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, May 28, 2002

1535

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

Mr. Victor Lachance (Spokesperson, Sport Matters Group)

The Chair

Mr. Victor Lachance

Ms. Dina-Bell Laroche (General Manager, Fondation de l'Esprit du sport; member, Sport Matters Group)

Mr. John D. Bales (Member, Sport Matters Group)

Mr. Victor Lachance

1540

The Chair

1545

Mr. Abbott

Mr. Victor Lachance

Mr. Mills (Red Deer)

Mr. Victor Lachance

Mr. Jim Abbott

Mr. Victor Lachance

Mr. Abbott

Mr. Victor Lachance

Mr. Jim Abbott

Mr. Victor Lachance

Mr. Jim Abbott

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ)

Mr. Victor Lachance

1550

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Victor Lachance

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Victor Lachance

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Victor Lachance

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Victor Lachance

The Chair

1555

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP)

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Victor Lachance

The Chair

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

Mr. Victor Lachance

1600

The Chair

Mr. Victor Lachance

The Chair

Mr. Victor Lachance

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Victor Lachance

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Victor Lachance

The Chair

Mr. Keyes

Mr. Victor Lachance

Mr. Stan Keyes

1605

Mr. John Bales (Member, Sport Matters Group)

Mr. Stan Keyes

The Chair

Mr. Stan Keyes

The Chair

Mr. Victor Lachance

The Chair

Mr. Thomas Jones (Executive Director, Athletes CAN)

The Chair

Mr. Ian Bird (Member, Board of Directors, Athletes CAN)

1610

The Chair

Mr. Ian Bird

The Chair

Mr. Stan Keyes

A voice

The Chair

An hon. member

The Chair

An hon. member

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Ian Bird

1615

Mr. Thomas Jones

1620

Mr. Ian Bird

The Chair

Mr. Jim Abbott

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Ian Bird

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

1625

Mr. Thomas Jones

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Thomas Jones

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Ian Bird

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Thomas Jones

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Thomas Jones

1630

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Thomas Jones

The Chair

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Ian Bird

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Ian Bird

The Chair

Mr. Stan Keyes

The Chair

Mr. Stan Keyes

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

1635

Mr. Ian Bird

The Chair

Mr. Ian Bird

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Ian Bird

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Thomas Jones

The Chair

The Clerk of the Committee

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

1640

Mr. Gordon E. Peterson (Chair, ADR-sport-RED)

Mr. Benoit Girardin (Executive Director, Steering Committee, ADR-sport-RED

Mr. Gord Peterson

1645

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Gord Peterson

1650

1655

The Chair

Mr. Jim Abbott

Mr. Gord Peterson

Mr. Jim Abbott

Mr. Gord Peterson

Mr. Jim Abbott

Mr. Gord Peterson

Mr. Benoit Girardin

1700

Mr. Jim Abbott

Mr. Benoit Girardin

Mr. Jim Abbott

Mr. Benoit Girardin

Mr. Jim Abbott

Mr. Benoit Girardin

Mr. Jim Abbott

Mr. Gord Peterson

Mr. Jim Abbott

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

1705

Mr. Gord Peterson

1710

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Gord Peterson

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Gord Peterson

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Gord Peterson

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Benoit Girardin

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Gord Peterson

1715

Mr. Benoit Girardin

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Benoit Girardin

Mr. Gord Peterson

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Benoit Girardin

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Côté (President, Sports-Québec)

1720

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Côté

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Côté

1810

1815

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

1820

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Raymond Côté

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Raymond Côté

1825

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Raymond Côté

Mr. Dick Proctor

Mr. Raymond Côté

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Côté

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Côté

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Côté

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.)

Mr. Raymond Côté

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Raymond Côté

1830

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Raymond Côté

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Raymond Côté

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Raymond Côté

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Raymond Côté

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Raymond Côté

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Raymond Côté

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Raymond Côté

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

The Chair

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Raymond Côté

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Raymond Côté

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Raymond Côté

1835

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Raymond Côté

An hon. member

Mr. Raymond Côté

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Raymond Côté

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

The Chair

1840

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Raymond Côté

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Chair

Mr. Dick Proctor

The Chair

1845

An hon. member

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mme Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

The Chair

CANADA

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

NUMBER 005

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, May 28, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1535)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.)): I'd like to welcome you all to the committee. We know your team has spent a lot of time working with the officials in the department in putting this piece of legislation together. What we would like to achieve today is not a going-over of all the information we heard last week. Let's just get right to the nub.

You can say a couple of nice things about the bill, hopefully, but tell us where your concerns are and give us your thoughts on how we could improve it. That way, we can try to get through the bill as expeditiously as we can, because I'm receiving calls—and I'm sure a lot of other members are—saying that it would be nice if we could get it back to the House before the summer recess. We hear from different institutions and different sport organizations that this would be a most desirable objective.

The floor is yours.

Mr. Victor Lachance (Spokesperson, Sport Matters Group): I think it's fair to say that we also very much support the bill. In fact, I think we'll start off by congratulating and commending the federal government, and particularly the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport, for doing this.

It's no secret, Mr. Chairman, that your work and the committee's work, in preparing the Mills report, was an extremely helpful step. In fact, if it wasn't for that, we probably wouldn't be here today dealing with this legislation. So we want to thank you for that as well.

The Chair: We had a great team.

Mr. Victor Lachance: Yes, and many of them went on to bigger and better things.

We're certainly pleased to be able to provide assistance.

[Translation]

We are the Sport Matters Group. I'm accompanied today by Dina Bell-Laroche from the Fondation de l'Esprit du sport, which is a member of the Group,

[English]

and John Bales, who is with the Coaching Association of Canada and is also a member of the group.

Dina, perhaps you want to tell us a little about Sport Matters.

[Translation]

Ms. Dina-Bell Laroche (General Manager, Fondation de l'Esprit du sport; member, Sport Matters Group): We are here today to help the committee in its work. We represent the Sport Matters Group.

[English]

The Sport Matters Group is a voluntary collective of national and provincial sport, multi-sport, and major games organizations whose goal is to advance the benefits of sport and physical activity to all levels of government and to the Canadian public. We also advocate on behalf of sport in areas of common interest. For example, in light of what happened September 11, the impact of new security fees in airports has had an incredibly significant impact on members of the sport community as we travel to competitions and to training centres around the world. For example, Canadian Interuniversity Sport has added an extra quarter of a million dollars to its budget this year alone as a result of this new fee. Sport Matters will therefore be working on behalf of the sport community to find amenable solutions for all concerned.

At this time, we want to recognize and support a number of key points that were brought forward last week. First of all, Mr. Chairman, we in sport know that you set the context for the expansion and integration of what makes for active and healthy Canadians. It is therefore imperative to forge a strong relationship between physical activity and sport—a connection that is expressed in schools, playgrounds, and communities, in stadiums, on podiums, and in the international setting.

We applaud the legislation's recognition of sport's contribution to the overall health and well-being of all Canadians. We endorse the enhanced flexibility of the federal, provincial, and territorial governments to work closely together to achieve its goals and its ability to undertake bilateral activity. We further support the federal government's active commitment to address issues of under-represented groups, including, for example, female coaches and aboriginal sport.

We are very pleased to see the increased federal investment in the benefits of sport from a multitude of perspectives, including healthier and more productive communities, the importance of coaches, and the impact of sport and physical activity to the health and welfare of Canadians, to name but a few.

Lastly, we also recognize the bill's role in encouraging greater private-sector involvement, and believe this will play a central role in the development of a strong and viable sport system for all Canadians.

Mr. John D. Bales (Member, Sport Matters Group): We would also like to underline some of the concerns that were raised at your meeting last week. One was that we should have a clear and stable benchmark of federal investment as a percentage of GDP. Another was that the legislation facilitates the integration of physical activity and sport, from playground to podium. A third was that the scope and magnitude of sport's contribution to society, health, national pride, the economy, international activities, and federal-provincial-territorial relations, truly does warrant its own minister.

We believe sport is a strategic investment with powerful returns. We would add, in fact, that it would be beneficial that minister were to report to Parliament on the progress made under this legislation, as is suggested for the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre.

We would also like to acknowledge, and trust that the committee will have received and given attention to the numerous other submissions from the active living community, in regard to ethics, gender issues, and so on.

Mr. Victor Lachance: Our specific recommendations, Mr. Chairman, have to do with a couple of key issues that we have found cut across all levels of sport and all areas of interest. One is the balance of the independence of the dispute resolution centre that is proposed, and the provisions for public accountability. Another is the process proposed in terms of government appointments to the board, meaning the appointment of the chairperson and the appointment of the executive director. Another issue relates to the level of involvement of Sport Canada itself in the dispute resolution centre. And the other is the provision for an ombudsperson's office.

Let's deal with the ombudsperson's office first.

¹ (1540)

[Translation]

This may be the easiest thing there is because the act contains no provision for the establishment of an ombudsman's office.

The sports community is not very concerned about this because it is quite aware that the government is involved in a national strategy on ethics and sport, as part of which it intends to establish such a service for the community. In our view, the centre should serve the Dispute Resolution Centre proposed in the bill. So we believe the federal government and the provincial governments will continue to support the development of this kind of office for the sports community.

[English]

With respect to the balance of independence and public accountability, the simple response from people is that this seems to be a fair bit of government control. On the surface, it seems to people that the government retains the right to appoint the entire board. The sport community feels the government should have confidence in that board, given that, in its entirety, it has been selected by the government.

We tend to take the view that people try to do a good job. They come in and try to do their best, and we think we should let them. Once they've been appointed, it seems to me that they're in an excellent position, having the government's trust, to elect their own chairperson, and particularly to hire an executive director to do the job.

The reason we raise this concern, Mr. Chairman, is that one of the key objectives of establishing a dispute resolution system is having confidence—having the athlete's confidence and having the public's confidence—in the program. That confidence is hard to measure, but experience tells us that the more independent the system is, the better that confidence is.

Mr. Chairman, I think the sport community, the physical activity community, and so on, would say it would be a little bit presumptuous to assume that the only way to ensure public accountability is to have the system solely accountable to a minister. I think the appointment of a board certainly takes us a good way there. The community, therefore, also cares about the manner in which the appointments would be made. We heard from the secretary of state about his intention to consult widely with the sporting community, the physical activity community, and so on, in the appointment of directors.

The guidelines are going to be crucial, and there can be very clear statements to that effect. In fact, as one of our recommendations, we have recommended that guidelines for such appointments specify that the nominations would be submitted in an open nomination process that is based on specific qualifications, with published criteria from which the minister can then select board members. We've then proposed amendments to the legislation that would do precisely that.

With respect to Sport Canada's involvement, members of the committee, this is one of those simple straightforward matters of principle, in our view. Presumably, we're establishing a dispute resolution centre precisely because of what if offers to the sport community: openness, transparency, accountability, and confidence. These are values and things we would want to achieve for the entire community, including Sport Canada. We understand that there are issues—governmental issues, matters of policy, matters of financial prerogative—that typically would not be subject to this sort of thing, but there are many program aspects within Sport Canada.

I think it is entirely the prerogative of the government to determine what kind of budget it wants to have and what kind of support it wants to give to athletes. But after that, the program is administered according to specified and published criteria. There may be—and there are—genuine disputes sometimes about how those are administered. We therefore believe it wouldn't be very difficult for this legislation to recognize that Sport Canada could, in those instances, be directly involved. We have recommended that, while it may not be necessary to dive deep into the legislation to do that here, it should be recognized that this is the sort of thing that can be done through regulation, and that the intent to do so should be stated right up front. It should then be left to the minister to come up with the best possible regulations to do that.

On the big scale, those would be our main concerns. We'd be ready to—

The Chair: —turn to questions?

Mr. Abbott, welcome to the committee.

¹ (1545)

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance): Thank you.

Let me be clear. As opposed to having a secretary of state in Canada, you would propose that we have a minister of sport, in the same way that we have a Solicitor General or whatever.

Mr. Victor Lachance: In fact, it's our support of the proposal that was found in the Mills committee report, precisely.

The Chair: A full department.

Mr. Victor Lachance: That's what was recommended, and we wholeheartedly support that, yes.

Mr. Jim Abbott: The position of the ombudsman would be an additional position to what is proposed in the legislation.

