SPOR Committee Meeting

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

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

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

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

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, June 11, 2002

1530

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

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy (Procedural Clerk)

The Chair

The Clerk of the Committee

Mr. Keyes

The Chair

The Clerk

Mr. Stan Keyes

The Chair

Mr. Stan Keyes

The Chair

Mr. Stan Keyes

The Chair

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy

Mr. Stan Keyes

The Chair

1535

Mr. Roger Farley (Director, Legislation and Interdepartmental Coordination, Canadian Heritage)

The Chair

Ms. Sue Neill (Director, Sport Legislative Team, Department of Canadian Heritage)

Mr. Roger Charland (Legal Counsel, Department of Canadian Heritage)

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ)

Mr. Stan Keyes

Ms. Scherrer

Mr. Stan Keyes

1540

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

The Chair

Ms. Sue Neill

Mr. Roger Charland

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy

The Chair

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

1545

The Chair

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

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Stan Keyes

1550

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Stan Keyes

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

The Chair

Mr. Stan Keyes

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

1555

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

The Chair

Mr. Stan Keyes

The Chair

Mr. Stan Keyes

The Chair

Mr. Stan Keyes

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy

Mr. Stan Keyes

1600

An hon. member

The Chair

An hon. member

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Stan Keyes

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

The Chair

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Stan Keyes

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

The Chair

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

1605

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Stan Keyes

The Chair

Mr. Serge Marcil

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy

Mr. Serge Marcil

The Chair

Mr. Serge Marcil

The Chair

Mr. Serge Marcil

The Chair

Mr. Serge Marcil

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy

1610

Mr. Serge Marcil

The Chair

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Mr Jean-Michel Roy

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Roger Farley

1615

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

The Chair

Mr. Stan Keyes

The Chair

Mr. Stan Keyes

1620

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy

The Chair

1625

Mr. Stan Keyes

The Chair

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy

Mr. Stan Keyes

The Chair

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

1630

The Chair

Mr. Serge Marcil

The Chair

Ms. Sue Neill

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

1635

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

The Chair

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

1640

Mr. Stan Keyes

The Chair

Mr. Stan Keyes

The Chair

Mr. Philippe Méla (Procedural Clerk)

Mr. Stan Keyes

The Chair

Mr. Serge Marcil

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy

Mr. Serge Marcil

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy

The Chair

1645

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Serge Marcil

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

1650

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Serge Marcil

Mr. Stan Keyes

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. John Harvard

1655

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Serge Marcil

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Clerk

Mr. Keyes

The Clerk

The Chair

The Clerk

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Roger Charland

The Chair

1700

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Roger Charland

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Stan Keyes

The Chair

Mr. Stan Keyes

The Chair

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Serge Marcil

Mr. Stan Keyes

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

1705

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

Mr. Stan Keyes

The Chair

Mr. Roger Charland

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Stan Keyes

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

1710

Mr. Stan Keyes

The Chair

Mr. Stan Keyes

The Chair

Mr. Roger Farley

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Roger Charland

Mr. Stan Keyes

The Chair

Mr. Stan Keyes

The Chair

Mr. Stan Keyes

1715

Mr. Roger Charland

Mr. Stan Keyes

The Chair

Mr. Roger Charland

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Stan Keyes

The Chair

Mr. Serge Marcil

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Stan Keyes

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. John Harvard

Ms. Sue Neill

The Chair

Mr. Stan Keyes

The Chair

Mr. Serge Marcil

The Chair

Mr. Serge Marcil

The Chair

Mr. Roger Farley

1720

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

1725

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Serge Marcil

The Chair

Mr. Serge Marcil

Mr. Roger Farley

Mr. Serge Marcil

1815

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Serge Marcil

The Chair

Mr. Serge Marcil

The Chair

Mr. Roger Farley

Mr. Roger Charland

Mr. Serge Marcil

Mr. Roger Charland

Mr. Serge Marcil

Mr. Roger Charland

Mr. Serge Marcil

Mr. Roger Charland

Mr. Serge Marcil

Mr. Roger Charland

Mr. Serge Marcil

The Chair

1820

Mr. Serge Marcil

The Chair

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

The Chair

Mr. Serge Marcil

The Chair

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

The Chair

1825

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

The Chair

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. John Harvard

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

1830

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

The Chair

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Serge Marcil

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Serge Marcil

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

1835

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Serge Marcil

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Serge Marcil

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

The Chair

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

1840

The Chair

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

The Chair

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Roger Charland

The Chair

Mr. Roger Charland

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Roger Charland

The Chair

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

1845

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Roger Charland

The Chair

Mr. Serge Marcil

1850

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC)

The Chair

Mr. Roger Charland

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

1855

Mr. Roger Charland

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Serge Marcil

Mr. Roger Charland

1900

Mr. John Harvard

The Chair

Mr. Serge Marcil

Mr. Roger Farley

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

Mr. Roger Charland

1905

The Chair

Mr. Roger Farley

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

1910

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. John Harvard

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. John Harvard

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

Mr. Serge Marcil

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Roger Farley

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

1915

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Ms. Sue Neill

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay

The Chair

Mr. Serge Marcil

Ms. Sue Neill

Mr. Serge Marcil

The Chair

Mr. Roger Charland

Mr. Serge Marcil

Mr. Roger Charland

Mr. Serge Marcil

1920

Mr. Roger Charland

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

The Chair

Mr. Serge Marcil

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. John Harvard

The Chair

1925

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

An hon member

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Serge Marcil

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy

1930

The Chair

Mr. Rodger Cuzner

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Ms. Hélène Scherrer

The Chair

CANADA

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

NUMBER 007

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, June 11, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1530)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.)): I call to order the meeting celebrating sport in Canada, Bill C-54, an act to promote physical activity and sport. This will be our clause-by-clause experience, which will ultimately lead to us presenting this bill to the House of Commons.

I would like to give new members to the committee a short background on this. Three and a half years ago, a number of us came together from all parties and decided to take a file that had been in mothballs for many years--namely, the whole business of sport in Canada, amateur and we even dared to touch professional.

We produced a report that I'd like to remind members was unanimous. All parties supported the report, with the exception of the sport pact, where we were trying to find ways to help the small-market professional teams. As we all know, that went into the trash can.

My purpose in giving this preamble is that we spent a long time listening to a lot of men and women who have put their ideas forward to bring an up-to-date sport bill. I'm hoping we can work today in a non-partisan sense and I hope we can be open to constructive amendments to the bill.

I'd like to introduce Mr. Jean-Michel Roy, the legislative clerk who will be guiding us through this exercise. It's very important that everybody feel comfortable with the exercise.

Perhaps you can begin by giving a little backgrounder, Mr. Roy, on what you want to say to the members.

This will go very fast once we get the foundation in place.

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy (Procedural Clerk): Basically, you will have to start with clause 2. You will have the preamble in clause 1 stand as a procedure, because amendments to the preamble are only made and possible when there are changes in the bill. So amendments to the preamble must reflect amendments to the bill.

(On clause 2--Definition of “Minister”)

The Chair: Okay, there are no suggested amendments, so I would presume that's carried.

The Clerk of the Committee: I beg your pardon, there are in fact two amendments, amendment L-2 and amendment L-4.

Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): We don't want you jumping the gun there, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Well, you're putting pressure on me to go fast, Mr. Keyes, so I'm going from one extreme to the other.

The Clerk: These are numbered by hand, page 6 and page 7.

Because Mr. Keyes is not substituting for someone, he can certainly speak to his amendments, but it'll have to be moved by a member of the committee.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Oh-oh.

The Chair: That's fine. Mr. Cuzner has been here at all the meetings, so he would be happy to work with Mr. Keyes.

Mr. Stan Keyes: And Mr. Harvard, of course, who's been very attentive on all of these issues and my soulmate on the encouragement of physical fitness and sport.

The Chair: Fire away, Mr. Keyes.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Okay, we're going to deal with amendment L-2 first. Is that correct?

The Chair: No, amendment L-3.

Mr. Stan Keyes: All right.

I'm in a bit of a decision-making mode here, Mr. Chairman, and I'm in your hands. I believe I have two separate types of amendments here.

One indicates that Bill C-54, clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 28 through 30 on page 1 with the following:

“Secretary of State (Amateur Sport).”

I have to ask the clerk, has that particular amendment been ruled out of order at all?

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy: No, both amendment L-3 on page 6 and amendment L-4 on page 7 are fine, of course, because they amend the same line. You have to pick one or the other, or, if one is defeated, you can move the second one.

Mr. Stan Keyes: All right.

Can we go to amendment L-4 before amendment L-3, if it's permissible, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Stan Keyes: On amendment L-4, colleagues, we have a choice here. If you read it, it says:

In this Act, “Minister” means the member or members of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada designated by the Governor in Council for the purposes of this Act.

If we're going to remove “or members” so it's very clear the minister means a member of the Queen's Privy Council, it means we're putting the responsibility into the hands of a member of the Privy Council. It means a minister or one individual, as opposed to what is there now. It says “In this Act, “Minister” means the member or members”. We find ourselves with two ministers, Health and Fitness and Amateur Sport, both having the opportunity to do the single identity of physical fitness and amateur sport.

Mr. Chairman, you are aware my intent is to try to get all this kind of activity into one portfolio. This would indicate to everyone concerned that we would like to have one minister, the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport, involved with the issues dealing with physical activities. If we create a ParticipAction program or that kind of thing, there will be one minister responsible for it. It will not be split between two ministers, Health and the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport.

We have a choice. Either we knock out the words “or members” so it's clear there is a member of the Privy Council that is one minister, or we go to amendment L-3, replacing the line with Secretary of State for Amateur Sport. In other words, we specifically say exactly what it is we want.

Why don't we vote on one and see how it turns out on the other, unless someone else has a question.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Absolutely.

Before I go to members, could the men and women who are at the other end as our support please introduce themselves and tell us your responsibilities.

Mr. Farley, would you like to start.

¹ (1535)

[Translation]

Mr. Roger Farley (Director, Legislation and Interdepartmental Coordination, Canadian Heritage): I am Roger Farley, Director General of the Health Products and Food Branch at Health Canada, but I was formerly the Director of Legislation at Sport Canada.

[English]

The Chair: Madam Neill.

Ms. Sue Neill (Director, Sport Legislative Team, Department of Canadian Heritage): My name is Sue Neill. I'm the director of sport policy at Sport Canada. I have assumed the responsibility from Mr. Farley for the legislation project.

[Translation]

Mr. Roger Charland (Legal Counsel, Department of Canadian Heritage): I am Roger Charland, with legal services at Canadian Heritage.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

We'll go to Her Majesty's loyal opposition first, and then Mr. Lanctôt.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Thank you.

I'm assuming we're working on amendment L-4 to start.

Mr. Stan Keyes: It doesn't matter.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: It does and it doesn't.

If you want to designate it as “the member of the Queen's Privy Council”, it makes sure it's in the cabinet and there's a minister responsible.

If we go to amendment L-3, it creates a Secretary of State. I'm not sure if we want to do that. I'm not sure if the present Prime Minister, or even potential future prime ministers, want us creating the role in this way.

I would think we should go for it. Amendment L-4 makes sense. If you go that way, it seems to me, in amendment L-3, it may be a Secretary of State. It could be a minister designated by the Prime Minister, if we want to give that freedom. I'm reluctant to create the role.

So I'd rather go for amendment L-4.

The Chair: Mr. Lanctôt and then Mr. Harvard.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ) Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What appears in amendment L-4, “member of the Queen's Privy Council” is what already appears in the bill. If there is no amendment, it will read the same way.

As concerns amendment L-3, I agree entirely with Stan, except that the problem is that I, as well, would like there to be a department, that there be a minister. A Secretary of State does not have the necessary budget for that. Are we not then shooting ourselves in the foot? I think it has to be a minister. A Secretary of State is not a minister. Could he have the portfolio that Stan and I would like him to have? If we write “Secretary of State”, we won't be able to do what we wish. Therefore, I would have liked to have seen “tend du ministre du Sport”. I know that doesn't exist, but it would be ideal. Otherwise, the amendment is dangerous. Nothing will come of it because a Secretary of State does not have the budget. I agree with you, but we do not have a minister.

