top of 13 cabinet ministers between now and June, I think we should be able to fit them in.

Beth.

Ms. Beth Phinney: I'm just going to change that around a little bit. I don't think we should be bringing in any extra witnesses for political reasons. I think we should be bringing them in because they benefit the committee, and for reasons for everybody.

The Chair: That's what I mean.

Ms. Beth Phinney: Well, I got the impression that maybe you wanted...if the NDP said, well, this is going to help me in my election, or something.

The Chair: No, no, no. I don't mean it that way.

Ms. Beth Phinney: If it's really, really important for the committee—

The Chair: For public policy.

Ms. Beth Phinney: Public policy, yes.

The Chair: That's what I mean.

Ms. Beth Phinney: But keep the aim that we started with. I totally agree with what you've said—don't open the door unless we all agree it's really, really important for us to make our final decision. But don't open the door unless it's going to help us with our goal here.

The Chair: We have 13 ministers, the head of Canada Lands, and the president of CBC. We have what I call in-house operatives. We have about 18 witnesses we have to get through.

Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark: I certainly agree with Steve that FCM should be here when the mayor is here, just to get the big picture in terms of across the country.

The Chair: We'll make that happen. No problem.

Mr. George Proud: Fine.

The Chair: So we can adjourn. Good, thank you.