Mr. Victor Lachance: In fact, that was something that was conceived in the way the program has evolved to date. There is an interim program, and you will have witnesses who will speak to that effect. The ombudsperson's office was initially seen as something that would complement that.

We believe a slightly better approach is currently under way. The legislation is simply silent on it, but the approach currently being taken is that of a Canadian strategy for ethical conduct in sport. It has been approved in principle by federal, provincial, and territorial governments, and within it there is the intent to develop an ombudsperson's office. We believe that's an appropriate way to do it, and we simply want to ensure that the government continues to be interested in doing that, since it currently does not appear in the legislation.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I'm sure you would agree with me, though, that we don't want to create overlapping layers.

Mr. Victor Lachance: Agreed.

Mr. Jim Abbott: I'm just making observations here, just for clarification.

As we reach a point of experiencing the actual action that will flow from it, it seems to me that as the bill is presently constructed, many of the things you propose today may become evident. Then again, they may not.

Is this a wish list on your part? Or is this a strong recommendation to move forward with some of these additional aspects? That's really what I'm trying to quantify. I will express to you my own personal leaning, which is to go with what we have, to see where we get to, and to take another look at your wish list a year or two down the road. We can then say we should perhaps start to move in that direction. That's my own leaning, but I'd give you an opportunity to express your perspective.

Mr. Victor Lachance: I'd be happy if my colleagues wished to comment on that as well.

My sense is that our recommendations are designed to strengthen the bill. Clearly, on the timing of it and the nature in which that happens, we leave it to the committee to make the best call. We think this legislation is important and we think it does add to the further development of the sports community, so we certainly want to see it happen. We think this will make it happen in a more successful way, but clearly the responsibility that you have is to make the best calls in that respect.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Lanctôt.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): One of the aspects that interest you most as a sports ethics group is no doubt the Sports Dispute Resolution Centre. In your report, you say you would like the French word “extrajudiciaire” to be deleted from the provisions concerning the Dispute Resolution Centre. That surprises me. It should not be forgotten that for anyone to reach an alternative resolution, the word “extrajudiciaire” must be there. I hope it will be retained because that's the choice of the parties. I'm somewhat surprised that a group such as yours is asking for a term such as this to be removed because athletes, trainers and federations will choose to go to mediation or before an arbitrator. I don't want to criticize your brief, but I find this a bit surprising. I even hope this thing will even be reinforced in the bill. We're not talking about things as important as agreements. The agreements will have to be written, as will the arbitrators' reasons and decisions. There should also be deadlines for appeal.

The last time, we were told that this should be part of a resolution. I don't think it should be part of a resolution. Instead I think it should be part of the act. I would like to know what you think about that.

Mr. Victor Lachance: I believe that, in this specific situation, perhaps it's our language skills... Perhaps it was the English word “alternative” that was not necessary in our view. Alternative to what? In our opinion, if you create a Dispute Resolution Centre, that's what you create. In French, extrajudiciaire is a good word. It clearly states that we don't want matters to go to court; we want this to be a model that is developed for sport, that is obviously based on fundamental principles of justice, but which ensures that we do not always need to resort to the courts, where trials are costly and elaborate. The word “alternative” should be dropped because, within 10 years, what will it mean? We're really talking about the centre we are in the process of creating, about its purpose, about what it will accomplish. I agree with you that no one agrees with us on this point. I believe I speak on behalf of my colleagues in saying that, in French, the word extrajudiciaire suits us fine. It's a good word, but I would advise you to consider whether the word “alternative” is entirely equivalent.

¹ (1550)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: It should not be forgotten that athletes must have a choice. It must not be mandatory for them to go before the Dispute Resolution Centre. It is very important for athletes because their careers are at stake. Suppose an athlete tests positive for drugs.

At first, he perhaps might like to resort to interim mediation or an arbitrator because the activity or competition is going to take place in a month. He can go into mediation for that, but, for the future, he may perhaps wish to go before a court in view of the importance of the issue. If he has tested positive, his career may be ruined, and it may be important for him to go to court. We know all the stages there may be. It may be long, but it is very important to retain this aspect.

I don't want the Dispute Resolution Centre to be mandatory for everyone. On the contrary, it must be chosen by the athlete or the federation. There may be problems of all kinds. It may also be a training centre that we would rather have in Quebec City than Calgary, but the choice must be made, and it must not be mandatory to go before the Senate. I would like to hear what you have to say on that.

Mr. Victor Lachance: I believe that the group appearing a little later on the dispute resolution program will be able to say more on this. But I must say that, for the sports community, at the outset, this had to be mandatory. I don't mean there are no other models that would also be valid, but, at the outset, the idea was that it would be mandatory for everyone.

I would point out to you that the bill does not go in this direction. In our view, dispute resolution as developed here can function, but we believed it should be mandatory in order to protect the athletes' interests. The athletes rarely—

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: It may be the contrary. Are you aware of that, you who talk about ethics?

Mr. Victor Lachance: Ethics, yes.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: A number of problems, including doping, have an enormous influence. If an athlete really wants to take a chance that this can be done quickly and be less costly, he has the choice of doing so. The entire mediation or arbitration process in Quebec, and probably Canada, takes place when both parties want to take part in it. It is not mandatory to resort to the process. It's very different.

I want to hear what you have to say on this because you surprise me when you say that it should be mandatory.

Mr. Victor Lachance: It shouldn't surprise you all that much because the purpose was the same, that is to protect the athletes' interests, but let's say that the two approaches are valid. So, once again, I encourage you and I wish you good luck when you have to choose one of the two, but, in our view, both are valid. I believe both can protect the athletes' interests. If one has more benefits than the other, obviously...

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Do you know that the bill does not even make any reference to a right of appeal?

Mr. Victor Lachance: I am aware that the purpose of this is to provide a service. If the way this service is designed breaches fundamental law, experts in the field will have to examine it. In our view, the service was extremely important, but I agree with you that the thing should be done properly.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lanctôt.

Dick, why don't you just keep going? We'll then go to Rodger, and Stan can finish this session.

¹ (1555)

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Thanks, Mr. Chair.

In your brief—I don't know if there's a written copy of it; if there is, I don't have a copy—am I given to understand that Sport Matters is saying the government has the right to appoint the entire board, but that, in your wisdom you would like, you would wish that the board, once it's appointed, would elect its own chair and hire the executive directors? Is that what I heard?

Mr. Victor Lachance: That's correct.

Mr. Dick Proctor: That would seem to me to be a reasonable approach, and I thought the argument about securing the confidence of the athletes would be important in that regard. Mr. Abbott's inclination was that we should let the bill go as proposed, and then see down the road. But I would think we should try to get it right at the outset. “Down the road a year or two” generally means four or five years, so I'm glad to know I understood that point.

You said at the outset that you recognize and support many aspects of the bill. I'm specifically interested in what other things you're concerned about here that need to be looked at now, before it's too late.

Mr. Victor Lachance: One of the general issues—and again, the extent to which it is captured in legislation is perhaps a challenge—that we're a little bit concerned about is setting up physical activity and sport. My questions start with how much money is for one and how much money is for the other. We see them as integrated. We see them as something that is a continuum. This is playground to podium and back down again.

We believe the force of the legislation will be the impact it's going to have on how we think about sport's impact on things like health, a reduction in crime, unity, and so on, as played out in schools and communities, as well as how it plays out internationally and nationally.

We're concerned about a danger of either/or. We don't think the legislation is necessarily set up that way. In hearing some of the testimony last week, though, that was perhaps a concern we wondered about in terms of whether or not it might be an issue.

The other thing we've identified is that for Sport Canada as an entity, the intent should be that it is also directly involved in the use of the dispute resolution centre for disputes that affect it. As a matter of principle, that is something that we think simply enhances what was intended by the dispute centre in the first place.

We do believe the scope of sport warrants a minister, for what that's worth.

And I guess the other thing is that money comes up from time to time, and I suppose we have views there, too. Our view is that sport shouldn't be seen as a cost. Our view is that sport is an investment. If you ask us if sport is a good investment, the answer is yes. If you ask us if sport is worth more investment, then when you have as great a return as this, I'd say to buy as much stock as you possibly can.

The Chair: Rodger Cuzner.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, Lib.): I'll go back to Mr. Proctor's first point on the appointment of the executive director. I guess the line that's walked is between the perceived lack of independence held by this executive director and the reality that the minister is accountable for this centre. Do you see that by not having the ability to appoint the executive director, the minister would in fact be giving away a lot of that accountability?

Mr. Victor Lachance: No, we don't think so. There are other provisions. First of all, there's the appointment of the entire board, so we would assume the government would have confidence in all of the board members. The dispute resolution centre will be required to report to Parliament, so there will be substantial public accountability in that regard. And the minister has retained the power to dissolve this centre should it start to wander into dysfunctionality, if the board is not working, and so on.

It seems to me that if the balance that we're looking for...it's just not an either/or, it's the right balance that will build public confidence, especially in the not-for-profit sector, the sports sector, when the government is actually directly involved in hiring the staff. In our view, that's not necessary. I think you'll get less in return by doing that than what you would gain.

º (1600)

The Chair: Pardon me, but I need a clarification. By “staff”, you mean the lead person only, right?

Mr. Victor Lachance: The executive director.

The Chair: Okay, it's the top person.

Mr. Victor Lachance: If the purpose of the legislation is to make that person simply a board member, an officer, and so on, there may be a use of terminology here that is inconsistent with what we're used to, but this would be the senior executive officer of the organization.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: And although he would not be in control of the corporate plan or the annual budget, you still see this as being an over-involvement on the minister's part?

Victor Lachance: Precisely, because he wouldn't be involved or have control over the overall plan, vision, and direction. That's why it seems unnecessary to reach that deep into the organization.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Oh, yes, definitely. I'm not challenging that. As the legislation sits, he wouldn't be involved in that, but the accountability is still to the minister, so—

Mr. Victor Lachance: For the corporation, it just seems to us that the balance would be better struck if it didn't go that far.

The Chair: Mr. Keyes, we welcome you to the committee. I presume you're here to lobby that the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada gets placed in Hamilton.

Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): That would be wonderful, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for that reminder.

Mr. Victor Lachance: We have no comment on that. Ask away, but—

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Stan Keyes: The witnesses are being very good and very discreet today. I appreciate that.

Again, though, thank you very much for that reminder, Mr. Chairman. I will remind myself of that when we receive future witnesses.

Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to link the whole notion of physical activity and programs therein with this bill, and of course with its direction in promoting the idea of the objects and mandates for Canadian sport policy. I look at, for example, the bill itself. Clause 3 is “Physical activity policy”. As far as I know, Mr. Chairman—and I stand to be corrected by you, because I am certain that you are very knowledgeable on this bill—it's the only place in the whole bill that refers to anything close to something very dear to my heart, and that is ParticipACTION, what it did for our country, and all that was good about ParticipACTION.

On the—dare I say it?—whim or decision-making policy of a past individual, that particular program went underfunded and was then virtually off the table. We have something very positive there. We don't even have to reinvent the wheel when it comes to the physical policy of this particular bill when it comes to the preciseness of a program called ParticipACTION.

With that bit of preamble, I go to clause 3, which says:

The objectives of the Government of Canada's policy regarding physical activity are

(a) to promote physical activity as a fundamental element of health and well-being;

(b) to encourage Canadians to improve their health by integrating physical activity into their daily lives; and

That's all stuff we used to have precisely in that program called ParticipACTION, so I'm hoping this bill opens the door to the reinstatement of ParticipACTION.

I then go to what I'm sure the concern of the witness was when he mentioned concerns about physical fitness being folded into this bill when it has to do with sport. That concern is the money angle of the whole thing, of course. I can understand the witness' concern, particularly when we turn to the first reference to money in the bill, in clause 6, which says:

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

Well, I hope I'm here for clause-by-clause, Mr. Chairman, because the word “may” is certainly not satisfactory. It should say that the minister “will” or “should” or “must” provide financial assistance in the form of grants and contributions.

Of course, I then thought the witnesses might be correct in the assumption of being worried that the money might not be for their programs, because physical fitness costs a lot of money—or the program does anyway. So I go to clause 7. I'm encouraged because clause 7 says:

The Minister, with the approval of the Governor in Council, may enter into an agreement with any province or territory....