[English]

Mr. Stan Keyes: Yes, Mr. Chair, I'm prepared to withdraw amendment L-3, because in fact a secretary of state works under a minister. In this particular case, the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport falls under the Ministry of Health. So I would be defeating my own purpose. I'd be saying still that health and physical fitness would be...

So I will withdraw amendment L-3, please, and stick with L-4, which says we are going to have a member of the Queen's Privy Council of Canada designated for this role.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer (Louis-Hébert, Lib.): This is exactly what's in the amendment.

Mr. Stan Keyes: No, because it says that in this act, “minister” means member or members. That means we can still split responsibilities between ministers.

¹ (1540)

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Harvard and then Hélène.

Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I certainly support Stan's objective in his amendment, and I'm certainly no authority when it comes to legislative drafting, but I really wonder whether his suggested amendment L-4 achieves the objective he is seeking.

If you read it this way, taking out “or members”, it would say that in this act:

“Minister” means the member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada designated by the Governor in Council for the purposes of this Act.

I could read that as giving the Privy Council a choice of more than one minister.

Stan is trying to get away from having more than one minister. I think if you put the amendment the way he does, it doesn't achieve the objective. They still can choose more than one minister for the purposes of this act. That's the way I read it.

Now, the legislative clerk might be able to help me, but I could read it that way.

The Chair: Hélène, then Roger, then we'll go to the people at--

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Why don't we hear right now from them?

Maybe you should tell us now.

The Chair: Okay.

Ms. Neill, did you want to respond to Mr. Harvard's comments?

Ms. Sue Neill: I think I'll refer you to the legal opinion, thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Roger Charland: Regarding the comment, I want to draw the committee's attention to the fact that using the phrase “...member or members of the Queen's Privy Council...” reflects what the bill already says, and this was intended to provide some flexibility to the governor in council concerning the appointment of one or two members of the Queen's Privy Council to act as minister under this legislation.

I will leave it to the law clerk to respond to the committee regarding the scope or legal opinion on the issue of withdrawing “or members”.

[English]

The Chair: Before you respond to that, Monsieur Roy, I want you to remember one thing. I interpret, after listening to all members, what Mr. Keyes is attempting to achieve as an action that will put all pieces of the machinery of government related to physical activity in sport under one person. So that's where this bill must end before we give it back to the House. That means that if it passes, and it passes in the House, then the Privy Council Office will have to make a machinery of government change to put that piece that's in Health over with Sport.

I turn it over to you.

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy: I think I should explain my role, very quickly. I'm not here to give advice in terms of law. To your surprise, perhaps, I'm not a lawyer. My expertise is to advise the committee in terms of parliamentary procedure.

Mr. Stan Keyes: You're in our good books now; you're not a lawyer.

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy: No comment.

The Chair: Hélène, and then Serge.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: I believe we all have the same goal, in fact, to ensure that we have a single department. We all want to make sure that everything concerning physical education and physical activity will now come under sport. However, I believe that everything concerning physical activity in the legislation currently comes under the Minister of Health, and such a decision today would have a major impact. I don't know if we would have to redraft the legislation. In fact, even in the document we are voting on, we are really discussing physical activities that both at the budgetary and decision-making levels come under the Minister of Health. I'm under the impression that that is why we were talking about a minister or ministers.

Secondly, the reason for involving a second minister was precisely to reach the goal of having a Minister of Sports and ensuring, at that point, that he would not report to the Minister of Heritage, because that is who we are now talking about. Therefore, we are talking about having a Minister of Sports also.

The Chair: Mr. Lanctôt.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: It seems as if it is unanimous, and has been for a very long time, whether it is around this table or at some other meetings or conferences; everyone wants a department. We are now trying to achieve that through legal draftsmanship. We are trying to correct the primary objective of this bill, which is to create a department, except that we don't have one.

I find the proposed amendment risky, despite the fact that I would like to see a single minister. The problem is that there is no department today. Therefore, if we designate a minister, would it be Heritage or Health? Do you understand what I am saying? The bill is not drafted in that way. If that is what we want, let's go back and demand a report. Everyone around this table wants a department. Let's write a report rather than a bill that does not suit anyone. What we want is a department. They will tell us in their report that they don't want to create a department.

Why not do that? Instead of drafting a bill, if everyone wants a department, let's write a report saying that we want a department. They will tell the government that they don't want that, and we will have something to say about it, but if they say yes, we will change it and we will draft something that suits everyone. That is what everyone around this table wants.

¹ (1545)

[English]

The Chair: I have to make a short intervention here, because I've had a bit of experience with this issue.

I think Mr. Keyes' “member of the Queen's Privy Council” sensitizes the people in the Privy Council Office, who are responsible for the machinery of government, that all the pieces related to sport, whether it be sponsorship, in public works, or physical activity and health, should essentially come under one person rather than three.

If you say “members”, that gives them the licence to think that it can be in many places, but if you say “a member”, then I think that it sensitizes them to the idea that all those pieces related to sport would be under this minister/secretary of state.

Mr. Cuzner.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, Lib.): I'm just going to echo the sentiments, Mr. Chairman, of those who have already shared this with you. We would love to see the department created as a full ministerial posting. The risk we see in this amendment is exactly what you said, that we could end up with some exclusion. Under secretary of state, if it's not specifically Sport, then do we lose the clout and the access of the health minister? Do we compromise that?

Maybe I should get--

The Chair: No.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: You don't think so? Maybe we should even get the minister for infrastructure if we're looking at major facility development. Do we--

The Chair: Colleagues, I have to make a short intervention.

Mr. Coderre, who championed this file after our report, had a very difficult time in making a linkage with the physical activity side of his mandate because it was parked with a different minister. But if the signal is out there that all this activity comes under a member of the Queen's Privy Council, then it sends a signal to all those pieces that this is the person responsible for physical activity in sport. If you send a signal that many people are responsible, which is what the current bill, unamended, states, then it's just business as usual.

Mr. Marcil.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, we are not in the process of creating a department; we are drafting a bill on physical activity. If we want to create a new department, there will be a bill to that effect, and afterwards, the department will be given certain responsibilities. If the Prime Minister were to decide to set up a Department of Sports, he could always say after the fact that the act to promote physical activity and sport comes under the Minister of Sports, but it is not up to us to do that today. We have to focus strictly on the bill, to create this act, that is to say first of all to draft this legislation.

Secondly, I think the wording of section 2 gives the Privy Council or the Prime Minister the necessary flexibility to create a department, if they so wish. Therefore, I don't believe we should amend it.

Stan, I think you should withdraw your amendment.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Keyes.

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

¹ (1550)

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: May I see the list of people wishing to speak?

The Chair: No, it is a mental list. Robert, you have a lot of time to say what you have to say.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I would like him to finish.

The Chair: He has to move an amendment.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: He should finish. He did not wait to finish saying what he had to say.

[English]

Mr. Stan Keyes: And I can hardly wait to hear that, Mr. Chairman, but I just want to clear up a few things that have been said.

Hélène, for example, says it would make some cause to completely redraft the bill. That's not the case. The bill can stay complete as it is. I've checked with legal and there is no repercussion on the bill if you decide, as a committee, to define “minister”. That's what we're doing; we're defining a minister as a member of the Queen's Privy Council. Now, cabinet can decide whether that minister will be a new minister, a minister of physical activity and sport. They could decide that. Or they could say the minister responsible will be health.

As Marcel has said, they might create a new minister, but if they don't want to create a new minister tomorrow, they can put that on pause. They can still have the Minister of Health be completely responsible for this bill and this file. They can still do that.

What we're trying to do here is change the same old, same old, which is that Health gets to do the stuff on physical fitness and the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport gets to do the sports stuff. Then what happens is you get split budgets and the money isn't always going to physical fitness and amateur sport. It's going over to the sport end and not the physical fitness end. So they play this game of confusing us all.

I'm just saying, we're telling the government that, damn it, we believe strongly, and witnesses who came before us at this committee believe strongly, even the chairman of the committee believes strongly, that we need a minister for fitness, activity, and sport. We're just saying there you go. It says that “minister” means “member of the Queen's Privy Council”, not “member or members”, where we go same old, same old.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Mr. Lanctôt, then Mr. Harvard.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I was nervous about your list. I agree entirely with Mr. Stan. You can even see this in my amendment in the preamble where it states:

whereas the Government of Canada intends to replace the office of the Secretary of State (Amateur Sport) with the office of Minister of Physical Activity and Sport.

Therefore, if that is his intention, that could clarify the situation and bring about what we wish.

I feel, however, that we are going about this the wrong way. We have to do it this way in order to achieve what everyone wants. I'm looking at the members on the government side, and I think that it was up to them to convince the government before this bill was drawn up; you seemed to be in an awful hurry. I believe we are here to create some good sports legislation, but this should have been done beforehand. If we can do so by sidestepping— [Editor's Note: Inaudible] —as a lawyer, I would greatly appreciate it.

[English]

The Chair: We understand.

Mr. Harvard is next, and then we're going to put the amendment.

Mr. John Harvard: I just have one question. If we support Stan's amendment, which I want to do, does it mean the cabinet will have to name one minister and one minister only? Can somebody tell us?

The Chair: Yes, one minister responsible for both issues.

Mr. John Harvard: And that's absolutely clear?

The Chair: That's what it means to me.

Mr. John Harvard: I'm surprised that some expert can't tell us that, though.

The Chair: If somebody wants to intervene and say differently, the lawyers are here, etc. That's what member means: one person, rather than multiple.

Yes, Rodger.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: I think we're just getting hung up on the process here. We agree that we would like to see the minister. We don't want to do anything to compromise that.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: You don't want to tie the government's hands.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: No.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Mr. Chairman, before doing that, to write to cabinet...

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Cuzner.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: While I'm on the point, is there another way to better address it, rather than through the legislation? Would a resolution from the committee not suffice?

The Chair: No. It has to be written. If it's not written in the law, people don't follow it.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Could we solicit an opinion on that?

The Chair: Of course we can.

Mr. Stan Keyes: It's a political decision.

A voice: Is it?

Mr. Stan Keyes: It's not a legal decision; it's political.

The Chair: It's a machinery-of-government decision.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Mr. Chairman, I would like to see you write a letter to cabinet indicating that the Sub-Committee on the Study of Sport in Canada is asking that a department be created.

¹ (1555)

[English]

The Chair: No, it doesn't work that way, Robert. We have a right to accept or reject this amendment. And quite frankly, it does not tie the government's hands in terms of the minister. All it does is sensitize the government that they want one person speaking for both physical activity and sport rather than two.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: When you're crafting legislation like this, you have to draw the balance between giving direction to the government and realizing that the Prime Minister and the government need direction, but they also have to... And you can't say in here, “I designate the following member to be the man in charge”.

The Chair: We're not designating the member.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Exactly. So this is the perfect balance. We're saying we want one person in charge. We're saying, it may be a department down the road you'll want to create, Mr. Prime Minister. It may be a full minister. It may be a secretary of state. It's the right balance. You can't designate more than this. No matter what you write to the Prime Minister, he has to have enough flexibility to create what he wants. If he thinks it's a good political move and a good move for the country, he'll create a full department and give it big bucks. But you can't put that in the bill.

The Chair: We're not.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Exactly. I'm agreeing with Stan. Pass the amendment and it's perfect.

The Chair: Somebody put it. I can't.

Mr. John Harvard: I'll put the question.

The Chair: Then we'll vote on amendment L-4.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 2 as amended agreed to)

Mr. Stan Keyes: We had to break the ice.

(On clause 3—Physical activity policy)

The Chair: This is Mr. Keyes again.

Do you want to take this, Mr. Keyes?

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

I move L-5. By way of explanation, we heard, for example, from the Canadian Association for the Advancement of Women and Sport and Physical Activity, CAAWS, who suggested amendments to the bill, but in subsequent meetings with the Minister of State for Amateur Sport, Minister DeVillers, they agreed not to put these particular amendments forward.

What I did elicit from the group when they appeared, Mr. Chairman, and it seemed favourable to everyone around the table, was if throughout the bill--and the drafter can tell me whether this is correct or not--there is reference to persons but it says “all persons”, this eliminates the need for such amendments from the Canadian Association for the Advancement of Women and Sport that related to poverty, race, national ethnic, origin, colour, religion, sex, etc. In a lot of the bill, as I understand it, it says “all persons“. But where we say Canadians, we're not saying “all Canadians”.

So what I'm attempting to do here, Mr. Chairman, is to move that on this particular line 6 on page 2 we introduce the word “all”. To encourage all Canadians to improve their health. To encourage the reducing of barriers faced by all Canadians. It would be consistent with the rest of the bill to put the word “all” in.

It's really a rather harmless amendment.

The Chair: Comments? Is everyone onside with it?

Somebody has to move it.

Mr. John Harvard: I move it.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

Mr. Stan Keyes: For the next one, L-6, Mr. Chairman, it's the same as the reason I just gave. So L-5 and L-6 are the same. L-7 is a little different.

The Chair: Then we'll vote on L-6

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: So we're onto L-7.

Mr. Stan Keyes: L-7, Mr. Chairman, I may break my good record here.

The Chair: Mr. Keyes, with all due respect, sir, I have to refer to Mr. Roy right now because he wants to make an intervention.

Mr. Stan Keyes: I can't imagine what that would be.

The Chair: And he's not a lawyer, so you'll like him.

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy: Basically, L-7 in terms of procedure is inadmissible because it goes beyond the scope of the bill.

Mr. Stan Keyes: I respect that, Mr. Chairman, and I highly expected that to occur. But you can't blame a guy for trying.

º (1600)

An hon. member: Is it withdrawn?

The Chair: Yes, it is.

An hon. member: It's out of order.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: This is where I jump in with my “in a pig's eye”.

Mr. Stan Keyes: You would have liked what I said, in a pig's eye.

The Chair: Okay, where are we now?

(Clause 3 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 4--Sport policy--principles)

The Chair: We have amendment G-1. Whose amendment is this?

Okay, Rodger.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: I move that Bill C-54, in clause 4, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 14 on page 2 with the following:

ethical standards and values, including doping-

The Chair: We're just changing the word “drug” to “doping”.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: Would you like to speak to that, Mr. Cuzner?

So you just want the one word changed, and on we go.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I wasn't here for all the--

The Chair: This was a recommendation from the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport. We certainly respect their good work.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: So that clause is carried as amended?

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: No.

The Chair: Oh, yes, we have one more. This is the second government amendment, amendment G-2.

Hélène.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: I move that Bill C-54, in clause 4, be amended by replacing line 16 on page 2 with the following:

fairness and respect, the full and fair participation of all persons in sport and the fair, equitable...

This is somewhat in line with what Mr. Keys was saying about the participation of under-represented groups. It is a simple addition, both in the French and English versions.

[English]

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I guess I don't really have a big problem, but “fairness” appears three times in one sentence already. I mean, how fair does this fair maiden have to be? This is fair, and full and fair, and fair and equitable, and damn fair, and fair as the day is long. I don't know how fair--

Mr. Stan Keyes: Don't you want it to be full and fair?

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: I'm not adding any fairer thing.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Well, I don't know. I don't think it adds anything, and it starts to become a political statement as opposed to meaning anything. I express that concern. It's just too damn fair. It's fair, and fair, and fair until the sky--

The Chair: It's redundant.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Well, no, but it's like, we might as well start singing, “Why do the stars keep on shining; why do these eyes of mine cry...”

The Chair: Well, if you would like to...

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I'm speaking against the amendment.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: You have it in English. It's not the same way in French.

The Chair: There's only one.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: There's only one in French. We don't need to say it three times.

The Chair: We have to say it a little more often to remind ourselves.

So does anybody have any problem with the point that Hélène is trying to make in this amendment? I think it's pretty important that we emphasize this commitment to fairness. I don't think it's a big issue.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: No, I don't care. I'd like to add “damn fair” in there, though.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: I would just like to say that the addition is not about the word fair, but about the “full and fair participation”, so that we can ensure that the under-represented groups are clearly mentioned. We have said a lot about the word fair, but the addition I wanted to make deals much more with the “full and fair participation” rather than “fair”.

[English]

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I don't want to say any more. I've said my piece.

The Chair: Then this will carry as--

º (1605)

Mr. Chuck Strahl: On division.

The Chair:That's fine, on division.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: On division.

The Chair: You don't want to be completely fair.

(Amendment agreed to on division)

The Chair: Who has the next amendment?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Is this on clause 4, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: As you know, I wasn't here throughout this. When we have “transparent and timely resolutions of disputes in sport”, do we have amateur sports in here anywhere? Do we need the word “amateur” or is this just in sports?

The Chair: No, the bill defines that it's about amateur sports.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: It defines it. Okay, that's what we're referring to. Otherwise, there was a call on last night's NHL game I'd protest. That's fine, as long as it's clear.

The Chair: You're not going to distract me from getting this bill done clause by clause today.

An hon. member: Can we get clause 4 to carry?

The Chair: Are we agreed?

Some hon. members: No.

The Chair: Well, what are we missing?

Mr. Stan Keyes: We have LL-2 coming up yet.

An hon. member: And LL-3.

The Chair: Okay, we're on to LL-2

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil: Mr. Chairman, given that the preamble will not be voted on until the end, and that the substance, the linguistic duality, will be found in the preamble, I am withdrawing the two amendments that I had proposed.

As far as the first amendment to clause 4 is concerned, I'm quite sure that you will tell me that it goes beyond the scope of the bill.

[English]

The Chair: Go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy: Mr. Marcil, I would like to repeat something. In order to amend the preamble, there have to have been changes made to the bill. Therefore, amendments to the preamble are only in order if they reflect changes made to the bill or if they clarify something that already exists in the preamble.

Therefore, if you do not add certain elements to the bill, they cannot be put into the preamble.

Mr. Serge Marcil: All right. We will see to that later. This appears in my second amendment: it refers to official languages. Therefore, I withdraw my first amendment, LL-2.

[English]

The Chair: Shall clause 4 as amended carry?

(Clause 4 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 5--Objects of Act and mandate of Minister)

The Chair: Excuse me, Serge, quant à LL-3, did you want that withdrawn as well?

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil: Mr. Chairman, in light of Mr. Roy's remarks, if the concept of official languages is not integrated into the bill, then obviously it cannot be included in the preamble because the preamble must reflect the amendments. That is what I understand. That is why the preamble is always voted on at the end of the drafting of a bill.

Amendment LL-3 reads as follows: That Bill C-54, in clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 26 to 30 on page 2 with the following:

5.(1) The Objects of this Act are to encourage, promote and develop physical activity and sport in Canada, and to create an environment conducive to the equitable participation of both official language communities in the Canadian sport system.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the Minister may, with due regard to the powers conferred on the provinces and territories, take any measures that the Minister considers appropriate, and in particular

If this is agreed to, then at that point, we could amend the preamble.

[English]

The Chair: He's reading LL-3.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil: Yes, we are still dealing with clause 4.

[English]

The Chair: Clause 4 passed as amended. We've moved on to clause 5.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil: You are quite right: we are now on clause 5.

Mr. Serge Marcil: Paragraphs 5(a), (b) and (c) of the bill as drafted read as follows:

5. The Objects of this act are to encourage, promote and develop physical activity and sport in Canada. The Minister may take any measures that the Minister considers appropriate to further those Objects, and in particular may

(a) undertake or assist in research or studies in respect of physical activity and sport;

(b) arrange for national and regional conferences in respect of physical activity and sport;

(c) provide for the recognition of achievement in respect to physical activity and sport by the grant or issue of certificates, citations or words of merit;

Mr. Chairman, I absolutely insist on the concept of linguistic duality appearing in the bill. As I have quite rightly been told, we cannot amend the preamble if the concept cannot be found within the body of the bill, so it has to be somewhere. There absolutely must be a clause that speaks to this.

I think we could perhaps include it here.

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy: I just wanted to say that if amendment LL-3 is carried, amendments BQ-2 and L-8 cannot be. A line can only be amended once.

Mr. Serge Marcil: Could you repeat that, please?

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy: If amendment LL-3 is carried, amendments BQ-2 and L-8 cannot be moved.

º (1610)

Mr. Serge Marcil: If we went to amendment BQ-2 as an aside... It's the same thing.

[English]

The Chair: It's the same thing. It's the same amendment. So let's move on.

Hélène, do you want to make a comment on this?

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: I think we should look at Stan's amendment first. If we decide that, and it is in the amendment, then we could decide on adding something else.

[Translation]

If, for example, the fact of ruling amendment LL-3 out of order and...

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy: In order to consider amendment L-8, it should simply be moved as a sub-amendment, to either BQ-2 or to amendment LL-3.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: That's right. And should it be taken into consideration before or after?

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy: The sub-amendment is taken into consideration first, and the amendment follows, if it has been amended.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: So we should study amendment L-8 right away; that's what we are saying.

Mr Jean-Michel Roy: In terms of procedure, you should decide if you prefer amendment LL-3 or amendment BQ-2.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: They are the same.

[English]

Mr. Stan Keyes: Oh, give him one.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy: It is up to you to choose. At that point, you can move a sub-amendment, be it to amendment BQ-2 or to amendment LL-3.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: We will take amendment LL-3.

[English]

Alors, do you want to propose a subamendment?

The Chair: We'll have Mr. Strahl's comment.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: We're on LL-3? We're discussing it?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I don't like it. I don't think it's necessary to put this in. I know this is what the official languages commissioner wanted to have in this, but it does change the purpose of the bill considerably.

The objects and mandate that are quite extensively spelled out here are, I think, the proper mandate for a ministry of sport or for a sports minister to have on his or her plate. In the same way I supported the amendment, for example, to encourage “all Canadians,” because it's an all-encompassing thing, I personally don't want to see that the object of the act and the minister's task is to create an environment conducive to the equitable participation of both official languages.

It may well happen, of course, just as it might happen with “all Canadians”. We're not spelling out “females”. We're not singling out females, for example, as an under-represented group, or handicapped persons, or people with disabilities, or people of ethnic origins, or anything else. This is about sport, not about official languages. I would leave it as is.

“All Canadians” has already been well documented. It's about all Canadians. “All Canadians”, of course, includes people from both official language backgrounds and communities, but it also includes everybody else.

Specifically naming this as one of the roles of the minister is going to take up time, energy, and effort that I don't think should be specifically spent on this. It should be spent on behalf of all Canadians. We'll include both official languages groups, but it shouldn't be specified in this legislation. It's already specified in grand federal policy and legislation.

The Chair: Your comments are noted.

Mr. Farley, would you like to make an intervention before I go to the members?

Mr. John Harvard: Could I just ask a question?

The Chair: Of course, Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard: Out of courtesy to Mr. Farley, I guess what I want to know--because I certainly would support the spirit of the amendment--is whether an amendment like this would connote any kind of quota or target.

[Translation]

Mr. Roger Farley: Thank you for the question. I am not sure if I can answer it, but I would like to say something here. I think it must be understood that this amendment changes the objective of the bill, and as has been mentioned, the objective is to promote physical activity and sport. Therefore, if this amendment is agreed to, it becomes a supplementary objective that is not provided for in the bill. It would therefore clearly change the objective of the bill.

You must also understand that the Official Languages Act is an act of general application and that normally, it is not necessary to refer to legislation that has been passed by Parliament in order for it to be in effect. Therefore, the Official Languages Act has its own mechanisms, its own regulations, and where there are remedies, they are provided for in the Official Languages Act. It is not necessary to refer to legislation passed by Parliament.

Here, we are really discussing the Act to Promote Physical Activity and Sport, and this amendment goes beyond the objective sought.

º (1615)

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Marcil, before I go to you , we'll give Mr. Lanctôt a short intervention, and Mr. Keyes.