Again, I hope I'm here for clause-by-clause, Mr. Chairman, because, again, it says:

may enter into an agreement with any province or territory providing for the payment of contributions....

Why hinge payments to encourage physical activity on the federal government working with the provinces? I would say an amendment must be struck to say something that effectively says what you're saying here but is not limited to participation with the provinces in fundraising, etc.

I think it's important that Canada stands alone. If it wants to stand alone as a country on a policy that we feel is incredibly important to our nation, to our youth, to our athletes, and to everything else, then to sit back, make excuses for ourselves, and say.... We go back to that old game, to the old bugaboos, “Well, you know, we'd love to give you some money, but the provinces weren't onboard”, or, “The provinces didn't really like the idea and didn't want to become involved”. Well that's not good enough. Canada should be striking out, even it if has to do so on its own, to encourage participation in sport and, of course, to support our athletes.

Having gotten that off my chest, in my brief look at this bill, having just walked in, I would ask the witnesses just a brief question.

º (1605)

I was a little concerned about your statement about folding physical fitness into this bill, because of your concern about money. If proper amendments were struck for this bill in order to make it very clear that the physical fitness side of things, like a...let's call it ParticipACTION 2000. We can work back to what we had and build on what we had. ParticipACTION 2000 would be a sign. I don't know if we can get into percentages in a bill, or into some kind of wording that says “but not be limited to” for the support that we give to our athletes and sports. That's just to protect our athletes and the objectives of this bill. As far as you're concerned, would that be acceptable to you?

Mr. John Bales: One of the reasons the sport community is excited about this is that it deals with the whole continuum of physical activity and sport. The top athletes we've see over and over again and were so proud of in Salt Lake City came from community physical activity programs. One of our frustrations has been that there hasn't been enough acknowledgment of that full continuum and support for that continuum, so I'm very pleased to hear your comments. I think the community is supportive of the full scope of this bill to bring together the full continuum.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You've been most lenient.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Keyes.

We're going to make sure your views on the appointments are there to make sure all of these things happen.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Thank you for that, too.

The Chair: Are there any other issues that people want to raise? If not, I think we've pretty well covered it. We'll keep trucking and do our best to get this into the House so that we can proceed.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Victor Lachance: Thank you very much. Good luck.

The Chair: Our next witness is the executive director of Athletes CAN, Mr. Thomas Jones.

Are you appearing by yourself, Mr. Jones, or do you have somebody with you?

Mr. Thomas Jones (Executive Director, Athletes CAN): No, I'm here with Mr. Ian Bird.

The Chair: Okay, great. And he's from government and strategic partner relations.

Mr. Bird, pardon me, but could you explain the relationship of government and strategic partner relations to Athletes CAN?

Mr. Ian Bird (Member, Board of Directors, Athletes CAN): Actually that's my title in my professional capacity as a director with the ESTEEM Team, an athlete role model program. In fact, I'm a board member of Athletes CAN, which is why I'm here with Tom today .

º (1610)

The Chair: Welcome to the committee.

As you heard earlier, you can say a couple of minutes' worth of good things about the bill. What we really want to hear, however, are your constructive proposals on how we can improve it, so that we can try to get this bill back to the House before we adjourn.

Mr. Ian Bird: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm Ian Bird. I was a member of the Canadian field hockey team, but I retired after the Sydney Olympic Games. I'm here with my colleague, Tom Jones, the executive director of Athletes CAN.

Athletes CAN is the collective voice for Canadian athletes. We speak out in situations like this, and in a public forum as well. We're here—

The Chair: Excuse me, but do we have a copy of your brief en français? If we don't, it is the policy of all committees in the House of Commons that a brief cannot be distributed unless it's in both official languages.

Mr. Stan Keyes: It can be done by consent.

A voice: That one was distributed by electronic means, in both languages.

The Chair: So there will be a copy around somewhere.

[Translation]

One moment, Robert.

[English]

While we're waiting for the clerk to check, everybody's making the point that, in this bill, we should somehow reflect this 1% of GDP as a target for the sport budget. It would force a consolidation, too, of all the different money being spent on sport in six different departments.

An hon. member: Where would that relate to—[Editor's Note: Inaudible]?

The Chair: It would come under that umbrella. That's all the more reason for the idea of a single department. You wouldn't have Health spending money and you wouldn't have Public Works spending money, you would just put it all under one and then spend it properly. Every other country does 1% of GDP.

An hon. member: We don't have great advertising for these things.

The Chair: This way, we'd put them under the light. If they don't give us value, we kill them.

This is what I'd like to propose as a compromise: no distribution of anything, but you can proceed with your remarks until both copies get here.

[Translation]

Do you agree on that, Mr. Lanctôt?

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: At one point, you have to set a limit. I often consent, but I don't feel like it anymore.

The Chair: I didn't ask for consent.

[English]

Mr. Bird, you can carry on.

Mr. Ian Bird: Thank you.

Before I turn it over to Tom, what I'd like to try to do in my brief opening remarks is provide you with a bit of a context to go forward in your deliberations and in your discussion. The way that I'd like to do that—and maybe I'm picking up a little bit on Mr. Keyes' remarks—is by referring you to one of my former teammates. His name is Ronnie Jagday.

Ronnie grew up playing field hockey in the Fraser Valley in British Columbia, and was able to achieve, in his 24 years, a position on the Olympic team. In fact, he's probably in the gym, on the track, or on the pitch right now, preparing for the Commonwealth Games in six weeks' time.

What's important to recognize, and what I want to personify in some of our discussions today, is that Ronnie had access to safe and accessible parks. Through the education system, he had an opportunity to have qualified instruction. He had a family, a community, and a neighbourhood that valued sport and physical activity as a key, significant part of the social fabric. In fact, particularly in the community that Ronnie comes from, there is a recognition of the economic and connected-nature investment value that sport can bring. There is also a recognition in Ronnie's community, and certainly in mine—in fact, I learned a lot from getting to know Ronnie—that it is a way in which to build communities, to create healthy communities, and to build up our nation.

In your deliberations and in your discussions about the concerns that have been raised by the witnesses and through the other briefs that have been presented to the committee, I'd encourage you to think about that participant. No doubt there's a hero in your own hometown or there's a neighbour who you know of—in fact, it could be a young person whom you coach—and that fact may be the guide for decisions that you make as you do work through clause-by-clause.

º (1615)

Mr. Thomas Jones: Thanks, Ian.

My name is Tom Jones. I'm the executive director of Athletes CAN, and my background is that of an athlete as well. I'd like to just take a few minutes to address the committee in terms of the background of how we got here and of the participation of athletes in the process.

[Translation]

We apologize for not submitting the report in French.

[English]

In 1996, with the production and release of the Mills report, we really saw the context of the active, healthy nation being set up. It began the unprecedented, two-year process of consultation across the country. It led to the establishment and endorsement of a national sport policy, and it has now led to where we are today with this legislation.

I'd make the point that athletes have been involved all along the way. They have been participants. Athletes CAN, our organization, is involved in the Sport Matters Group, which you just heard from. Many of the recommendations of the Sport Matters Group we will be supportive of and capture in our presentation right now.

One thing we always remind people of is just the passion that athletes have for sport, and particularly for their sport. The Salt Lake City Olympic Games of the past winter really reminded us all about the importance of sport, the role of physical activity in both our culture and in our national identity as well.

All this is to say that we, as an organization and on behalf of the athlete community, believe this legislation is good for athletes. We think it's an important piece of legislation. For the most part, we are supportive of this legislation. But at the same time, I'd like to just highlight that athletes and participants really do seek collaboration. We seek progress in the direction set out by the national sport policy. We seek a plan. Above all, being athletes and being very achievement-oriented, we seek action and we seek to be part of a process for action.

What we're looking for is also an accord or a means to set an accord between government and the sport and physical activity community. The Canadian sport policy calls for a series of action plans to be created. Athletes are more than willing and more than ready to participate in that process, but we see the real need for action. The legislation that we're considering today is really an enabling part of that process, but our positioning and our approach are to see things move forward in the way of action.

I'd like to just touch briefly on ADR, the alternative dispute resolution process. In a lot of ways, we see that as a component of this joint action-planning process between governments and the sport community. For athletes, the ADR system is really about a number of things. It's about accountability, it's about fairness, and it's about credibility. It's the confidence the athletes have that their concerns will be considered and will be settled fairly in a process in which their opinions really count.

I'll refer back to some of the comments made by the earlier group, my colleagues with Sport Matters, and recommend to you that all athletes have access to the ADR system. It should not be limited uniquely those who are under the Sport Canada framework of accountability; all athletes should have access to that process. We'd also recommend that Sport Canada be subject to all provisions of the ADR, as are all the other participants in the system.

From our perspective, it's about the credibility of the system, and no less than the credibility of the system. If there is a situation in which athletes lose belief in the system—and we've heard instances of this; for example, there's a funding issue taken up with Sport Canada and the athlete feels there is no recourse beyond the decision-making system, no recourse to ADR—we feel Sport Canada should be involved in that system every bit as much as the other participants.

º (1620)

Finally, I'll again make reference to the Sport Matters presentation, and not to get in any depth of detail, but just to reinforce the idea that care be taken in the appointment process for the ADR structure. Again, confidence, credibility, and certainly the perception of all of those things, including fairness, are so important that we must highlight this.

Finally, I just want to recommend to the committee that, in your deliberations, you should keep asking yourselves if this legislation, whatever part of it that you're looking at, is good for the participants? Those participants may be the athletes; they may be the new participants, the children who have just learned to play some sport; or they may be individuals just reaching a national team level, or even the national level, the Canada Games level, like the teachers, the coaches, the parents. For all those people, those folks you're dealing with in your own constituencies who have any link to sport, keep them in mind. Maybe you can even refer back to Ian's example of Ronnie Jagday, one of those athletes who has come through the continuum and is at the international level now. They all had to start somewhere, and if we can keep that in mind, then I think we're going to make the right decisions.

We have full confidence in the committee to do the right thing, and we're very much in support of this direction.

Mr. Ian Bird: Finally, I'll just close here. To pick up on Tom's last point, and maybe through my story about my teammate, as athletes who have typically been seen as representing one part of that continuum or one part of that spectrum, we're here today to refer to exactly what Mr. Keyes spoke of: the whole piece that needs to be seen in value. It's the time now, with the Canadian sport policy and with the legislation, for the leadership of this committee to take that recommendation back. When it is a question of whether it's a funding allocation or decision-making around budgets, it's important that we do recognize the importance of the whole continuum.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bird.

Mr. Abbott, do you have any questions?

Mr. Jim Abbott: No.

The Chair: We're going to get clause-by-clause done by the end of the day at the rate things are going here.

Robert.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: No, not right away. My amendments aren't all ready.

Do you represent both Athletes CAN and the Sport Matters Group? I see that Ian Bird is from the Sport Matters Group. Do you represent Athletes CAN or the Sport Matters Group?

Mr. Ian Bird: I'm sorry, but I don't speak French.

[English]

I sit at the Sport Matters table on behalf of Athletes CAN. I've been participating for the last eighteen months. As part of my participation, I represent athletes at that table, but I'm here today on behalf of Athletes CAN.

Does that make sense to you?

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Yes.

Does Athletes CAN represent Quebec athletes or only athletes from outside Quebec?

º (1625)

Mr. Thomas Jones: All Canadian athletes belong to our organization. We have an athlete representation system that is linked to the national sports organizations. We have representatives in all the organizations such as Athletics Canada.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Do you have paralympic athletes in your organization?

Mr. Thomas Jones: Yes.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: You represent all athletes today. Have you had many discussions with the women and disabled persons who belong to your group? Have those athletes read the bill? Do they feel represented in the bill?

[English]

Mr. Ian Bird: At our board level, Athletes CAN has done a significant thing. We have really found a way to have a broad range of groups, and I would add aboriginal athletes to the list that you just mentioned. Janice Forsyth is able to communicate back to aboriginal athletes. And it's likewise with Jacques Bouchard for the Paralympic movement.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I sit on a number of committees, including the justice committee, and this is virtually the first time I have heard groups tell us that a bill is good and perfect. Usually, those who come here tell us what should be added to the bill for it to represent virtually everyone. I find your remarks somewhat bizarre because you represent disabled persons, women and perhaps even elderly persons, and those groups are not even mentioned in the bill. You tell me you represent these people and that everything is fine. I'm a little surprised.

You are here to improve the bill or to suggest that we add things. It's true the bill contains good principles. The president can say that, yes, we need a bill on sport and physical activity, but I find it strange that you think it's perfect. I don't think it's perfect, and I have amendments to propose. I'm not an athlete or a paralympic athlete, and I would like certain things to be clarified. Quebec athletes might like the official languages to be mentioned in a preamble to ensure they are respected.

I simply wanted to tell you that I was a bit surprised. That's a comment I wanted to make. I have no questions to ask you.

[English]

Mr. Thomas Jones: I'll just briefly respond.

Just to make more precise the nature of our board—and I again apologize for not having this available for everyone in order for you to read about our background and our constitution—we're probably the most broadly based athlete board anywhere. We range from aboriginal athletes to Paralympians, and right across the range.

Having said that—

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I would have liked you to bring something today that would improve this bill. It is such a broad bill that there are things you could no doubt clarify for the benefit of your members. That's the message I want to give you. Every time, the athletes say that things have to be changed, but things have never changed. I know because I studied physical education. The problem was the same 20 or 25 years ago. It was said we had a funding or resource problem. Perhaps I would have liked to hear you talk about that. We consulted you during the regional meetings, we went to see you, and we heard you, but we have a bill here which is very broad. It doesn't talk about resources or the way we could have done certain things. There are a lot of things that you could at least tell us. What are your problems, and so on? I realize we consulted you, but you are before a subcommittee examining your bill. It's what's going to govern you a little later.

[English]

Mr. Thomas Jones: We've made some recommendations. We could get into specifics, but I think the nature of where we're coming from today is to provide some broad support for the direction of the legislation. When we get down to the regulatory level, you will see a lot of recommendations from Athletes CAN and athletes in general.

I don't think it's quite fair to say we believe it's perfect, because we don't believe it's perfect. We've referred to some things under the ADR system that we believe can be tinkered with and improved. But as athletes, we believe in those principles of accountability, fairness, and credibility, which we think will result. Those are the premises of the ADR system.

As I said, we are very involved in the process of helping to develop and take this legislation forward. We will continue to be that way as the regulations are folded out and are rolled out. We don't believe it's absolutely perfect, but we believe in the broad principles of this legislation. That's why we've provided our support today.

º (1630)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Jones, Mr. Bird.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: You are aware that this is where it happens. You tell me that you're going to come back and make recommendations, but we're hearing you today.

Mr. Thomas Jones: We will clarify points.

[English]

The Chair: But, Robert, we should remember that they did say they supported all of the recommendations of the previous witnesses. The previous witnesses gave us six very specific ways to improve the bill, and we can discuss those later.

Are there any other comments? Mr. Proctor? No?

Mr. Keyes.

Mr. Stan Keyes: I'm certain, Mr. Chairman, that the proud Canadian athlete Marc Gagnon is proud of what this government and this bill are attempting to do.

Anyway, moving on to Bill C-54—

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Incredible. You can use it as much as you want, but there are others who aren't like Marc Gagnon. There are others who can say things—

[English]

Mr. Stan Keyes: I didn't introduce—

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Really—

[English]

Mr. Stan Keyes: I didn't interrupt you, Robert. Relax.

Anyway, I'm quite sure the athletes are very happy with this bill because Bill C-54 is a sport-dominated bill. Because it is sport-dominated, I would come back to what Mr. Bird was saying. I agree completely with him that there must be that linkage and that continuum between sport and athletes. I would therefore ask for his opinion or Athletes CAN's opinion.

We know, for example, that the initiatives for physical activity are all being carried out by Health Canada for the most part. We know that the sport initiatives are all being carried out by Fitness and Amateur Sport. Those are two different ministries under two different ministers. Could it be possible that, in this bill, we could have a clause that would say something about recognizing the importance of and the linkages between the two, and that this should all be folded into one minister's responsibility, that minister being, very specifically, current Secretary DeVillers?

Because of the separation between physical activity and sport under two ministers, why don't we put something like that in the bill? We could say that, from this day forward, we want to put these things together under one minister, under one ministry, so that we don't have to go running all over the place for all these different matters and linkages.

What would your opinion be on that suggestion?

Mr. Ian Bird: I encourage you to think about the broader role of government in sport and physical activity. You've spoken about the health concern, and I think it can be extended even beyond that. In your deliberations, you may want to consider the role of sport as it relates to the justice sector or the role of sport as it relates to the environment. The broader role of the federal government and some of the steps that have been taken through this legislation are absolutely open for you to discuss around this table, and we're encouraged that you're doing so.

Mr. Stan Keyes: But I guess what I'm asking you to tell me, Ian, is whether or not it's a good idea when it comes to what this bill is attempting to achieve, and that is physical activity and athletes and sport—

Mr. Ian Bird: Under one ministry? Absolutely. If that's something that can come about through this process—

The Chair: We hope you'll be around to support that motion. If you want to put it forward, I'm sure we'll have a rigorous debate.

Mr. Stan Keyes: I'd be glad to help the researcher with the wording, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Good.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Cuzner.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: I'll just take one more crack at the appointment of the executive director. Even in light of the consultation process that the minister will go through prior to the appointment of the executive director, do you see this as a deal breaker? Will this compromise the integrity of the bill? Should we go this way with the minister appointing the executive director?

º (1635)

Mr. Ian Bird: I think we heard from Victor earlier on the point whereby you step forward and you appoint the board of directors. In doing that, you're expressing your confidence in their ability to step forward and do the job. Do you think they can then step out and hire an executive director? I would hope you're able to have enough confidence in the people you appoint to the board that they can carry on and get that part of the job done.

From the athletes' point of view, we want to know there's going to be an independent body that is accountable and is transparent, and we think that's best achieved through that separation.

The Chair: I just want to make sure I understand one thing. You're saying you have no problem with the government appointing the board, but after that, the government-appointed board should actually do the search for the executive director.

Mr. Ian Bird: It's empowered to elect its own chair and is empowered to hire its senior staff person.

The Chair: I think that makes sense.

[Translation]

Robert, do you have another question?

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I would like to know whether you and your members from Quebec agree on paragraph 5(j), which reads as follows:

(j) provide bursaries or fellowships to assist individuals in pursuing excellence in sports;

So the government is going to give you bursaries and fellowships directly. Are your members from Quebec in favour of that? They told us that the jurisdiction of the provinces had to be respected and that the government had to work in cooperation with them. The paragraph is quite clear:

(j) provide bursaries or fellowships to assist individuals in pursuing excellence in sports;

Do you feel that this is cooperating with the provinces?

[English]

Mr. Ian Bird: If I'm to speak on behalf of athletes and we're looking for ways to find resources to support their pursuits, I think it's important for us to have the broadest scope that we can. I would encourage you to take up those discussions in your deliberations as matters relate to the role of the federal government and the role of the provincial governments. I would be way off base if I was to indicate that any athlete wasn't looking for support, whether it was through a bursary, through a coach who was more highly qualified, or through an improved facility. All those kinds of things provide the opportunity for the athlete to try to—

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: What is important is that the money gets there. Athletes have to get a bursary any way they can.

[English]

Mr. Thomas Jones: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We'll continue to move along the track. Our next witness is Gordon Peterson, from ADR-sport-RED.

What happened to Sports-Québec?

The Clerk of the Committee: Raymond Côté will be arriving around five, and this gentleman should be in the time block before five o'clock. Mr. Peterson was one of the people suggested by your office, but I didn't get confirmation from him until late yesterday afternoon. I didn't get him on the agenda.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Perhaps we did it quickly.

[English]

The Chair: No, these witnesses are additional ones, and they're supportive in giving us more information. We're on schedule.

Gentlemen, you've been here, so you know what the drill is.

To repeat, Mr. Lanctôt, we don't want to hear anything good about the bill now. We only want to hear the stuff that will improve it.

º (1640)

Mr. Gordon E. Peterson (Chair, ADR-sport-RED): We do have some points to add.

My name is Gord Peterson, and I'm the chair of the steering committee for the interim ADR program called ADR-sport-RED, which was established by the Canadian Centre for Ethics and Sport to fill a need for sport dispute resolution. The steering committee, as you saw in my brief, consists of eight members. We have people from the Canadian Olympic Committee and the Canada Games. CCES sits there as an ex officio member, and we also have people from Athletes CAN. Benoit Girardin is our interim director for the program, and he sits there as an ex officio member as well.

Perhaps this would be an appropriate time for Benoit just to give you a little bit of a feel for what's taking place in the program that has existed to date. We actually opened our doors prior to the Salt Lake City Olympic Games. We did the selection committee's disputes that occurred. We actually had one of those disputes before we even opened our doors.

Benoit, perhaps you can give us a little summary of what has taken place to date.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoit Girardin (Executive Director, Steering Committee, ADR-sport-RED: : Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to address the committee in French.

The executive director manages everything regarding the program, assists the steering committee and manages all the corporate, operational and legal components of the program. I am a lawyer by profession, and I have experience in sports law. We introduced the program in early December. As Gordon said, before the program existed, we had an ad hoc cross-country skiing case, which was managed before the Christmas holidays. We officially opened for business on January 18.

The program is currently structured as follows. There is a management office managed by an acting director general. We have a registry, or a dispute secretariat, which manages the cases and really does the nuts and bolts business with the parties. It contacts the arbitrator and manages the entire case from an arbitration centre located in Montreal which has offices across Canada.

We have a resource centre which, for the moment, is virtual. You can see it on the Web site. It provides various information tools on resources to members of the Canadian sports community.

From the start, we had four cases in the context of Salt Lake City and two others that were not related to Salt Lake City, which are athlete carding cases. We currently have a case involving selection for the Commonwealth Games. I also include the case we had before the Christmas holidays.

The requests we receive every day, when people call us on the 1-800-ADR line, many concern carding, selection, employment contracts, athlete contracts and harassment. So we have cases of all kinds. We have received calls on all the hot amateur sports cases you've heard about in the past four months. We have been called upon, at least, to give people information.

In addition, from the start, that is to say since February, we have been conducting an ADR Sport RED program promotion to ensure that the national sports organizations, coaches, official arbitrators and athletes are aware of the service offered and know how to use it. That campaign will be under way until the permanent centre, which will be called the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada, is implemented.

So I just wanted to tell you in a few minutes where we stand in our operations. Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Gord Peterson: I'd like to turn to the legislation. I'll begin by partly endorsing the comments of my sport colleagues who have been before you previously and those of MPs in the House who have complimented the introduction of the legislation. Unlike a fine wine, legislation is not something that ages particularly well, and it has been a long time since we've had legislation that deals with sport—41 or 42 years.

As Mr. Lanctôt has pointed out, the legislation is not perfect, so we do have some specific comments that we would like to address. However, we do feel it is a step in the correct direction. It's a little bit like my golf game. As long as I'm going toward the hole, it's positive. The minute I go into the woods, it's not so good.

º (1645)

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Me too, in spite of it all.

[English]

Mr. Gord Peterson: So we are moving in the right direction, but there are a few points that I would like to mention.

To again echo something Mr. Lanctôt said—I believe it was in the House that he was talking about this—the time for studies and committees is over, and it's time to make the necessary funds available. In other words, to paraphrase Nike, let's just do it. Let's move forward, and let's get this thing going. I think we have had a lot of discussion on it.

I've sat on three committees—as has Benoit—that have dealt with ADR specifically. We have had a lot of discussion with the sport community, and I think some of our views are echoed in some of the comments that we have.

I want to pick up on something Sport Matters originally introduced in regard to the balance of accountability and independence. This is something absolutely essential. We've had some discussions about how far you reach in. Mr. Chairman, you've indicated that it seems reasonable to you that going down and appointing the board members is far enough to reach in. I think that was one of the first comments when people reviewed the legislation. They said, “Whoa, wait a minute. You take all this time to say it's not a governmental body”—and remember that the last time sport was in legislation was 42 years ago—“but at the same time, you're turning around and saying the minister's going to do this and that, you have to report here and there, and you have to do this and that.” To people in sport who are not knowledgeable, that's pretty big control over what's taking place. So the primary concern that was expressed was the need for a little bit more distance and a little bit more independence.