[Translation]

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

The Commissioner of Official Languages came and told us that it was truly necessary. You have said yourself that if it is not stated, it is another objective. But this is such an important objective in sport, and this is not the first time. She gave us legislation. Even your minister referred to the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. We also have the Museums Act, the Broadcasting Act, which Mr. Harvard must be quite familiar with and which affects the CBC. Even if the Official Languages Act exists, it is strengthened within these other laws, and the Act to Promote Physical Activity and Sport should provide for this. It must be an objective, because don't forget, of the 16 recommendations made by the Commissioner of Official Languages, none was respected. It gives us some guidelines for what must be done under official languages.

I absolutely agree that it is not there; that is why Serge and I have moved amendments on the subject. It must be part of the legislation.

[English]

The Chair: Hélène.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: I absolutely insist that linguistic duality be mentioned in the act, for the following reason. After attending all the consultations, I know that one of the major problems in all aspects of sports in terms of accessibility, training, access to senior positions, was the issue of language. I can understand that in a bill on endangered species, for example, the stipulation would be included and implemented, because it is simply common practice.

In my view, it is truly a major problem in the sports world and this has been mentioned throughout the francophone community. It must be included in the act. Personally, I would have liked it to be included in the preamble because that would have affected the rest of the act and would have ensured its inclusion. But since it must be written somewhere to correct the preamble, I would not include it in every section, but I would like it to appear in at least one place, so that it can then be included in the preamble. That does not change anything, but in this bill, it really targets the problem of accessibility in the sports world. I think we have to be tough and make sure it appears somewhere in the bill.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Keyes, and then Mr. Marcil.

Mr. Stan Keyes: I'm just drawing on some experience, having done a few bills in the past. I'm quite surprised, and I've asked the researcher to see if he can find wherever it is the official languages gentleman said that, because through my experience on the transport committee, Mr. Chairman, this always came up when we were dealing with the airlines issue, or the marine issue, or any issue. The importance of the Official Languages Act was always--

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Keyes. I want to make sure everybody has the benefit of your wisdom.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Sometimes there has to be discussion, but... What we've done in the past is say that if for some reason it didn't meet the test in the bill the way it was structured, then what happens is the issue of linguistic duality and its importance to the bill is worked into the preamble of the bill--to set the tone, to ensure we're looking at linguistic duality throughout the bill--so that you're not trying to start now piecing out parcels of clauses and lines throughout the bill, trying to make sure you're being inclusive of linguistic duality.

In order to prevent all that from happening, we should probably... And you may not even have to do it here at committee, because it can be troublesome when you're trying to deal with the preamble of a bill, but the government will certainly put forward a motion at, say, report stage in the House of Commons, where we address the issue of linguistic duality so it sets the tone for the entire bill. Otherwise you are going to be here dealing with clauses and lines throughout the whole bill trying to deal with the mechanism.

I have to vote against this, Mr. Chairman. I understand its intent, but I think that intent can be answered with an amendment in the preamble. In this particular case it changes the very essence of the bill, so I can't support it.

º (1620)

The Chair: Mr. Marcil, I'm not avoiding you. I just want to make sure the other members have their views, and then they can respond.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: My every committee meeting with Mr. Keyes is a clinic. I'm a student here, and I hang on every word.

A voice: We all do.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: We all do, I'm sure.

This is one of the ones where I listen to this side and I'm talked into this opinion, and then I listen to that side and I'm talked into that side of it.

Certainly, Chuck, your observation is that the intent of the legislation is about sport, enhancing sport opportunities and activity, and when we get Sport Canada coming on record and not seeing the merit in this or the need for this amendment, not supporting this amendment, that's the sport aspect of it. And I can also understand the Official Languages wanting to support this amendment. But we see both groups of interest.

But then, with my colleagues, it has come out through the testimony that it's almost like an invisible barrier, not having access to official languages. So I'm sort of seeing the same. So I guess my question is, is there a way? If the recommendation is that this particular one compromises it, is there something we can do in the preamble that would satisfy and address those very important concerns?

The Chair: Well, if I understood the...and I stand to hear him directly, he said that unless we amended in the main body, we can't change the preamble. Is that correct?

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy: Exactly.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: There's not enough there in the body now?

The Chair: No.

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy: Do you want me to read just one segment?

The Chair: Yes, you go ahead. That's the service you provide us and we appreciate it.

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy: In the House of Commons Procedure and Practice preamble, it says, “a substantive amendment to the preamble is admissible only if it is rendered necessary by amendments made to the bill.”

The Chair: So that means we have to amend the body in order to alter the preamble.

Now, I'd like to make a comment on this issue before Mr. Lanctôt, and it comes from experience.

From the experience I've been exposed to, the problem exists when high-performance young athletes are working in different regions of our country, and the existing structures, whether they be in Quebec, where it tends to be unilingual francophone, or in Calgary... centres of excellence, it tends to be unilingual anglophone. The problems come in when those young people, who need to have all the support systems around them for their whole-person development, get into a huge feeling of insecurity because we haven't sensitized administrations to the fact that one young person may not understand, or they may only have one of the official languages.

It's up to the leadership of those centres of excellence, those institutions, to realize that they have a responsibility to be sensitive.

It's not, Chuck, in my experience, something that has to do with just young francophones, from whatever part of the country they come from, going to a region where it's mostly anglophone. It also exists in Quebec, where anglophones from downtown Toronto may go into a zone that is mostly francophone and perhaps the administration there isn't as sensitive as it needs to be.

So I think this is a solid, substantive direction that all sport administration leadership be sensitive to the fact that we should provide service in both official languages.

I don't have a vote here but I, personally, think it's very important. I had a kid who played high-performance sport, and he had situations in which he experienced administration in hockey where they were not sensitive to francophone kids. I've also had my son involved in situations where they weren't as sensitive to anglophones.

This, I think, helps clear that up.

º (1625)

Mr. Stan Keyes: Can I add something?

The Chair: Yes, of course you can. This is a solid discussion. It's an important issue.

Mr. Stan Keyes: It's just a point of clarification, Chuck, because maybe we have an answer, if the gentleman agrees. Since we moved the motion about “all Canadians”, and since all Canadians includes both official languages, haven't we in essence indicated that there is a change in the body of the bill that would prompt a change at report stage to say that we must recognize somewhere linguistic duality, because the Keyes amendment said all Canadians? And all Canadians, in my book, means both official languages.

Could that be our out?

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy: On this, I wouldn't reply. I think it's something at the political level, or your interpretation--

Mr. Stan Keyes: No, no, I'm not talking politics. You're saying we can't make a change in the preamble, even at report stage in the House, because we have not changed anything in the bill to prompt that change. I'm saying that when we amended the bill to say “all Canadians”, which means French, English, we in fact have changed the bill. We have made a change that could allow the government to move an amendment at report stage of the bill.

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy: That might be your interpretation, but if you don't use the words “official languages” somewhere in an amendment--

Mr. Stan Keyes: Oh, so you have to use the words “official languages”. So if we were to find a spot and instead of me saying “all Canadians” we said “all Canadians, including those of both official language groups”, we'd be able to make a report stage proposal?

The Chair: Not sure; sorry, Stan.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Oh, great, we can't proceed because we're not sure. We need to have answers to these questions.

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy: It's a little bit hypothetical, as a question. If you referred to official languages in the words, you could change the preamble.

The Chair: Chuck.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: We do have to ask ourselves what is the purpose of this amendment and what is the purpose of the bill. If the purpose of the amendment is to make sure the kid from Chicoutimi can get the same type of help, care, and support as a person from Calgary, or vice versa, this is still the wrong language, in my books. The right language, if you want to put this in as a mandate, is to throw in after “to create an environment conducive to the equitable participation of all Canadians in the sport system”...

The Chair: Excuse me, Stan. Chuck's trying to make a point.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I'm not in a hurry or anything.

If the objective of this amendment is to create an environment conducive to the equitable participation of all Canadians in the sport system, then that's what it should say. Maybe I'm wrong on this, but the Official Languages Act is an all-encompassing piece of legislation that covers everything the federal government's involved in.

To use your example, Dennis, the problem occurs when somebody from Abbotsford whose last name is Dhaliwal--and there are how many thousand recent immigrants--goes to an elite sports camp. He or she may be concerned about language, but also may be concerned about the type of food. They have a certain cultural thing. You can't plunk them down in front of a plate of Italian pasta and tell them to have a good day.

The Chair: But with all due respect, Chuck, the two official languages are the law of the land.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: But it's already covered under the law of the land, Dennis. The Official Languages Act covers the way the federal government does business. What you're trying to do, I think, with this bill is to create an environment conducive to the equitable participation of all Canadians in the sport system. Hey, if the food's a problem for the kid and he's an elite athlete, you're going to look after that, as you will with the language issue.

What I am protesting here is that after we say the bill is about creating the sport environment, and things conducive, and the ministry, and all that in detail, we say, oh, by the way, it's also about creating an atmosphere for the two official languages to be promoted and thrive. That's not what the bill's about, in my books. The bill is about all the things in here; it's not about creating the atmosphere to promote official languages.

That already exists under the Official Languages Act. We don't have to identify it, nor should we identify it. As soon as you do that.... You know I've made the point many times that it may make perfect sense here in Ottawa, but it doesn't make a lick of sense to my folks back home, or to many other people. The guy back home says, “I love the idea of creating this environment conducive to my participation, but why have you not put me into the bill? I'm neither of the official languages, so I protest.”

We have to create an environment conducive to the participation of all Canadians. That is a good, pervasive, overarching objective. The Official Languages Act already covers it. It doesn't need to be mentioned in here, nor should it be.

º (1630)

The Chair: Okay, that's your point of view. We appreciate that and it's duly noted.

Serge has been waiting, and then we'll go to John.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil: I asked the same question. I also had some reservations. I said at the outset that we had the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that we had the Official Languages Act and that these should always be used as references. However, in several Canadian laws, reference is made to the Official Languages Act, even if the legislation exists. I work on the principle that you can't be too careful.

If we accept Canadian duality, if we really accept it—and it is even enshrined in the Constitution—what is the problem with adding it? In fact, I would be satisfied with including it solely in the preamble, but I cannot amend the preamble if the text of the act is not changed. So I insist that the text of the act be changed because I want it to appear in the preamble, for Canada's anglophones and francophones. There are two founding peoples in this country: that has been recognized. There should be no shame in recognizing it in a preamble as well.

This is as much for young anglophones from western Canada who come to Quebec to attend a swimming or volleyball training camp and who are entitled to feel comfortable, to get instructions in their language and access to services in their language as it is for francophones who are entitled to the same services.

So I want it to be included in the legislation, in one section. I have other amendments and I will withdraw all of them. I first want to be assured that it is in the preamble, but that isn't possible if it is not included elsewhere. So that is why... Who does it hurt?

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Neill, did you have a comment?

Ms. Sue Neill: Yes. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you for your patience in waiting.

Ms. Sue Neill: I realize that the discussion is on the legislation. I would, however, like to refer members to the Canadian sport policy, which was approved unanimously in April by 14 governments: the federal government and all of the provinces and territories. I think it very clearly demonstrates the will of governments to address the issue of official languages in Canada.

For example, there is a recognition of linguistic barriers for francophones in the sport system. One of the principles is that the system be accessible to all, regardless of language, for one. In the rules and responsibilities within the sport system, it indicates that the role of national sport organizations is to provide services in both official languages. With regard to the role of the federal government, it indicates that it is to ensure that athletes have access to services in both languages.

Finally, with regard to the goal of enhanced excellence, it says that governments will increase the number of coaches who work in French and English and also that the government will ensure accessibility to services in both French and English.

So I think that very clearly demonstrates the will of governments to address this issue in Canada.

The Chair: That was a good backgrounder. Thank you.

Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I listened closely to what you said, and I think you made a good contribution to this debate, Mr. Chairman. If I thought for a moment that this particular amendment was about ambience, about the two official language groups feeling comfortable and at home in their training facilities, I would support the amendment with alacrity.

But I think this particular amendment goes far beyond that. I think the operative words are “equitable participation of both official language communities”. I think that if we adopt this particular amendment, we might be putting the government, or at least the minister, in some kind of straitjacket. To me those words connote numbers, money, and other things well beyond what you talk about, which I agree with, and that is ambience, feeling at home, and feeling comfortable.