For the minister to be involved in the consultations with the sport community is absolutely essential. What that involvement entails is not certain, nor do I think it is appropriate for it to be in the bill. But there does need to be some understanding of that.

Remember, right now, Benoit is the interim director and is the only person dealing with the operations immediately. There is a steering committee, as I mentioned, but the person who is actually involved in making this thing happen is Benoit. He's our executive director for the interim program.

So the recommendation that came forward from the implementation committee, which both Benoit and I sat on, was that the minister appoint the council—or the board, as it's referred to in the bill—and that the executive director be selected by the board members.

The second thing both preceding groups talked about was the fact that Sport Canada is not captured in this legislation. That issue relates to the question of how we can expect the system to be credible if the creator and funder of the system essentially is not going to be captured by the thing.

We recognize that there are some things that you want to have specifically on the outside and don't want to have imposed upon the government, and we understand that. But if I can draw somewhat of an analogy, that sort of approach to this legislation is a little bit like setting up the Supreme Court of Canada and then saying the Government of Canada is not bound. But that's not what we do. There's an act that deals with how you go about proceedings against the Crown, but the government is still captured and the act makes sure you're accountable in that sense. And what we are doing here is setting up the sport group. It's sport arbitration or sport mediation.

The next one deals with consultation. The key message here is that we want to have the sport community involved in this. As I say, we've suggested in our working group report and echoed in the implementation committee report that we want to have an open process. I think Sport Matters addressed that a little bit. We want to have it open so that there are nominations coming from the sport community. In other words, involving the sport community in something that's going to do the adjudication for it is just going to create credibility for it. In their brief, Sport Matters suggested an amendment dealing with subclause 13(4). One of the things we would endorse is some sort of involvement specifically in the consultation program.

I'll touch briefly on the ombudsman's office, because it was talked about. In our working group report, we did recommend its inclusion and talked about it, but in the implementation committee we were talking about it being delayed a little bit. The legislation certainly enables that under its current format. It says there will be a centre and a secretariat, but it says, “it shall include”. So it's inclusive in the sense that you could add on an ombudsman's office. However, there are other matters ongoing, as Victor mentioned.

Now we get into some of the things we want to talk a little bit about, like the mandatory process and mandatory inclusion. You heard from Tom Jones. He was talking about how all athletes must have access, and not just under the SFAF, the sport funding accountability framework that Sport Canada deals with.

In our recommendations, we talk about it being mandatory. There are a number of reasons that we want it to be mandatory. Some of those have to do with the fact that a lot of our disputes are selection disputes. If it's just strictly by voluntary agreement, then the athletes who weren't in the boat, if you will, will then have another crack at the case. What we want is to do it just once. We want some efficiencies in the system. We want everyone to be bound by the decisions that have been handed down, and a lot of those deal with team selection disputes. So our thought was that we wanted to make it mandatory so that it would be including everyone and covered off.

We made a suggestion in our reports that you could do that through the RCAAA and the fact that there's a tax in the Income Tax Act that talks about the amateur athletic associations. In the United States, in the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, which deals with the United States Olympic Committee, they do it by defining what a sport governing body is. A sport governing body is defined to include specifically the arbitration provision. In other words, you're not a sport governing body if you don't have that arbitration provision contained within your bylaws.

The same thing could be done here with a consequential amendment to the RCAAA by saying that, in order to get the tax benefits, you would have to require that all disputes be referred to the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre. It seems to me that it's something that may be addressed fairly simply, although I stand to be corrected on that because it's something that should be looked at.

The next really key point, from our point of view, is the transition from the existing ADR-sport-RED to the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre. For example, we currently don't handle doping. In the CCES brief that was submitted, you'll see there was some discussion about the need for some sort of transitory provision.

º (1650)

In moving toward doping, we've found so far—we're not all the way in there yet—that it's a rather complex issue. A lot of things are involved, not the least of which is the fact that the CCES happens to be ISO. We would therefore have to meet some standards or we would lose that. But we don't want to lose that, because it's part of their process. We would just be handling one aspect of their process. And there is also the fact that the CCES was set up as a collective for doping in sport. So we have to look at how we do that and how we address that.

One of the suggestions that was made and that was, I thought, well set out in the CCES brief was that we could consider just hiving out doping disputes or disputes regarding doping infractions—at least, I think that was the proper terminology. That could be put separately in subclause 10(2) as one of the matters that can be introduced at a later date. You could have that proclaimed in force at a later date, and you have the ability to do that by separating it out.

The other thing that relates to the same matter is the fact that in clauses 7 and 8, which deal with the agreements—and I'm not sure I understand this myself—that are set out, what's interesting is how the bill deals with governmental agreements. I understand the reason for that. It's very important in terms of the jurisdictional issues that exist in Canada between the federal and provincial governments and in terms of the need for the arrangements to be there. It's important to set such things out. But what seems to have been omitted for some reason—and I'm not quite sure why—is the ability for the minister to enter into agreements that would be binding with international organizations.

The immediate thought that comes to mind is the World Anti-Doping Agency, which is talking about a code that the Government of Canada is to buy into. In fact, all the governments of the world are supposed to buy into it, and that may have some consequential impacts upon the doping issue itself. By having it separated out in subclause 10(2) and having a little bit of an opportunity to put in a deferral if needed for the transition, you may also want to consider adding in some other organizations, because it's not just the World Anti-Doping Agency, or WADA, as we call it. There may be some agreements with the World Health Organization with respect to physical activity; there may be some agreements with the Court of Arbitration for Sport; and there may be some other affiliations as well. So providing the minister with the ability to do that may be something to be considered and introduced into agreements and arrangements.

Finally, I want to deal with something Monsieur Lanctôt has talked about, that being the “final and binding” provision. We note that it's not in there. Our preference is to have “final and binding”. Generally speaking, this is not going to be a process that is going to be the first instance in the true sense of the word. By the time they get to us, they are usually appeals of decisions that have been made by the organizations, and those organizations often have a mechanism that will allow them to go to appeal.

What we have done and what we have established to date is a highly skilled group of arbitrators and mediators who are very well recognized because, again, as I said, the credibility of the system is essential. Our group of mediators and arbitrators is very well recognized not just within Canada, quite frankly, but throughout the world. As our chief arbitrators, we have people who are recognized internationally for their knowledge in sport and in arbitration. We're talking about a highly-qualified group of individuals who are going to be making the decisions.

Quite frankly, having been involved in a number of cases—and Monsieur Girardin has been involved in a number as well—I can say that is not usually what you find in the courts. We are taking people who are knowledgeable in sports and knowledgeable in the law and in arbitration matters, and we're having them deal with these issues. We would prefer that their decisions be final and binding, rather than having them overturned by people who are not as knowledgeable about these situations. That is the way things work internationally with the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and that is what we would propose to have done nationally.

º (1655)

As a final point on part of the ADR system, let me explain the reason why we set this up in the way we set it up. It was not just set up to deal with disputes, it was also established to avoid disputes. A lot of things that we're dealing with are not contained in and not applicable to the legislation. They involve dealing with best practices and with trying to make people aware of how to deal with these matters and with the best way to introduce them so that we actually don't have the disputes. This key point is not addressed in the legislation, but I did want to make you aware of the fact that we are dealing with it.

The Chair: Very good, Mr. Peterson.

Just before members begin, I want to remind everyone that we have votes coming up and are desperately trying to get all the witnesses in before those votes. Be precise in your questions and answers, so that we don't have to exclude anybody today and invite them back another day.

Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Just so we understand the potential for the dispute settlement mechanism in the legislation, I presume you are a kind of forerunner to that.

Mr. Gord Peterson: That's correct.

Mr. Jim Abbott: When were you set up?

Mr. Gord Peterson: Technically speaking, we actually began operations at the end of January of this year. January 2000 was when we had our first working group meeting, which was set up by the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport.

Mr. Jim Abbott: How many dollars are allocated to your organization on an annual basis?

Mr. Gord Peterson: That's a good question, because we're not quite there yet in terms of the annual budget. We have an interim budget that we're dealing with, and Benoit might have the actual—

Mr. Benoit Girardin: The budget for the year ended March 31 was—and you can correct me if I'm wrong—$388,000, and the overall budget for next year is $600,000.

» (1700)

Mr. Jim Abbott: What is the source of your funding?

Mr. Benoit Girardin: It's mainly from the contribution agreement, but a little revenue comes from the court fee that the party pays. It costs them $250 to apply for a request for arbitration. Those requests bring in about $5,000 or $6,000 in revenue per year.

Mr. Jim Abbott: So you're presently budgeted at about $600,000.

When I was briefed by the department officials, they indicated that the total cost of the centre was going to be in the neighbourhood of about $1 million.

Mr. Benoit Girardin: That's correct.

Mr. Jim Abbott: What accounts for the difference of $400,000, give or take? I realize these are very crude numbers.

Mr. Benoit Girardin: Gordon you can step in here, too.

Basically, we took the million-dollar budget and split it up over two years, the first part being from November to the end of March. We have to evaluate what's going to be the need for the number of cases per year. We have to evaluate what kinds of actions we have to put into the resource centre and at what level, and the council will be involved in that business plan. That's why the money was split that way. That's what I know.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Let me enter into a very brief debate because of what Mr. Mills has said. It seems to me that, in the two prior presentations and in your presentation, there's a real chomping at the bit about the fact that the government has control, and so on and so forth. It strikes me that, as legislators, and particularly as opposition legislators, it's our responsibility to hold the government accountable. The government must be accountable for the dollars that it spends.

On one side of the coin, everybody who has made a presentation so far has been chafing at the fact that the government has so much control. On the other side of the coin, they're saying more taxpayers' dollars have to be put in. I would suggest—and I'd just like a very brief debate on this—that I don't think you can have it both ways.

Mr. Gord Peterson: Absolutely. I agree, and it is a balance. It's a balance between independence and accountability.

What we're saying is that there's no point in spending dollar one if the sport community is not going to buy into it. That's what the concern is. When everyone looked at the legislation, the first reaction from the vast majority of people was that it will just be another government body and another thing we have to do reports for. That's not what people want to have. The object is to try to move forward and allow the sport community to have a mechanism that's going...so that's the balance between accountability and independence.

I agree with you that there is a balance. The debate is really about where that balance is. My opinion is that this goes a little bit too far, and your opinion may be that it doesn't go far enough. But that's where the balance is, and that's what we're trying to do. We're trying to make sure it has credibility within the sport community and that there's accountability for the funds being expended on the program.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Lanctôt.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Thank you for your presentation.

I will ask my two questions after making a comment on what Mr. Girardin has just asked. There's a difference between accountability for money that could be handed over to the minister for him to deposit it and the independence and impartiality of what we are creating. There's a difference between impartiality and independence. At least I hope we want to make it impartial and independent. If the minister is called upon to make all the appointments, the Dispute Resolution Centre will not truly be accountable or independent. So we're trying to make it independent.

The sports world wants the Dispute Resolution Centre to be independent, like any tribunal. That's also what I want, but I have certain fears. In the folder we received when we received the bill, there's a document called a fact sheet on the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre, which I have in front of me. I read this document before reading the bill and I was pleased because the section concerning the scope of the Centre states that the services offered by the Centre will be used depending on the will of the parties. Like every arbitration or mediation centre, this centre should not be mandatory, contrary to what you want.

Have no fear, you will have your centre, because everybody wants it, but we are not required to make it mandatory and to interfere with people and especially with rights. Through your request, you are interfering with rights. An athlete may not want to go to arbitration or mediation. We have had this for a long time in the Quebec Code of Procedure. It states what arbitration and mediation are. You have to allow people to choose.

The document in the folder stated that recourse to the centre would be optional, but that's not what is stated in the bill we are going to pass. If everyone closes his eyes to this, that's what will be passed. Excuse me, but I don't agree with this. I believe that athletes must be able to choose. They will have to choose to go to you. I'm told we are going to absorb you, but I feel there are a lot of people who are going to benefit from appointments. So the Dispute Resolution Centre must be well done.