I think this kind of amendment would put this bill in conflict with the Official Languages Act. As much as I understand what Mr. Marcil and Madame Scherrer are trying to say, I don't think I can support it. I think it takes us down the wrong road.

º (1635)

The Chair: Thank you for your comments.

Mr. Cuzner.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: If I can just ask a question through you, Mr. Chair, to the legislative clerk, subclause 9(5) says “The Centre shall offer its services to, and communicate with, the public in both official languages of Canada.” Isn't that enough in the body of the legislation to allow for some type of reference in the preamble?

The Chair: For the information of all members, it's subclause 9(5) that mentions both official languages.

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy: That's amendment LL-6.

An hon. member: There you go. It says “in both official languages of Canada”. It's right there.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Chairman, that's my point. At the centre we're going to offer services in both official languages. It's very clear. No one would dispute that. I think that's the perfect use when talking about the official languages of Canada.

It's different from the purpose of the bill. The object of the bill--

The Chair: You've made that point.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Does that not give us an opportunity to make reference to some aspect of linguistic duality in the preamble?

The Chair: Seeing as it's already in the body of the bill.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Yes.

Mr. Stan Keyes: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Again, reaching back into my experience, I find it's unfair to ask the gentleman for a reply because in truth, while it may meet the criteria superficially in our minds--maybe not in his, but in ours--the ultimate decision will rest with the Speaker of the House. He will decide whether or not this damn thing is admissible, that is, if a report stage amendment is admissible or not. Someone can give us advice, but he can't really speak on behalf of the Speaker.

We're saying that we can make a case with the Speaker that if it is in the bill, if the government says we should have a preamble that makes reference to official languages, if the government and the opposition agree to it, and if everybody's happy with it, then I'm sure the Speaker can be convinced that it should be there.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Mr. Chairman, the clerk's experience must nonetheless be taken into account, and we must go ahead because if it is only in the preamble, it might get rejected. Include it wherever you wish, but it must be possible to include it in the preamble. Let's not run the risk of including it only in the preamble and then have the Speaker reject it and end up with nothing. We must at least get an amendment; that is what the clerk said. Let's change the bill so that it is in the act and let's include it in the preamble, because if we include it in the preamble and the Speaker says that that is not the standard procedure, we will end up with nothing, not even in the preamble. It is important that this be included. We mustn't take any chances.

[English]

The Chair: Colleagues, this is a very tricky point, and I'll tell you why. Subclause 9(5) begins with “The Centre”. In other words, the official languages only apply to the centre, whereas LL-3 applies to the entire sport system. All I'm saying is that we cannot rely on subclause 9(5) as the basis for amending the preamble, because--

º (1640)

Mr. Stan Keyes: Is that here or in the House?

The Chair: No, because here it's only the centre. It's that the official languages stipulation only applies to the centre, not the whole--

Mr. Stan Keyes: Yes, the whole system.

Mr. Chairman, I just got some advice that says because clause 9 refers to official languages, then we here at this committee can at the end of the road change something in the preamble on official languages if we want to.

Let's ask them. We have our officials fighting with each other for a change.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chair: This is very important, so we'll take the time to get it right.

Please make your intervention, Mr. Méla.

Mr. Philippe Méla (Procedural Clerk): First, I'm a legislative clerk as well.

The Chair: Yes, for the heritage committee.

Mr. Philippe Méla: If I understand your question, Mr. Keyes, you are asking what will happen if you adopt LL-6 on page 31. If you adopt this amendment, that will be sufficient grounds to amend the preamble later on.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Now we have our answer. We can change the preamble, which means we can put whatever we want in the preamble on official languages, and it doesn't have to refer just to the centre. This amendment does, but we can work on a draft for the preamble.

The Chair: Mr. Marcil, would you be satisfied with that, then? What is your position now, Mr. Marcil, on your clause?

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil: Mr. Chairman, I am not a lawyer, except that when there is talk about the centre, it is part of the bill. We do not have two bills. There is a bill dealing with physical activity and the creation of an organization where there is reference to linguistic duality. It is in the same text, the same bill. So if it were part of the same bill, we should be able to integrate it into the preamble as well, if I understand correctly.

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy: If there is a substantive change to the wording of the legislation, you must table an amendment.

Mr. Serge Marcil: Just a minute. It is not a question of tabling an amendment. Right now, the preamble does not refer to linguistic duality, but in the bill before us, when there is any mention of creating the centre, there is reference to linguistic duality and official languages. There is already reference to that effect in the bill. I know a centre is to be created, but it is still in the same act; there aren't two separate acts. If a centre is created under section 9 and there is reference to official languages, it is also possible to refer to linguistic duality in the preamble.

The preamble is to be changed because we want it to reflect to the spirit of the act.

The Chair: Just a moment, please.

Mr. Roy.

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy: I said that it was clearly indicated in the House of Commons Procedure and Practice:

...a substantive amendment to the preamble is admissible only if it becomes necessary through the passing of amendments to a bill.

That it what it says. It is then up to the Speaker to accept the notice or not, and then up to the committee to decide.

[English]

The Chair: Stan, the point is that on page 31 of the amendments, LL-6...

[Translation]

You have the amendment to page 31.

[English]

When that amendment is passed, that lays the groundwork for the preamble to be altered.

º (1645)

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the floor, please.

The Chair: Just a moment, please, Mr. Lanctôt.

Mr. Serge Marcil: Mr. Chairman, if we could amend the preamble in such a way as to include linguistic duality, I would be in agreement. Do you understand?

The Chair: Exactly.

Mr. Serge Marcil: That means we will amend it. I must point out that this is a bill that must be passed, but if the Speaker ever refuses the amendment to the preamble, I would vote against it. I would have no other choice.

The Chair: I would too.

Mr. Lanctôt.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Mr. Chairman, may I present another viewpoint? Amendment LL-6 amends section 9. Section 9 does not deal with the substance of the legislation; it is still the centre. I want to see an amendment to sections preceding section 9, which is part of the body of the legislation. Even by adopting amendment LL-6, the substance of the act is not changed; the substance involving the centre is modified. Let's ensure amendment LL-3 is adopted so that we can include something in the preamble.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Lanctôt, the officials have said that if LL-6 passes, then that provides sufficient force to amend the preamble. That's what they've said.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Did you also say yes?

[English]

The Chair: So we'll put the question and do these next three very quickly.

The Clerk: Excuse me, but if this one is going to get in at all, it should be moved as a subamendment--

The Chair: You're referring to 17?

The Clerk: No, excuse me--

An hon. member: Is Mr. Marcil going to withdraw that amendment, then?

The Chair: Or we defeat it, one or the other.

Would you like to withdraw your amendment, Mr. Marcil?

Mr. Serge Marcil: Oui.

(Amendment withdrawn)

The Chair: Then we have to go to Mr. Lanctôt's, which is the same, and I suppose we're going to have to have a vote.

This is page 16, BQ-2.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Chairman, the passage of this amendment means I'm going to oppose the bill here and in the House as vigorously as I can.

The Chair: No, because this will be an amendment in the House and you can still support the bill. You have your choice on this amendment.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Fine, but the idea of the bill quickly going through the House later on is a non-starter. I'm going to do what I can to stop this bill, now this is passed--just so we're clear.

The Chair: Well, Mr. Strahl, your party has the right to do whatever you want, and you would know that I would hardly differ with you on that. But I think it's important that you understand that if the Bloc Québécois put forward this amendment and it passed, this goes to the full House and the full House will decide whether or not this amendment carries.

º (1650)

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Absolutely. I'm just saying that the idea of bringing this in on Friday and passing it, which is what I'd hoped was going to happen, is not going to happen.

The Chair: Mr. Strahl, if I understand you correctly, do you mean for somebody winning an amendment in committee you'd frustrate the process of the whole bill?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Did you listen to Mr. Farley's point? The passage of this amendment changes entirely the meaning of the bill.

Mr. John Harvard: So why is it in order then?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: It may be in order, but it goes from a sports bill to something else. I'm just telling you, this is a substantive amendment here. This is not just about the linguistic duality that I'd hoped to include in the preamble. It's a change entirely of the purpose of the bill, and having done that, you go from an all-party unanimous support--let's get this through on Friday afternoon and communicate that to the House leader--to let's put a full-court press on to express our dissatisfaction.

And that's just a shame. I'm just pointing out that it's too bad.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Marcil, did you want to say something?

Mr. Serge Marcil: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

I withdrew my amendment earlier because I was guaranteed that the preamble would be amended. So I am ready to change my vote and to vote against the amendment.

[English]

Mr. Stan Keyes: Because it makes no sense. Why would he support a Bloc amendment if it was the same thing--

The Chair: Excuse me, colleagues, it's not up to me to tell a member of Parliament how to vote.

Now, if Mr. Marcil—

Mr. Stan Keyes: —was confused.

The Chair: —was confused, then we've always operated in a constructive way in this House. If he'd like to have his vote consistent with where he withdrew his own amendment, and vote consistently with his withdrawal, then we have every right to do that in the committee.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Yes, but we have already voted. He withdrew it and it passed. We voted four against three. You cannot withdraw..

[English]

The Chair: But he made a mistake.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I have a point of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: You prefer to have support from the Alliance for something that we will not have. I will vote against it, of course, if we don't have the substantive amendment.

[English]

The Chair: Robert.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Serge, I do not follow you.

We had a vote on the Bloc Québécois' amendment. The clerk held the vote, and the result was four against three. Now he says he will vote against it.

[English]

The Chair: The chair recognizes Chuck on a point of order.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: There is nothing improper here. We have not yet passed the clause as amended.

If Mr. Marcil does not want to pass it, he can now vote against it as amended. The amendment passed. He can vote against his own last vote and defeat it at this time.

There's nothing improper, Mr. Lanctôt. You can just do that.

The Chair: I am in total agreement.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: There's nothing improper here. You don't have to blow a gasket.

The Chair: No, exactly, and Robert, to be very candid with you, members have the right and no one is perfect... If Mr. Marcil withdrew his amendment, it's totally consistent that he wouldn't support the same amendment.

Monsieur Marcil withdrew LL-3. It's the same amendment as yours. Didn't you find it confusing?

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: No, because Serge withdrew the first and the second wasn't confusing at all. Mr. MacKay, Ms. Scherrer, Serge and I raised our hand and...

[English]

The Chair: Okay, here's the ruling. We're going to vote on the clause as amended, either for it or against it.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Then I guess in the interests of making this work smoothly, I can't move my clause 5 amendment, can I?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: You could after we defeat--

Mr. John Harvard: Usually at committee meetings we adhere to the chairman's rulings, unless we want to challenge.

I heard you make a ruling that Mr. Marcil was confused and that by not supporting Mr. Lanctôt's amendment he was consistent with the withdrawal of his amendment.

That's your ruling. I support it. If we support your ruling, then that's the end of the debate.

º (1655)

The Chair: To have support for my ruling, I'm in the hands of the members.

Mr. John Harvard: I'll support your ruling.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil: Mr. Chaiman, I withdrew my amendment, and you immediately called for the vote on another amendment. I made a mistake and I admit it. I therefore ask that you consider that my vote was against the amendment and not for it. It would not make sense for me to withdraw my amendment and to vote in favour of the same amendment. So I made a mistake.

[English]

The Chair: I call the question again. All those in favour of Mr. Lanctôt's amendment?

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the clerk for his opinion. A vote was taken. Can you go back on it like that? I am asking him his opinion. It is his job.

[English]

The Clerk: One would only revert and do it again if there was unanimous consent of the committee.

Mr. Stan Keyes: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Perhaps you can clarify this for me, Mr. Clerk. Can a challenge be issued, and then a vote has to be on a challenge, which would give the opportunity for the committee to vote again on the amendment? In other words, if you challenge the chair, there has to be a vote, and if that vote is won, then the chair has to revert back to the vote.

The Clerk: In this case it's not a ruling by the chair. There was a division in committee. I counted hands and I came up with four and three.

Mr. John Harvard: I want a recorded vote, then.

The Clerk: It's been disposed of. The committee has disposed of the question.

The Chair: Okay. Quite frankly, I've been on enough committees to know that we do not have the support of Mr. Lanctôt, who has every right to not give unanimous support.

So we now vote on the clause as amended, and we're going to do it--

The Clerk: I beg your pardon, sir, but there's still BQ-3.

The Chair: Yes, we'll go to BQ-3.

Mr. John Harvard: Mr. Chairman, to ultimately defeat the amendment of Mr. Lanctôt, which apparently has been accepted, is the only way we can now defeat it to defeat the entire clause?

The Chair: You got it.

Mr. John Harvard: Okay. That's what we'll do then.

The Chair: Yes. The only way is to defeat the clause as amended.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman, just so we understand.

What if we just want to defeat it as amended so far; what if there are other amendments coming that we might like? Do we have to defeat all the amendments?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: They all have to be defeated.

The Chair: That's right.

On amendment BQ-3, go ahead, Mr. Lanctôt, you're up.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: It is amendment BQ-3.

[English]

The Chair: Oui. It's on page 18.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I move that clause 5 be amended by replacing line 22 on page 3 with the following:

i) with due regard to the powers conferred on the provinces and territories, provide for the training of coaches and

It falls under...

[English]

The Chair: Are there any comments on this?

Yes, Mr. Charland.

Mr. Roger Charland: I'd like to point out, in its deliberations, the committee should keep in mind that the respect of provincial and federal competence is based on section 91 and section 92 of the Constitution. I think they outline the framework. It's very clear. Every law of Parliament has to respect them.

If you start making reference to particular instances, and use words such as “with due regard to the powers conferred on the provinces and the territories”, it starts sending a message.

What does it mean for cases where these types of words aren't found? Does it suddenly mean Parliament intends the government to act without taking into consideration the jurisdiction?

The Chair: Did you hear that, Mr. Lanctôt?

» (1700)

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: No, I was speaking with people behind me.

Mr. Roger Charland: I just wanted to draw the committee's attention to the fact that generally speaking, the Canadian Constitution already describes the areas that are of provincial and federal jurisdiction. The Secretary of State, during her presentation, had said that it goes without saying that the government abides by the Constitution. I believe that every bill is based on the premise of respect for areas of jurisdiction under the Constitution. I would like to draw the committee's attention to the fact that in other laws, you will not find the words that are suggested and that that could give the opposite impression. If, in other laws, it does not say “with due regard to the powers conferred on the provinces and territories”, by using those words, would we not suddenly be sending the message that Parliament does not have to abide by the Constitution? So there is a certain danger in using those types of terms, not only for this act, but also for all other acts that have been passed and could be passed by Parliament.

[English]

The Chair: No other comments on BQ-3? All right.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: We now go to amendment BQ-4.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: It is the same type of argument. It is specific. Earlier on we were talking about training and now we are talking about bursaries, which are obviously of provincial jurisdiction. I would therefore like to add:

j) with due regard to the powers conferred on the provinces and territories, provide bursaries or fellowships to assist

It is the same type of argument as the previous one. To respond to what the gentleman was saying, I would say that I do not put it everywhere, only where it is clear that there is direct infringement on areas of provincial and territorial jurisdiction. The argument applies for paragraphs i) and j).

[English]

The Chair: I will put the question on BQ-4.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Mr. Keyes, you have three amendments in a row here.

Mr. Stan Keyes: On what, clause 5?

The Chair: Yes, clause 5.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Mr. Chairman, due to the fact that I'm not very comfortable that clause 5 is going to pass, I withdraw them all.

The Chair: Okay.

We will now put clause 5 as amended.

(Clause 5 as amended negatived)

Mr. Stan Keyes: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Keyes.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Mr. Chair, I would like to ask our clerk or the deputy clerk a question.

Now that clause 5 has been defeated, I'm rather disturbed by that, because it was just about the only reference we had in the bloody bill to the development of physical activity in sport. Can clause 5 be reintroduced at report stage in the House of Commons by the government?

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy: I can't anticipate any decision from the Speaker, but it happens regularly that a clause is reinstated in its original format.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Thank you. I feel a lot better about that.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil: I would like to have a clarification. If an amended clause is rejected, don't you go back to the main clause?

[English]

Mr. Stan Keyes: No, we'll bring it back at report stage in the House.

The Chair: Monsieur Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I would like a clarification. We were told Mr. Stan Keyes could not vote because he was not part of the subcommittee. Does this apply solely to his right to vote? Does he have the right to table amendments?

[English]

The Chair: He has not been presenting amendments. They were presented by Mr. Harvard. Any member of Parliament has a right to be present at any committee in the House of Commons, but they may not necessarily have a right to vote if they're not a formal member.

Mr. John Harvard: Mr. Chairman, we simply rejected clause 5 as amended.

The Chair: That is correct.

Mr. John Harvard: Now, have we supported the clause, then, as originally drafted?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. John Harvard: And that has been duly moved?

» (1705)

The Chair: Well, no, it's about to be duly moved.

The Clerk: No, it's closed.

The Chair: The whole... even the original?

Mr. Stan Keyes: That's why we're bringing it back at report stage.

The Chair: Okay, fair enough.

(On clause 6--Financial assistance)

The Chair: I'd like Mr. Charland to speak to this clause. The officials want to give a little backgrounder on this.

Mr. Roger Charland: Once again, I'd like to bring to the attention of the committee that the intention of the government in clause 6 was to enable the minister to provide financial assistance to various persons or organizations in the promotion, the encouragement, and the development of sports and physical activity. The “may” used in clause 6 is an empowering “may”.

I would also like to bring to the attention of the committee the use of “shall” in this particular instance. You may want to talk amongst yourselves about the impact of it. It would create an obligation on the minister to provide financial assistance. In this particular case it could arguably create a problem in a sense that this obligation would speak to what; would it grant financial assistance to anyone, to whomever sends a request to the minister?

That's why the intention of the government in its current legislative drafting policy and style is to use “may” in these instances, to empower the minister in situations where a “shall” wouldn't necessarily be appropriate.

The Chair: Before I go to Mr. Strahl, you wrote this amendment, Mr. Keyes. Do you want to say a few words about it?

Mr. John Harvard: Well, let's have it duly moved first. I'm not in favour of this amendment, so I won't move it.

The Chair: I'll move it just for discussion.

Mr. Stan Keyes: No, you don't have to, because I just listened to the legal advice, and quite frankly, the problem here is, the line says:

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

As indicated by legal counsel, if the minister has to—and that's what it is, he has—to provide financial assistance in the form of grants and contributions to any person, well, then we have a problem. So I withdraw that.

The Chair: I love your sense of cooperation. Eventually we're going to make you a full member of this committee. You're so cooperative.

We're going to amendment LL-4.

You are withdrawing it, Serge? Okay.

Next is BQ-5.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Given the recommendations and testimony from the Official Languages Commissioner, once again, I must say that it is very dangerous to think that the preamble could be amended if we don't make a substantive amendment. We are still studying the substance of the bill. I must say that those who absolutely want to include something in the preamble must not run any risk. Here is the amendment I suggest:

the Minister may, with due regard to the powers conferred on the provinces and territories and in accordance with parts IV and VII of the Official Languages Act, provide financial assistance in the form

This amendment had in fact been moved by the Official Languages Commissioner.

[English]

The Chair: Are there any comments?

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: That's everything on that clause.

An hon. member: What happened to LL-4?

The Chair: LL-4 was withdrawn by Marcil.

(Clause 6 agreed to)

(On clause 7--Contribution agreements)

The Chair: Mr. Keyes, we're on clause 7.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Oh, yes, I have something on clause 7. We're on clause 7 already.

The Chair: I am so excited about your commitment to this very important issue.

» (1710)

Mr. Stan Keyes: Why, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm collecting my thoughts on what the argument was on this thing, but as I recall, Mr. Chairman, my argument was put on clause 7 on the heels of a witness, because we were hinging payments to encourage physical activity.

Why should we be hinging the “payment of contributions in respect of costs” to the provinces and the territories? I mean, if the federal government should deem that it wants to give some money for physical activity, as with ParticipAction, and it wants to go it alone, why say “may enter into an agreement” with the provinces or territories”?

I'm suggesting that we insert, after “may enter into an agreement any province or territory”, the words, “including but not limited to” those provided for payment of contributions in respect of the costs.

The Chair: Would somebody like to move that?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: But that's not what your amendment says.

Mr. Stan Keyes: That's what it says: “programs including...”. Oh, I'm sorry, it's after the word “programs”, not after “territory”.

I'm sorry; it's after the word “programs”, one line down.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay.

The Chair: Hold it, Chuck. Just before we respond to it, let's have Mr. Farley intervene here.

[Translation]

Mr. Roger Farley: I would like to explain the intent of that section. It refers to the purpose of the act, which is to encourage, to promote and to foster physical activity and sport. If the amendment were passed, we would be going beyond the objective of the act. It is not part of this act's mandate.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, somebody has to move it first. Will somebody move it so we can discuss it?

Mr. John Harvard: I so move.

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Harvard has moved it.

Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I agree with the official's analysis of this. Again, the bill is about encouraging physical activity in sport. We want this minister's hands tied a tad. My worry is if you just say you can transfer payment to include, but not be limited to, physical activity in sport, you're going to have another boon-doggle on your hands. Not to abuse the word, but you're going to end up with a minister saying, “Well, I'm about sport and physical activity, but if you want money to put up a flagpole for cultural activities, I'm there for you”, because it's not limited to.... If you pass this amendment, it's not limited to those programs designed to encourage and promote physical activity and sports.

I think you want to limit this minister's ability to funnel money into oddball projects by keeping it on physical activity and sports. This expands it, and you're going to have money spent on anything the minister deems necessary or appropriate or falling under his best-dreams scenario, but it won't be about physical activity, necessarily.

So I think we want to tie the minister to spending it on the right things.

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Charland.

Mr. Roger Charland: Just to complete what Mr. Farley indicated about the government's intention in drafting clause 7, subclauses 7(1) and 7(2) have to be read together, in the sense that subclause 7(1) addresses the scenario where we're talking about payment of contributions in respect of costs incurred in undertaking programs designed to encourage and promote sport, and subclause 7(2) deals with agreements respecting the implementation of the Government of Canada's policy regarding sport.

So clause 7 as a whole is... one of the comments that was made by Mr. Keyes is that there are subsections 7(1) and 7(2).

I would also have to point out that the use of the word “including” usually then signals that there could be something other, but the purpose of this act is to encourage, promote, and develop sport, and the intention of the government, again, was to enable the minister to enter into agreements in furthering these objectives.

Mr. Stan Keyes: I withdraw, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Harvard withdraws.

The Chair: We all work together. We're a team.

Mr. Stan Keyes: We're interchangeable. He's much better looking than I am.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I'm not a grand linguist, but in subclause 7(1), the last two words are “or sport” in English, but in the French it says “et le sport”, which is “and” sport. So is it “or” sport or “and” sport?

Am I wrong or right?

» (1715)

Mr. Roger Charland: You're wrong.

Mr. Stan Keyes: But it says in English, “activity or sport”, and in French, it says “et le sport”.

A voice: You're right.

The Chair: Roger, would you talk to that?

Mr. Roger Charland: The intention of the government, Mr. Chair, was to ensure that the wording used in clause 7 would allow the minister to enter into an agreement that would develop, promote, or encourage physical activity, or enter into programs or agreements designed to implement, promote, or develop sport, and the use of “or” in English is to flag that, so that the minister is not tied into entering into an agreement that deals with both at the same time.

The use of “et” in French is, in this particular context, a disjunctive. It is an “et” that has to be read as “or”, not an “et” that is read as “and”.

The Chair: Are you withdrawing that as well?

Mr. Stan Keyes: I didn't move it. I just made a point of order on it.

Mr. John Harvard: Are you withdrawing amendment L-14 then?

Mr. Stan Keyes: Yes, 13 and 14 are....

The Chair: Okay. That's good.

So now we go to Mr. Marcil.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil: I withdraw them, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: You wish to withdraw? Okay.

Mr. Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: It is always the same thing. We will request a vote.