I'm going to make my three comments one after the other. Now let's talk about appeals. I'm a lawyer and a mediator as well. It's true we want this to be impartial and for there to be no appeals, but that's stated in the contract. When the two parties go to see a mediator or go into arbitration, they still have to sign a contract. In that contract, they state whether they want there to be an appeal or not to be an appeal. You have to offer a choice to athletes or people who go to mediation or before the tribunal. If people say they want the matter to be settled quickly because they have no money, they will decide that there will be no appeal. However, the act must permit an appeal if people want it. Perhaps they don't want the process to be costly, but they may want to have a right of appeal. Perhaps they want things to go quickly, but if this can have an effect on their entire career, they may want to go to court. When someone has an opportunity to earn millions of dollars in the course of his career, and he is suddenly found guilty of doping and is rejected by his federation, he may want to go to court.

In particular, don't take away athletes' rights. We can add a Dispute Resolution Centre. We do this in matrimonial law in Quebec. We do promotion and we give people information so that everybody goes to mediation because it's expensive to go to court. It's expensive for the state and it's especially expensive for the parties.

I conducted an overview of the question and I would like to hear what you have to say on what I've just said.

» (1705)

[English]

Mr. Gord Peterson: Your point is that you can't take away the rights of people, and I agree it's not desirable to do that. Unfortunately, it is a reality, and we know there is a balance between individual rights and the rights of the collective. A group of people has to have certain rights, just as individuals have certain rights.

Internationally, that's exactly what happens. There is no right of appeal for a Court of Arbitration for Sport decision, and that court deals with most doping disputes on an international basis. What we want to have is something consistent with that. Otherwise, you'll see people jumping from the ADR system to the courts and maybe back again, and we can't have that. That's not in anyone's interest. And that's for all the people together, so it's more important to have it.

The other thing is that you're looking at it from one point of view only. You're looking at it and are saying that only the athlete is going to be negatively impacted. In fact, what can happen if it's not mandatory is that some organization, if it's going to be consensual, can absolutely refuse to go there to have the matter dealt with. If the athlete does not have the resources to go into court, then the athlete is disaffected more so than if it had been mandatory. We've had situations in which exactly that has occurred.

So, again, you have to look at it from the standpoint of the rights of the individual versus the rights of all. The point is to try to balance those. Again, it's a balancing act, and we recognize that. Is it perfect? No, it's not perfect, but it is a balancing act that we have looked at, and we have said that, on the balance, it's better to make this mandatory. We can then ensure that everyone is going to be treated fairly. That presupposes that we go out and get people who are experts at dealing with this.

The worst thing that can happen—and we have lots of cases in which we can demonstrate that throughout history.... When you go through the court and take your shot at it, you only have a certain amount of time when you go on selection disputes. The worst thing that can happen is that you go in and have the court rushing everything, and they then make a decision that turns out to be the exactly wrong decision not just for the athlete, but perhaps for the sport and perhaps for a lot of people.

When they make that decision, they're not experts in that area. We're creating experts in that area to deal with those very things. I think the vast majority of people who dealt with the selection disputes—with the exception of one person who couldn't get it because it wasn't mandatory—were very content with the way the system worked.

» (1710)

The Chair: Mr. Proctor.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Is there an appeal process in the dispute settlement mechanism?

Mr. Gord Peterson: There is not an appeal process other than what you'd normally have through the courts in the event of—

Mr. Dick Proctor: So there isn't anything within the system itself if you're not happy with the outcome.

Mr. Gord Peterson: You have to understand that most of the sports themselves have internal appeal systems to deal with these matters. It's only once that option has been exhausted that a dispute gets into this system to begin with. So they've already had their kick at the can, so to speak.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Can you just tell us very briefly how you think ADR has worked in the four or five months that it has been working?

Mr. Gord Peterson: I'll turn to the expert on that one.

Mr. Dick Proctor: And perhaps as we head into this transition period, how do you think it will go with the doping added on?

Mr. Benoit Girardin: We've been working on an ad hoc basis, and I would say it has been efficient and easy. Those were the comments we got from the members.

The court office or the dispute secretariat deals with everything, which is not the habit of the sport community when the NSOs deal with and manage the dispute for themselves and the athletes. Right now, the court office centralizes and manages everything, and that really, positively surprised the members. They don't have to send any brief to anybody. It goes to a central office and then it goes to the parties, and they're not allowed to speak to the arbitrator.

The other thing is that we have had great collaboration from the arbitrators. I'm talking about a big gun in arbitration, Yves Fortier. As everybody knows, he is one of the chief arbitrators. And Richard MacLaren is well-known in the sport field as well. These people are involved and available for matters that we sometimes have to deal with in 24 hours, especially during something like Salt Lake City.

It went really well using an independent centre. It's a commercial arbitration and mediation centre. We use their services and pay them a fee per case. It's an easy way to manage. I get the first contact because I know the sport, and then I refer the matter to the sport manager or the case administrator.

So it's efficient and less costly for sure, and it's easy for the members, but especially for the athletes, because they're lost in that thing. They don't know what to do. When you give them the direction guidelines, they know what to do.

Where do we go for the permanent phase now? The independent centre, the arbitration centre, is a projet-pilote right now. We're looking at whether or not we're going to have an actual, physical centre in which we're going to have offices and staff to manage the cases. These are discussions that we will probably have with the council once it's in place. Right now, though, with the number of cases in the system, it's sufficient and the way to do things business-wise.

The Chair: Mr. Cuzner, did you have a question? It will have to be a short one, because we have a vote coming up and I'm really nervous about our next two witnesses. I don't know what we're going to do. We may have to have them back at another time.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: The bill doesn't specifically provide for Sport Canada to be party to the dispute resolution by the centre. The fact is that nothing in the bill really precludes or prevents Sport Canada from agreeing, in some specific instances, to at least refer to or make reference to the centre when Sport Canada is involved in a particular dispute. The fact is that Sport Canada can even build some type of appeal mechanism into its policies, programming, or specific agreements. Would that appease the fact that it is not specifically identified in the...?

Mr. Gord Peterson: Certainly. There are a lot of things that you can work with in the legislation, which is why I say it's a step forward. There are some ways you can get around it, absolutely. The only question that comes is, what happens if it's not? And that's not necessarily intentionally not, just inadvertently not. That's the problem. So it's just the credibility issue. You have someone creating a system and then saying it's not for them. The appearance is not good.

» (1715)

Mr. Benoit Girardin: That's what happened last year when two athletes called for a carding issue. I told them it's an agreement right now, and that everybody must sign the arbitration agreement. But what's going to happen in the permanent phase? Well, read the bill. Sport Canada's not in yet.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Yet.

Mr. Benoit Girardin: What's the purpose of going to ADR if, at the end of the day, Sport Canada can reverse the decision? That was the comment from both the NSOs and the athletes.

Mr. Gord Peterson: It's important to note that we have two existing areas in which Sport Canada is involved. They're involved in doping disputes and carding issues. They're currently bound to deal with those in the particular appeal process that has been established. For some people, it therefore seems that not doing this is a step backwards.

The Chair: Is that it, Rodger?

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Yes. Thank you.

The Chair: You have time for a short question, Monsieur Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Would it be a good idea to state in the act whether decisions or agreements must be ratified or whether decisions must be given in writing? I would appreciate that being in the act. What do you think?

Mr. Benoit Girardin: Given with reasons and in writing. Furthermore, in Quebec, an arbitration decision must always be ratified by a Superior Court judge in cases where one of the parties does not want to comply with execution of the decision. You appear before the judge and it's often rubber-stamped. Naturally it would be good to add this element to the act.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, gentlemen.

Colleagues, before we go to our next witnesses, we have a vote. However, those witnesses are two very serious and very important witnesses, especially the one from the umbrella organization for Quebec. I think it would be bad manners for us to try to rush through Official Languages and Sports-Québec. I would therefore like the support of the committee that our clerk work with our witnesses—we would apologize to them if we get your consent here—to re-book them for sometime next week.

Mr. Dick Proctor: I just have a question. Have they come from afar, or are they here in town?

The Chair: They're from Montreal and from Ottawa.

Mr. Dick Proctor: It's my understanding, Mr. Chair, that we have two votes tonight. Could we not have our vote and then come back?

The Chair: No, because some members have other commitments. And we don't want to rush it, because it's too important.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Oh, I see. Very good.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Mr. Chairman, I know that Mr. Côté has arrived from Chicoutimi after driving for six hours. Are we going to come back and hear him after the vote?

[English]

The Chair: Oh, I thought he came from Montreal. Did he come from Montreal or Chicoutimi?

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: He's arrived from Chicoutimi. That's a six-hour drive. Can we go and vote and come back?

[English]

Mr. Dick Proctor: Mr. Chair, the committee was supposed to sit until 6:30. We'll probably be back here by—

The Chair: What are the votes?

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: They're two quick votes. We can come back to listen to Mr. Côté.

[English]

The Chair: Until 6:30.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: What time is the vote?

[English]

Mr. Dick Proctor: The vote is at 5:30.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Well, we can come back at six o'clock.

[English]

The Chair: Let me ask you this: How many minutes do we have before the vote?

Mr. Dick Proctor: Ten minutes.

The Chair: Is it a fifteen-minute bell?

Mr. Dick Proctor: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: So let's go vote, then come back afterwards, around 6:00 p.m.

[English]

The Chair: I think we should hear from Sports-Québec, though. For Official Languages, I think we should wait for another day.

We would ask you to take the chair, Mr. Côté. Welcome. Do you want to get started for about seven or eight minutes, and then just...? Thank you.

[Translation]

Welcome, Mr. Côté.

Mr. Raymond Côté (President, Sports-Québec): In practical terms, do you want me to present this to you in a few minutes?

» (1720)

[English]

The Chair: You have about nine minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Raymond Côté: That won't leave you any time to ask questions because it could use up a few.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: We're going to come back after the vote. Without hearing anyone, I would suggest that we leave right now and come back as soon as possible after the vote.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, we'll adjourn and return immediately after the votes. Thank you.

» (1720)

¼ (1808)

The Chair: This meeting is now back in session.

[Translation]

Welcome, Mr. Côté.

Mr. Raymond Côté: First, I can't say I'm sorry to extend your work day, but I thank you for your patience and understanding.

You should have received the text a few hours ago. At the summit and last year, we raised three concerns: formal, political and governmental recognition, which we had also previously raised; development of effective joint action mechanisms, and adequate funding. We had raised these concerns, and we don't necessarily find them in the act.

With respect to political recognition, it seems to me that this act would have been a good opportunity to position Canada as an innovative country, which would have had international recognition and significance. Canada could at least have created a department and a real minister, with the budgets that go along with that, supported by a cooperation system or organization. We had also proposed that a non-governmental organization be created. At that point, we would have put ourselves in the international major leagues. I don't want to cite other countries because I don't want us to imitate those models, but there would have been a good opportunity in this bill to change directions and innovate by handing over management of the sports system to the sports community.

In the preamble, the first recital refers to government recognition. That's excellent. In the next three recitals, the government wishes. I admit it's not very strong language and seems to me to be wishful thinking which does not much to commit anyone to action.

I would also have liked, and we saw this with the signing of the policy of the 14 governments, to see formal recognition of respect for the jurisdictions of the governments. I believe we managed to do that in the case of the policy. And we know what resulted: everyone is committed. We could have put that into the act as well, and I believe we then would have achieved good results, with each of the 14 governments feeling really involved.

As to funding, we would have liked the act to provide an indication on this subject, without there necessarily being figures. I understand that you can't put figures into an act, but you could have given percentages which would have indicated the importance the government attaches to sport and physical activity.

We previously addressed the question of figures and made proposals in the document we filed. For us, finding indications of this kind in the act would constitute formal recognition. If it's worth the trouble to amend the act, let's amend it fundamentally and include commitments for the government. For example, over a certain period, the government could undertake to reach 0.5% by 2008. That's what we suggested. That would be a very reasonable progression which would permit adjustments and would comfortably and pleasantly support the world of sport and the entire sports system. Of course, these are significant amounts, but by undertaking to grant 0.5% of the national sports budget, you would be doing what others have done differently, by assigning 1% of the health budget. In view of the impact of sport and physical activity on health and their social effects, I believe this would not be too large an amount and that would be a sign of formal recognition.