[English]

The Chair: We'll put the question.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 7 agreed to )

(On clause 8--International agreements)

The Chair: Mr. Keyes.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Yes, sir. I'm on line 20.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: I moved it.

Mr. Stan Keyes: For greater clarity, we're inserting the words “physical activity and”. So we're saying “to encourage, promote and develop physical activity and sport”.

Mr. John Harvard: Is there any problem adding the two words “physical activity”?

Ms. Sue Neill: Our colleagues from Health say no, there's no problem with that.

The Chair: Okay, I'll put the question.

(Amendment agreed to)

Mr. Stan Keyes: Mr. Chair, I have made a serious, grievous error. We've already voted. I can't do anything about it, but I'll have to move my amendment L-14 afterward to be consistent.

The Chair: It's all we have for clause 8.

(Clause 8 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 9--Centre established)

The Chair: Monsieur Marcil.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil: I withdraw it, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: No. It is amendment LL-6, clause 9.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil: No, I do not withdraw it. I apologize.

The Chair: Mr. Marcil, excuse me. Do you wish to have the floor?

[English]

Okay, let's go. We're putting the question.

Mr. Farley, did you want to make a comment before I put the question?

Mr. Roger Farley: What I want to do is explain the intent of the government for the benefit of the members.

[Translation]

It was suggested that a centre be built following the recommendation made by the sports community. A report had been submitted to the Secretary of State and to the Heritage Department, saying that the centre should not be a federal institution. That was the sports community's intention.

When this section was drafted, it was clear that the centre should not be a federal institution, basically because the problem it had to resolve was fairly small. The problem is major to the sports community but remains nonetheless fairly minor. So in the public interest, in the interest of the sports community and in the interest of Canadians, it was best to create a federal institution, so a fairly large one, to solve a small problem.

So the government intended to solve the problem, but without creating an organization that was too big given the size of the problem in question.

» (1720)

[English]

The Chair: I will put the question. Those in favour?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Just a minute.

The Chair: Do you want to comment?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I'm not really sure what the difference is. I'm happy to support this, I think. I don't really know what the difference is.

My fear is probably that some folks out there will say this turns the objective of the clause, to make sure we do provide the services and communicate in both official languages, into one where people are looking over their shoulders wondering if they've crossed the t's and dotted the i's.

What if the official languages commissioner comes and kicks my shins in next week?

The Chair: What's wrong with that?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I don't know what's wrong with it. I'm saying the objective is not this. I'm not sure if it handcuffs anyone or makes it more expensive to run the outfit.

Is there an explanation?

The Chair: Mr. Cuzner.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: It is restrictive. We won't be supporting this, Mr. Chairman.

In fact, in instances like hiring people with expertise, under the official languages, they would have to be bilingual employees of the centre. If there was a particular person with expertise in an area, who was from Atlantic Canada and wasn't bilingual, this would be restricting the opportunity to hire the person.

Clearly, the centres identify that all communication and services have to be offered in both official languages. We believe it is covered through that.

The Chair: Are there other comments on this?

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: The problem I raised earlier was exactly that. I knew no one wanted a federal institution, and you said that there was the Official Languages Act. Now a government member says he will vote against it. The amendment will not be passed. Fortunately, there is the one from the Bloc Québécois, and I hope you will vote in favour of this amendment.

You see, Serge, your government will vote against your amendment. We won't be able to have it in the preamble, but they don't want it there for a different reason. I was aware of that.

[English]

The Chair: We'd better talk about this.

Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard: Mr. Chairman, I think there has been a consensus that there has to be some kind of reference in the preamble.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Lanctôt, listen to what Mr. Harvard is saying. It is very important.

[English]

Mr. John Harvard: I think we've pretty much made a promise to Mr. Marcil and others that we want a change in the preamble. The way to do it is to amend clause 9.

I think we can have it both ways. We can support the amendment. It then gives us a chance to make a reference to official languages in the preamble. At report stage, the government can turn around and reject the amendment.

I think we can have it both ways. On those grounds, I will support the amendment.

The Chair: Okay. I am going to put the question.

(Amendment agreed to on division)

The Chair: We don't need amendment BQ-7.

Do you want to withdraw it, Robert?

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: It has been moved.

The Chair: It has been moved. Okay.

Yes, Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: The bells that are ringing mean what?

» (1725)

The Chair: We have a vote in about six minutes. Do you want to suspend and come back?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Okay. We only have a few amendments for when we return. We'll suspend until after the vote.

» (1725)

¼ (1810)

The Chair: Shall clause 9 as amended carry?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: How was it amended?

The Chair: You didn't support it. It was amended with Serge's amendment.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil: I would like to ask a question, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Serge Marcil: Mr. Farley, earlier on you spoke about the committee's independence. Will the centre this committee wants to create by law become an independent, autonomous centre? Is it an independent centre or does it really come under federal jurisdiction?

Mr. Roger Farley: Based on the report table by the sports community to settle the disagreements in the sports sector, the government's intention was to create a centre that was independent of government. So a centre created by an act of Parliament, but at arms length from the government. Although there are major differences of opinion in the sports world, they are nonetheless limited in scope, so that when we looked at the type of centre, in the public's interest, we had to ensure we did not have an elephant squashing a fly. That is the image I would use. That was the original intent.

Mr. Serge Marcil: Does the fact that it would be subject to the Official Languages Act pose a problem? I would like to know. Some people told me earlier that the amendment I moved was out of order but we did nevertheless vote on it. I would like to know, because the fact that the centre... We cannot get involved in areas under provincial jurisdiction. Mr. Chairman, I kind of get the impression that I was had, right from the beginning. I am under the impression that that is the case, because knowing from the outset that...

I will explain what I mean, Mr. Chairman. I moved an amendment to clause 2, because I wanted to make sure that we integrated the concept of Canadian duality in the preamble. Moreover, I was informed that if it was not a substantive amendment, it could not be included in the preamble. At some point, when I moved the amendment, I was told that it would be good if we put it here, in clause 9, in conjunction with the creation of the centre. So I moved it in conjunction with clause 9, and according to what my friend Roger has said, if we do it that way, we will be creating a problem with respect to recruiting skilled people. It would create a barrier, because there are some highly competent instructors who are unilingual French or unilingual English. They would not be able to work in the centre.

¼ (1815)

[English]

Mr. John Harvard: We passed that amendment.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil: I know. I'm just explaining myself, because as you can see, Mr. Harvard, if we return an amended bill and clause 9 to the House, it supposes that we are forcing the House, because you all seem to think that the House will vote against the amendment. You are going to force the Government of Canada to vote against the inclusion of the concept of duality in one of the clauses of the act. The government will never vote against that. What do you think will happen? They will simply withdraw the bill and ask for another one to be drafted; I am sure of that.

[English]

The Chair: Why?

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil: Because I am under the impression that the centre as such, in light of the explanations provided when people appeared before the committee, must be independent. So if we were to introduce the notion of linguistic duality for the centre, that means it becomes body under federal jurisdiction. However we do not want the centre to be under federal jurisdiction; we want it to be completely independent and for each province to be able to... My objective is laudable, except that by introducing it at clause 9 instead of clause 5, the government will never expose itself to having to vote down an amendment like this. Then what will it do? It won't table the bill.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, hold on.

Mr. Farley.

[Translation]

Mr. Roger Farley: In fact, what I explained, and I think it was quite clear, was the government's intention not to create a federal institution when setting up the centre. Serge, that was based on recommendations from the sports community. It is the aspect that I call public policy or public interest. When we decided to create the centre, we made sure that it could offer services in both official languages. That is why there are several references to official languages in the bill as regards the centre.

I'm going to give the floor to my colleague from the Department of Justice so that he can address the constitutional aspect, as you raised it.

Mr. Roger Charland: I would like once again to draw the committee's attention to certain aspects of its deliberations on amendment BQ-5, as amended.

As I have already clarified, the political intention was not to create a federal institution. I think that was clear. As the Secretary of State or my colleague Mr. Farley mentioned, that was one of a number of recommendations from the sports community. It is the opinion of the Government of Canada that the centre, as currently described in the bill, is not a federal institution, but an institution that is independent of government. Consequently, there are certain limits as to the power to regulate the centre's activities. By not making the centre a federal institution, the issue is to determine whether it is under federal jurisdiction; I believe that is what you were alluding to. The centre will offer a private dispute settlement service between two parties, which is under provincial jurisdiction. Consequently, the federal government's authority to regulate the activities of the centre via legislation is limited.

I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that certain provisions of the Official Languages Act address what is called the language of work, which is, once again, a matter of provincial jurisdiction. Since several provisions of the act are under provincial jurisdiction, and given that the centre's activities are not under federal jurisdiction, the possibility of regulating these activities is limited.

Mr. Serge Marcil: With my amendment, does the centre come under federal jurisdiction and lose its independence?

Mr. Roger Charland: Once again...

Mr. Serge Marcil: Answer my question.

Mr. Roger Charland: I would like to draw something to the attention of the committee and of the committee chair.

Mr. Serge Marcil: You have our attention.

Mr. Roger Charland: I want to draw your attention to the fact that I cannot give the committee legal opinions. I believe the House has its own legal service. Answering a question like that would be tantamount to offering a legal opinion, which I cannot do.

I would, nevertheless, like to draw your attention to the fact that according to the government of Canada, the centre is not a federal institution. Consequently, the possibility of referring to the Official Languages Act and stating that it applies as if the centre were a federal institution raises a problem.

Mr. Serge Marcil: So, if I follow your logic correctly, you do not want to provide a legal opinion, because, according to you, it is up to the House to do that, since it has the services required to do so. So what are you doing here?

Mr. Roger Charland: I am here to provide the committee with some explanations on the intentions and rationale behind the wording, as well as the reasons why the bill contains provisions of that nature.

Mr. Serge Marcil: I would like to continue my argument. If I understand correctly, Mr. Chairman, what Mr. Charland has just said is that we will be referring the matter to the House of Commons and the House, when presented with the amendment, will say that it is out of order. Do you understand? And if the amendment is out of order, we will not be amending the bill. In short, we are not amending the substance of the bill. We are now on clause 9, and we cannot go back; it is as if we were taken for a ride. It is almost as if it was premeditated.

[English]

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Marcil. We had a ruling earlier that this amendment was in order. That was the basis upon which we proceeded.

¼ (1820)

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil: Yes, I see, Mr. Chairman. But the government's intention, through this bill, is to adopt measures concerning physical activity and sports, and to solve problems in the sports community when they arise. So, a centre is to be created, but it is to be independent, thus not subject to the federal government empire, either because of considerations concerning the language of work or conflicts that may arise in the provinces. But if the effect of the amendment I put forward -- I am not a lawyer, but I am 58 and I have seen a few things -- is to indirectly create a federal institution, there is no doubt that the House will reject it, because this would change the nature of the centre completely, and the idea was to create an independent entity. The amendment will thus be rejected automatically. So how will I then be able to introduce the concept of duality? We would have done better to pass it in the beginning; we would have solved the problem then.

[English]

The Chair: Go ahead, Hélène.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: I have a suggestion. I do not want to vote on this amendment, because we are causing a problem in trying to resolve another that we had created previously, when that one has not yet been resolved.

Mr. Clerk, paragraph 14(4)(a) and (b) read as follows:

(4) The guidelines shall provide for a board of directors that

(a) is composed of men and women committed to the promotion and development of sport who have the experience or capacity to enable the Centre to fulfill its mission; and

(b) is representative of the sport community and of the diversity and linguistic duality of Canadian society.

If we were to replace “linguistic duality” with “official languages”, would that then enable us to make a change to the preamble?

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy: I would think so. If, in fact, you make the change and use the words “official languages”, in the preamble, you could use the words “official languages”.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: That would then enable us to amend the preamble. Okay.

[English]

The Chair: Then that's the way we go.

Mr. John Harvard: If you call it we'll vote against it.

The Chair: That's right. So I'm calling clause 9 now.

Mr. John Harvard: As amended?

The Chair: As amended.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil: Please repeat that, Mr. Chairman. I would not want to be confused.

[English]

The Chair: We're calling clause 9 as amended.