There's another aspect that cannot be found in the act and that is very important in Quebec and in Eastern Canada: that's the entire issue of investment in sports real estate. There has been none in Eastern Canada since 1976. I'm sure I'm not telling you anything new when I say that. It will remind you of things that were said during the Mills Commission. We know that sport and physical activity are carried on in places. Those places are currently in pitiable condition. In Eastern Canada, there has been nothing for at least 25 years. This would have been a good opportunity to make a significant investment.

Add to that all the concern we've had about taxation and all the interdepartmental actions which might have made possible tax credits, for athletes, parents or sport supervisory personnel. We could also have seen commitments of this kind in the act. We saw none after the Mills Commission and we have seen none in the Act. It seems to me these are elements that could be worked on with a view to supporting the sport system as a whole.

I'm going to speak briefly about the Dispute Resolution Centre because other people have spoken to you about it. In our opinion, there is one major element, and that's the transparency of the Dispute Resolution Centre. The minister could have defined a certain number of criteria and asked the community to identify and nominate people. This is not a problem for me. If they are reliable people, leave it to them to choose their president and director general. It's simply a matter of recognition. In terms of transparency, it would be really significant for us.

Now let's discuss promotion. Yes, it's discussed briefly in the act, but, among the promotional elements, let's talk about the CBC, which covers or should cover a certain number of events. That was true in the past, but coverage is no longer what it was. Amateur sport no longer exists and will no longer exist. In the text, I cite the example of the Commonwealth Games, covered by the CBC or Radio-Canada.

I met people from Radio-Canada and I asked them whether they couldn't have used CBC's pictures and do a studio presentation. At least, they could have presented pictures of the athletes. That's promotion.

¼ (1810)

What troubles us is that we intervened with the CRTC and Ms. Copps and we did not even receive an acknowledgement of receipt. Some things surprise us. Société Radio-Canada supposedly covers the entire Francophone network. On my way here this afternoon, I learned that the CBC or Société Radio-Canada has incredible plans for amateur sport, but we can't intervene or do not want to intervene with Radio-Canada. We feel a bit uncomfortable with that. If we talk about promotion, but no pressure is put on Radio-Canada, we doubt the value of the promotion that will be done.

As to official languages, the bill does not refer to them. We believe this is very important. It seems to me that, in the preamble or in the recitals, there should have been a binding commitment on all people and organizations with regard to official languages. We don't want everything to take place in both languages, but that athletes and coaches be able to receive their instructions, documentation and direct services such as massage therapy, physiotherapy, psychotherapy and so on in their language. I also have the privilege of being president of the Centre national multisport-Montréal. That's one of our concerns. People have to receive services and documentation in their language. That's very important. I believe we could have included an element such as that in the act.

I leave it to Ms. Adam to supplement my remarks on this subject. Furthermore, not so long ago, her report described this problem. The Tétrault report did the same thing in Quebec. So there are elements. It's good to have this concern, but I believe it must be translated into concrete terms.

In closing, I will say that the bill is a promising one and constitutes a policy statement, disregarding the Dispute Resolution Centre. In my opinion, we have missed the opportunity to create a truly innovative sport system in Canada, which would have been the envy or admiration of the entire world. Perhaps it's not too late to change direction on this and make room for new ideas. I talked to you about these elements at the start: either we're talking about a genuine department with a system for joint action, or we're talking about a non-governmental organization. We could see how that could be done. That's all.

¼ (1815)

The Chair: Good presentation, sir.

Mr. Lanctôt.

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

Thank you, Mr. Côté. For some time now, I've been feeling all alone. It's good to hear you.

[English]

The Chair: Lonely?

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Yes.

It's good to hear you precisely because I put the official languages question to the new Secretary of State of Amateur Sport, Mr. DeVillers, at the last meeting we had with him.

As you know, none of the 16 recommendations made in April 2001 was acted on. We had given figures and asked one or two questions in the House, but the answers were vague. They said things were going in the right direction, but nothing was done in response to Ms. Adam's recommendations. That's why I asked that the official languages question be put in the preamble. I'm pleased that someone else has raised this matter because, if I'm the only one who raises it, the members around the table will say to themselves that Lanctôt belongs to the Bloc québécois and that this makes no sense. So, I'm pleased that others see that, if official languages are mentioned in the preamble, that will give us a guideline. The Secretary of State said that that is the case in the Multiculturalism Act. He clearly stated, and you can read it in the proceedings, that that was already provided for, that the act was there and that it had to be complied with. Well it isn't complied with. We have the recommendations of Ms. Adam, the Commissioner. This principle must be entrenched in an act as important as this one in which there are problems. We have to stop concealing this fact from ourselves and saying that everything is fine in this regard.

I'm pleased you've raised this because you've restated not only my remarks, but also the comments I made to the Secretary of State last week. Thank you very much. I believe my address restated quite well what is in the report I received today and I am very pleased at that fact. I see we are on the same wavelength.

One cannot be opposed to this bill. It is very broad. However, I hope committee members will accept amendments. That does not mean that the bill is not good. The idea is simply to make it better.

Following the discussion earlier, I met with the people from the Dispute Resolution Centre to highlight things that must be accepted. We know how things go in committee. You get bulldozed, but there are important things that must be in this act, as much concerning the Dispute Resolution Centre...

¼ (1820)

The Chair: Not here.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: All right. That's what we're going to see.

I want people to understand. I believe the people we heard earlier understood my remarks more clearly. Something must be added to this centre. Athletes' rights must not be removed. To impose recourse to the centre means eliminating athletes' right to go to court. We're talking about an alternative centre. The word “extrajudiciaire” is not used for no reason. The two parties must agree to go to it. You can tell me that one person wants to go and the other does not, but no rights must be taken from the one who does not want to go. The athlete must be able to choose the alternative route, that is arbitration or mediation, or the courts. That will be his choice.

I've made a lot of comments, and I want to hear what you have to say on them.

Mr. Raymond Côté: I'm not a specialist or a lawyer, but it seems important to me that individuals retain the right to go to court if they are not satisfied with the action of the Dispute Resolution Centre. However, I think it is important that the centre exist. Personally, I have had a not very happy experience with the appeal committee of one sports federation, and I believe such a centre must exist. Should it be mandatory? I think that, when people have taken all the steps in the procedure, that is the federation's appeal committee and the committee of the Dispute Resolution Centre, it will be quite difficult for them to take their case to court because the evidence will have been examined and they may realize it's not worth the trouble. The centre also protects the athletes. I think it is important. I don't want to venture to say anything about its operation, but I think individuals must retain the right to appeal subsequently to the courts.

I would like to come back to what you raised at the start concerning official languages. I will tell you that I sat on the advisory committee created by Mr. Coderre and continued by Mr. DeVillers. When Mr. DeVillers came to meet us, I made my first remarks in French because I knew he understood. Language is a very important thing for me. I want to speak to you in my language so that my message is clear. Even if our work is conducted in English, it is important that I make my remarks in French at that time. Yes, it's a very important factor. Services must be rendered to athletes and coaches in their language. People must make efforts and they must be bound as much as possible with regard to that.

The Chair: Do you have any other questions? All right?

Mr. Proctor.

[English]

Mr. Dick Proctor: You indicated unhappiness with three of the “whereas” paragraphs in the preamble. I'm looking at the English text. Are you unhappy because the verb “wishes” is relatively wishy-washy or wimpy? How would you want to see those paragraphs improved.

[Translation]

Mr. Raymond Côté: When the term “wishes” is used in an act, it's not very strong. It's a good intention, but it changes nothing. It says “wishes to increase awareness”. I believe the government should make a commitment to increasing the awareness of the Canadian public. If the term “undertakes” is used, the government is saying it is going to take action. If I increase awareness, I'm going to act. If I wish, what does that mean in concrete terms? I wish to speak to you. Am I going to speak to you? I wish to, but before I take action... It's something else. The first is very clear. Why didn't the legislator continue in the same vein, with action verbs? Why doesn't it say what it wants to do?

I believe this is easy to correct. This element may have escaped the drafters, but, if the intention was to dilute the text, I don't think it's worth the trouble to put it in. I'm a bit harsh, but, to my mind, wishing for something is not enough. I wish to do many things in my life, but I may do just half of them. We must put in the things we really want to do.

¼ (1825)

[English]

Mr. Dick Proctor: Just so this is clear to me, it's really the verbs that you're not happy with. The rest of the material is fine.

Mr. Raymond Côté: Yes, that's right.

Mr. Dick Proctor: In terms of the moneys that should be available, you suggested 0.5% by 2008. Is that a percentage of GDP, of gross domestic products?

[Translation]

Mr. Raymond Côté: That's with regard to the national budget. I'm going to give you another somewhat similar indication. Some people mentioned one percent of the health budget, in view of all the preventive aspects of sport and physical activity. If we tell you that, it's because we are aware that, during a certain period, there should be a major investment. As we have not solved the problems, we will have to continue investing in prevention, but we will also have to invest this new money. My perception is that, in this way, we should one day establish a balance. We know the effects of sport and physical activity with regard to values, society and health. We think this will have direct effects on young people and on the elderly in terms of budget.

So we should eventually save money, but we will obviously have to invest twice as much during a certain period. Allow me to suggest that this is now possible.

[English]

The Chair: Of our national budget? In other words, if our budget today is $170 billion, you're saying $1.7 billion?

Mr. Dick Proctor: No, he's saying half of that.

The Chair: Half? That's $750 million.

[Translation]

Mr. Raymond Côté: We're talking about a sum of $500 to $600 million. That's an enormous figure, but—

[English]

The Chair: No, it isn't.

[Translation]

Mr. Raymond Côté: I'm telling you it's enormous compared to $100 million. Yes, it's enormous.

The Chair: I agree with you.

Mr. Raymond Côté: However, I believe that's what's necessary.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: That's not much.

The Chair: Ms. Scherrer.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): Thank you. I am pleased to have gotten here just in time. I'm happy you waited for me.

First of all, I have a concern about the preamble. You mentioned the government's intentions in the preamble. I have always considered the preamble as an expression of the government's intentions, and I expect the terms used in the preamble to be less strong than those used in the act. There it really wants to make provision for specific actions.

I have less of a problem with the preamble because it concerns the government's intentions. I agree with you that, when it says it desires and wishes, that does not result in particularly strong action, but, since it is considering what it should do, it should say what it wishes. Subsequently, it talks about actions it will take to realize those wishes.

So I have a little less of a problem with the preamble. I want to come back to your presentation. You say, for example:

We remain convinced that the creation of a Department of Sport and Physical Activity and the creation of a central non-governmental organization or a formal mechanism for joint action...

I would like you to explain to me exactly what that means, since you return somewhere to the question of accountability. Do you really want this to be another organization? Is that how it works in Quebec? Don't you have fears about the creation of another agency?

Mr. Raymond Côté: I should say that I have no fears because we have the possibility of building it.

Should we have a minister and a real department as well as budgets? That's the first concern.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: We all agreed on that here.

Mr. Raymond Côté: For us, that's not enough because we have had other experiences. Why wouldn't there be a formal organization for joint action which is attached to the minister and can provide him with information?

¼ (1830)

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: We're talking about consultation?

Mr. Raymond Côté: I'm talking about a consultation organization for the minister, but also an organization for joint action. The objective is to have people who are not necessarily representatives of someone, but whose concern is to make the support system advance. A certain number of criteria can be determined for people who are recognized by the sports community as valid people, as people who have a sports vision, people who do not necessarily meet narrow needs, that is to say addressing only the situation of trainers or that of athletes, but who would be able to say where we should go in developing the sports system. That's the first possibility.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: To what do you attach that?

Mr. Raymond Côté: I attach it directly to the Minister. Call it an advisory committee, if you will.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: All right.

Mr. Raymond Côté: Call it what you want, but I avoid using terms that have already been used.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: But I like the term “advisory committee”.

Mr. Raymond Côté: We also avoid terms that are potentially confusing.

The other possibility is to create a non-governmental organization consisting of the same type of people, that is to say persons who do not represent organizations, but who are capable of orienting sport, as we see done elsewhere, but in establishing our own system, our own modus operandi, people selected for their ability to make the system advance.

In my view, those were two positions to consider. In the act, we would have seen a major change. The government would have said that it believes in the sport system. We've taken a regional consultation approach and had the national summit, and here's where we're heading. At that point, internationally, it would have been said that Canada was making a serious change. We've been doing these things for a long time, but we've maintained the same thing. We have a secretary of state, but we don't always have a minister. There are basic changes which should have appeared in the act to express the government's intention.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: A genuine will.

Mr. Raymond Côté: Yes, that would have been important. Is that clear?

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Yes!

Here's my second question. You complained somewhat about the clarification of the respective jurisdictions of the provinces and the federal government. Explain to me what you mean by that. I had the impression that the jurisdictions were quite well defined and that, when the Secretary of State and the provincial partners sat down together, there were not too many problems about determining the jurisdictions of each.

Mr. Raymond Côté: The act provides for the minister's power to develop multilateral or bilateral agreements, but contains no formal recognition of the jurisdictions of each of the governments. This could have appeared in the preamble or in the act. It's not just the minister who has the power to do certain things. The intention of the act is that the various jurisdictions are involved. That's what was done in the case of the policy, and it was successful because the 14 governments felt concerned.

We have to take advantage of what we've just gone through with the policy and insert it in the act. We can say that we're respecting all the jurisdictions and that we want to involve them in the effort as a whole. That would already mean opening doors and subsequently facilitating discussions.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: To your knowledge, do all the provinces now have a definition of their provincial jurisdiction? For example, do they have ministers? In Quebec, they may be well articulated and good, but in other places... Before clarifying the jurisdictions, perhaps we should ask ourselves whether each provincial minister has the same obligations and the same mandate. We're not going to clarify things in each of the provinces or each of the entities one after the other.

Mr. Raymond Côté: I won't venture onto that ground. I can't say I'm familiar with the entire picture across Canada. I know that some ministers can be both Minister of Education and Minister of Sport, but, if they manage to have significant representation to sign the policy, that's already something we could use. Is that the case everywhere? We're obviously not all at the same level. Obviously, there will probably be a lot of bilateral agreements between Quebec and the federal government.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: That's correct. May I ask a final brief question?

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Mr. Côté, you spoke about the under-representation of women in your document. I would like you to elaborate on that. Is there a problem in what you perceive in Quebec or elsewhere?

Mr. Raymond Côté: I think so, and we want these aspects covered if a joint action mechanism or a non-governmental organization is created. We tried to make a presentation consistent with our concerns, but, in view of the moment when we received the invitation, that is to say on Friday afternoon, we had to work quickly and aspects such as this were not addressed. Indeed, the representation of women, minorities and Aboriginal people is important to us.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: At all levels?

Mr. Raymond Côté: At all levels. I see no problem in inserting people.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Quite recently, a Canadian organization said there was under-representation with regard to funding. Do you agree with that? Is that also your experience?

Mr. Raymond Côté: I should tell you that I worked with the Association québécoise pour l'avancement des femmes dans le sport in their efforts to ensure at least partial funding from the Secrétariat aux loisirs et aux sports. We are very comfortable with this position. I will tell you that approximately 30% of the members of the board of directors of Sports-Québec are women.

¼ (1835)

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: I told you we were good in Quebec.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Cuzner.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: I'd like to get clarification on two statements that you made.

I appreciate that you're not representing the CBC, but I know Quebec was always the envy of the other provinces for years because of the coverage it used to get from SRC. Are there dollar amounts that have been cut back or prime time hours that have been cut back specifically over the last number of years, and that we can point to? Would you have those figures? Could you give us some kind of indication?

Mr. Raymond Côté: No, I don't have those figures.

[Translation]

I know that is correct, but, as a Canadian, I can't accept a distinction being drawn between the CBC and Société Radio-Canada. To my mind, that's unacceptable. The positions are obvious at the CBC; I learned this afternoon that CBC has a lot of plans for amateur sport. At Radio-Canada, we're disappearing from the picture. I was told that Ms. Copps had adopted a position on Canadian hockey at the SRC, at Radio-Canada. It's important, but I hope she will mount the barricades for amateur sport too. I expect that.

[English]

An hon. member: She will.

[Translation]

Mr. Raymond Côté: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: But when you come forward to the committee as a witness, if you have those specific numbers, it's very helpful if you can give us something that we can relay.

The other thing I'd like clarification on was the statement that was made that there has been no investment in sport infrastructure in Quebec and Atlantic Canada. Is that an observation, or are you drawing on specific data?

[Translation]

Mr. Raymond Côté: We know since we've made a consultation effort. I could give you figures we have had for a number of years. It's true in Quebec and in Eastern Canada. Since 1976, the federal government has made no major investment in Quebec or Eastern Canada. It's so true that Mr. Coderre's concern, in particular in the case of the Canada Games or of major games held in Canada, was to ensure that the games move around Canada to ensure those investments are made. I don't have any figures at this time, but I could get them for you. If Mr. Coderre had that concern, it was probably founded. You will probably be able to find information on the subject from your own services.

[English]

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: I said that after you made the statement, because off the top of the head, I can look at my own backyard. We had two major facilities and a ski hill redone for the Canada Games in 1986. There was a major investment in Charlottetown in 1991, when the Canada Games were there. In Corner Brook, there's Marble Mountain and a new multiplex. And I know Mile One Stadium was just opened in St. John's in 2000.

The Chair: That was through ACOA.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: That was through ACOA? Well, those are still federal dollars invested there.

I'm just saying that if you're making statements to the committee, they have to be backed up with some real figures. Otherwise, we go off half-cocked. I just think you have to underline your statements.

The Chair: On that, Rodger, just as a point, and only because I've been living with the file for a number of years, when Prime Minister Clark devolved Lotto Canada to the provinces in 1979—it was the Government of Canada's instrument for putting money into sport infrastructure, etc.—there was a hope that the provinces would take large amounts of that money and put it into infrastructure. Those contributions have been in a steady decline since 1979, so we have to revisit that.

When we studied this issue of infrastructure when we had our hearings, we found that while there are spots where it's exceptional, sport infrastructure in most regions of the country is lacking and abysmal.

¼ (1840)

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: I'm just saying there is a federal presence in most areas in Atlantic Canada through sport.

The Chair: Well, you're lucky. It's a disaster in Ontario.

Mr. Côté, we thank you. You are—

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Can I speak?

The Chair: Absolutely, Mr. Lanctôt.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Mr. Côté, like me, you were at these consultations and at the National Summit on Sport. I agree with you on funding and on jurisdictions. I spoke directly to the Secretary of State about it last week, and that's why I haven't spoken to you about it until now. As you said, there are very simple things that should be included on compliance with jurisdictions, whether it be in the preamble or elsewhere.

It was clearly stated that there was a desire to comply with those jurisdictions. Paragraphs 5(i) and (j) read:

(i) provide for the training of coaches and any other resource persons to further the objects of this act in relation to sport;

(j) provide bursaries or fellowships to assist individuals in pursuing excellence in sport;

Don't you believe that paragraphs 5(i) and (j) are not consistent with the commitment that came out of the consultations to respect jurisdictions?

Mr. Raymond Côté: When you want to work in a context of cooperation and participation with governments, you have to be careful not to trample on others' toes. I believe that not only Quebec, but all jurisdictions want to be respected in the process as a whole. If a thing like this were stated in the act, I believe adjustments would have to be made, in view of the fact that we have ensured... I believe that this is an element that encourages the participation and cooperation of governments, which are essential. It's an important sign in my mind.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Côté. Your passion, experience, and specific insights will be considered by the full committee.

Colleagues, let me give you my recommendation.

We've listened to some of...I shouldn't say “some of”. I'm going to say that we've listened to the best sport people in Canada today. There are others, but the men and women we had here today have devoted their lives to this sector of our community and our country. I think it serves us, serves the House, and serves the country if we take all of their recommendations and put them in a format of amendments to the bill. We can debate them amongst ourselves and decide how far they go, and then ultimately present them to the House. Every member can then take his or her stand on those key amendments.

I would even include the support that we got from Mr. Keyes today on the notion of not just the money that he recommended, but a full department. Let those who want to stand in the House and vote down a full department take that stand.

I'll ask the clerks to prepare all of the recommendations that we've heard today. We'll then come in, go at it clause by clause, and put it to the House. Is that fair?

Mr. Proctor.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Just as a question for clarification purposes, are we going to hear from Official Languages?

The Chair: We're going to do that next Tuesday.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Is that the last group we plan to hear from?

The Chair: It is, but we can hear from them. You should know, though, that we are going to accept the recommendation that we be more specific on official languages. We're going to make an amendment, and who's going to vote against that, right?

¼ (1845)

An hon. member: The Alliance.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: There's something I don't understand. Are you telling me that the only groups I'm going to hear are the groups we've heard today? We won't be hearing from other associations that want to come and talk to us?

[English]

The Chair: No, we're going to hear from Official Languages, but what we will then do is...you can see that most of the recommendations are consistent, witness after witness. I therefore think we should go into amending the bill to include all of their recommendations, debate them in clause-by-clause, and then go back to the House. You don't want to hear any more witnesses, do you? We've heard everything.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Well, I would like to hear the representatives of the Paralympic Games, of disabled persons and perhaps from the federation of women in sport. I don't understand why we're not hearing them. Why do we want to pass this bill after hearing only three witnesses?

[English]

The Chair: We had representation from women in sports.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I don't agree on that. I request a vote on the subject. We don't unanimously accept this way of operating. Come on!

[English]

The Chair: Okay, so who do you want to hear from?

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Are there other people who want to come and testify? I'm being told yes. Come on!

[English]

The Chair: Robert, écoutez. Who do you want to listen to? Women in sports, and who else?

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Among others, I want to hear from disabled persons, women and people related to the Paralympic Games. I would also like to hear from the elderly. We're talking about physical activity as well as sport. Perhaps it would be good to hear from disabled persons.

[English]

The Chair: Well, if you want three more witnesses, we won't get the bill done until the fall.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I don't see any problem in that. I thought the last time we had agreed—

[English]

The Chair: But, Robert, there's something you should understand. We have been working and the minister, Mr. Coderre, has been working with all of those representative groups for the last two years.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: There's a bill here. I don't really care that Minister Coderre has been working on this for years. I took part in the consultations, and lots of things aren't in this. There are groups that want to be heard on a bill and I want to hear them. Even if Minister Coderre heard them at the time, I want to hear them here.

[English]

The Chair: But the bill is a product of all of those people providing input. All of those groups put forward their thoughts and their ideas, and this bill is the result of the ideas of all those people.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I don't agree. This is the start of a piece of work. It is a bill that is very broad. Look at the number of amendments we could make in view of what we have agreed on today. There may be other people and other groups that won't say everything is nice and perfect. Since we're talking about physical activity, elderly persons may have a word to say.

[English]

The Chair: You want to redo the whole exercise. I'll tell you the compromise that we can make. If you want to put forward three or four witnesses who you think are critical, you can send their names to the clerk and we'll do it next week. After that, we have to get into really taking the bill and improving it, and then get it back to the House.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: In any case, we're finished around the 20th. We have the time to consider this bill. We thought we would finish next week, but it now appears we will finish around the 20th. We have time to meet people and we can do it quickly. How many groups are we talking about? Five? It's not a lot. Disabled persons must be heard.

The Chair: If it's five, there's no problem.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Do you understand what I mean?

The Chair: There's no problem.

[English]

Mme Hélène Scherrer: I agree with Mr. Mills. The consultation on the Bill, which we all know about, lasted one year. After the summit, a committee was created.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Yes, but they don't represent—

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: They were there, Robert. They were in each of the groups in Canada.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: They were there, but not within that. I want to know whether specifically...

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Yes, but an expert advisory committee was subsequently created. Those people sat down to prepare the bill. Even if we heard people until tomorrow morning... If we heard elderly persons, the First Nations are going to ask to be heard.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Well, I hope so.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: And we will have to hear another group, and another group, and another group.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I hope so.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: But they were heard in the consultations.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Where are they in this? You say they were heard. Where are they?

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: We're talking about under-represented groups.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: They're not here. It would be interesting to know what they want to say.

[English]

The Chair: This is the way we're going to do it, because I've looked after this committee—

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

The Chair: Excuse me, Rodger.

I've looked after this committee for three years. We have always been able to work together, and we produced a unanimous report. On this side, the government members have always put water in our wine. We're going to listen to the four or five witnesses next week. After that, the train will leave the station.

This meeting is adjourned.