(Clause 9 as amended negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(On clause 10—Mission)

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Can we make an amendment? We have to make an amendment to change the terminology.

[English]

The Chair: Yes it is for clause 14 and we're only at 10.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Sorry.

The Chair: No problem. We're at 10 and we have a government amendment G-3, page 33.

Mr. Cuzner, would you like to address this, sir?

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Yes, I move G-3. It's a change in clause 10, replacing lines 14 to 16 on page 5.

The Chair: Where is that, page 5?

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Lines 14 to 16 on page 5.

The Chair: Right.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: And replacing them with the following:

sport dispute includes disputes among sport organizations and disputes between a sport

The Chair: Is everybody on side with that? I'm putting that to a question.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 10 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to)

(On clause 13--Composition)

The Chair: Mr. Cuzner.

¼ (1825)

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: I move amendment G-4, that Bill C-54, in clause 13, be amended by replacing lines 8 to 11 on page 6 with the following:

13.(1) The board of directors consists of not more than 12 directors, including the chairperson, and the executive director of the Centre who does not have a right to vote.

Non-application of provisions

(2) Sections 14, 16 and 18 do not apply to the executive director.

The Chair: That's G-4 on page 35, Peter.

(Amendment agreed to on division)

(Clause 13 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 14--Appointment)

The Chair: We'll start with Mr. Cuzner.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: I move amendment G-5. This is a technical amendment as well. The amendment is that clause 14 be amended by replacing lines 12 to 38 on page 6. Do you want me to read the whole thing?

Mme Hélène Scherrer: Oui.

The Chair: Just explain what it is you want to do here.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: It's a technical amendment. “Subject to section 21, the directors shall be appointed by the Minister” is no longer necessary. By deleting the actual subclause (1), all other subclauses must be renumbered.

The Chair: We also have an amendment coming from...Hélène.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: I just want to explain it in French. All we need to remove at the start of clause 14 are the words “Subject to subsection 21, the directors shall be appointed by the Minister” and start directly with “The directors shall be appointed by the Minister” and then remove the exclusion “other than the executive director”, and make a specific provision for the executive director in order to explain that he is not a member of the board of directors, but one of the directors.

In fact, the first part becomes subsection 14(1). We remove “Subject to section 21...” and “The directors...” becomes subsection 14(1). Subsection 14(3) becomes subsection 14(2): “The director shall be chosen...”, and here again we have removed “other than the executive director”, but the rest of the text remains the same. “The guidelines...” that is currently in subsection 14(4) becomes subsection 14(3). And each time we encounter the words “other than the executive director”, we remove them.

[English]

Mr. John Harvard: I have a question then. In subclause 14(1) it says the directors are appointed by the minister. So if we pass this amendment, how is the appointment made?

The Chair: By the minister.

Mr. John Harvard: Why do we drop subclause 14(1)?

An hon. member: It's incorporated into the new subclause 14(1).

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Mr. Chairman, I would also like to take this opportunity to change the words “linguistic duality”.

[English]

I want to make sure I change...before the words

[Translation]

“linguistic duality”.

[English]

I want to make sure it's going to be included in there.

The Chair: Into “official languages”. Does everybody understand that?

Yes, Chuck.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I think I do understand it and I understand the verbal amendment as well. We're going to change “linguistic duality” to “official languages”.

The Chair: That's right.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay, I understand what we're trying to accomplish there. I actually like the original wording more. In fact, I would like it even more if it was “the diversity of the Canadian society”, all by itself, because it reflects linguistic duality, linguistic multiplicity. But we're here to get through this, so I'm not going to hold it up any more than to say I'm going to let it go on division rather than unanimously.

The Chair: On the linguistic fairness question, I'm putting the question. Is it passed as amended?

(Amendment agreed to on division)

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Did you read “the bilingual nature”?

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: If this amendment is accepted and the other one we dealt with earlier is rejected in the House, because a federal institution is independent, it won't mean anything. The act still won't apply to the centre. I understand that we are moving an amendment because we want to save the preamble, but we have a problem, because the centre will not be a federal organization. Even if we say that the centre must comply with the Official Languages Act, it does not mean anything in this act.

¼ (1830)

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: The reason why I did not want us to correct the earlier amendment was that by correcting the other one, we were creating an even bigger problem. What we have succeeded in doing here...

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: This was rather major too.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: What we are doing here, by not putting in “official languages”, but “bilingual nature”, is that as long as we change the text, it can be discerned that we have incorporated an intention and it also makes it possible to add respect of official languages in the preamble. That is the guarantee I have received, is it not?

An Hon. Member: Exactly.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: So, it is along those lines. Let's put in “bilingual nature” if we do not want to stumble over “official languages”. We are not creating problems by doing this, but we are making it possible to subsequently include respect for official languages in the preamble.

[English]

The Chair: So we'd like you to reread 3(b).

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Subsection 14(3)(b) would then read as follows: “is representative of the sport community and of the bilingual nature and diversity of Canadian society.”

[English]

The Chair: Okay, very good. Now shall this clause now carry as amended?

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Just a moment. I would like the clerk's opinion on the term “bilingual nature”...

[English]

The Chair: He said yes, Robert. You were talking. He said yes. That's why we--

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy: You used the term “bilingual nature”. The preamble is supposed to reflect changes made to the bill. The term would therefore be “bilingual nature”.

[English]

The Chair: There you go.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I have a point of order, just so I'm clear. I'm not sure exactly what the government had in mind here. We did have the words “linguistic duality”, which we just eliminated from this particular clause, but if the government had wanted to, it seems to me they could have included it in the original preamble. It was there in the body of the bill, so it could have been in the preamble. I don't know if it was an oversight or what, but we can still use the words “linguistic duality” even though we've eliminated them from the text because we were talking about it in a different way.

The Chair: They just made a drafting error.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I just wanted to make sure of one thing. If we put “bilingual nature” here, and we are also putting it in the preamble, will we be able to say that there will be compliance with the Official Languages Act, or will we be talking about bilingual nature? I would like an answer to that.

[English]

The Chair: Robert, three times he said this amendment, to “official languages”, allows us to change the preamble.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: That is not what I said.

Mr. Serge Marcil: No, what he said was that the same terms had to be used in both places.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: What I want to know is whether the term “in compliance with the Official Languages Act” can be put into the preamble? That is what I would like to know.

Mr. Serge Marcil: The amendment to the preamble that I moved would have included linguistic duality.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: To get that into the preamble separately, we would have to accept it here. However, we have not had an answer to my question.

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy: That depends on whether, in your interpretation, you make any distinction between “bilingual nature” and “official languages”. At one point, I told you what I thought. It therefore depends on the committee's interpretation. A decision by the Speaker...

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: This is really the only place left. I want the preamble to contain some mention of compliance with the Official Languages Act. I want that to be in the preamble, and I believe that almost everyone here agrees with me. But now we're taking it all out...

[English]

The Chair: Go ahead, Rodger.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: There was no agreement on official languages, but I think around the table we've talked about duality--

Mr. John Harvard: That's “bilingual character”.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Bilingual character--and we did want to specify it; we did want to bring that out in the preamble. What's frustrating me--and I'm getting a course here in legislation, each one, teach one here. We've been making these advances to try to have this included in the preamble, and the legislative clerk has told us....

¼ (1835)

The frustration lies therein, in that we agree on the sense we want to bring to the preamble but haven't been able to find the path to have that put into the preamble. I can appreciate Mr. Lanctôt's trepidation. We've taken two cracks at trying to get it moved to the preamble now and the door has been closed twice.

Mr. John Harvard: We don't deal with the preamble until we've finished with the body.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: No, but I think you know--

The Chair: Rodger, the words in the preamble and how we alter them, based on all this varied advice we get, will ultimately be in the hands of the people on this committee.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: But I can appreciate Mr. Lanctôt's position. He wants some kind of assurance that what we're doing here... do we have to alter certain clauses drastically? We did that already, when we looked at a drastic alteration of a clause and dropped a clause because we felt that this was needed to access the preamble. My point is that we just want to get access to the preamble.

The Chair: Hold on. Before I go to Chuck, did you want to respond to this?

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy: I'm giving advice through the chair to the committee. With what you're doing, I don't see any problem in changing the preamble. After that it is a matter of policy, or if you've considered that “bilingual character” applies to official languages, that's fine.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: In other words, would members here agree that the phrase “in compliance with the Official Languages Act” could be contained in the preamble?

In amendment BQ-1, it was moved that the bill be amended in the preamble in subsection (e), by replacing line 20 on page 1 with the following:

physical activity and sport, in compliance with the Official Languages Actand with due regard to the powers conferred on the provinces and territories;

Now that I have talked about this aspect, do you find the amendment acceptable?

Let me read it again. This is amendment BQ-1:

physical activity and sport, in compliance with the Official Languages Act and with due regard to the powers conferred on the provinces and territories;

Mr. Serge Marcil: Robert, you have an amendment to the preamble. I have one too, though it is a little different. I would rather talk about it when we get to the preamble.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: This is our last chance of getting this done. I want to know what we will be doing, whether we will be using the same wording.

Mr. Serge Marcil: I understand that we will.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: So please just tell me whether the words “Official Languages Act” will appear in there.

[English]

The Chair: There's a point of order here. The clerk has given us advice that this amendment allows us to alter the preamble. I'm going on that advice, I'm putting the question, and we're moving on.

Mr. John Harvard: Did we have a division on the amendment?

The Chair: Yes, we did, and we've had Hélène's amendment on paragraph 14(4)(b), where we changed “linguistic duality” to “bilingual character”.

(Clause 14 as amended agreed to on division)

(Clause 15 agreed to)

(On clause 16--No remuneration)

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: We are just taking out the words “other than the executive director”, and making that a separate provision.

¼ (1840)

[English]

The Chair: We're on G-6 on page 39.

(Amendment agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

(Clause 16 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 17--By-laws)

The Chair: Who's doing this one, G-7?

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: In fact, this is the follow up. We have taken out all instances of “other than the executive director”. Now, we are specifying the exact powers of the executive director. There is no change to subsection 17(1)(a). Subsection 17(1)(b) becomes:

(b) the duties, functions and powers of the chairperson and the officers of the Centre, including the executive director;

So we are removing “...of the chairperson and executive director” and adding an additional phrase to subsection 17(1)(c) which becomes:

[English]

The Chair: Excuse me, Hélène. We have a problem here because the French and the English versions are different.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: They're not the same?

[Translation]

Could we ask Mr. Charland to explain that.

[English]

Mr. Roger Charland: Yes, I would like to explain that. The reason the French amendment is slightly different from the English one is that the amendment to paragraph 17(1)(b) in French is in fact proposed to make the French language consistent with and a better translation of the English version. If you look at the existing paragraph 17(1)(b) as written in English, you will see that it's already a direct translation of the amended paragraph 17(1)(b) in French under G-7.

The Chair: I am not following you.

Mr. Roger Charland: I'll explain this a bit clearer, then, I guess.

[Translation]

The French and English versions of amendment G-7 are different because in the bill, there was a difference in meaning in 17(1)(b). There was a difference between the French and the English versions, and the French amendment to 17(1)(b) is designed to ensure better correspondence with the English version.

[English]

The Chair: Is everybody on side with that?

What's this here: “deleting lines 32 to 35 on page 7”?

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: In English, the term “duties” is used. In French, this is rendered by “pouvoirs et fonctions”, not by “devoirs”. The French version should contain the term “devoirs”.

Mr. Roger Charland: M. Roger CharlandThe distinction is based on the scope of those terms in the two languages. In English, drafters believe that it was important to include “duties, functions and powers”, while in French, the terms “pouvoirs et fonctions” include the concept of “duties”. This is why it was felt the term “devoirs” was not needed in the French.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

(Amendment agreed to on division)

The Chair: Okay, now we go to Mr. Lanctôt's amendment, BQ-8.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: We also added something else; there was subsection 17(1)(c). We also looked at subsection 17(1)(c).

[English]

We were not voting only on paragraph 17(1)(b), but also on paragraph 17(1)(c)?

The Chair: Yes, it's on both parts of the clause.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Okay, c'est beau.

The Chair: Mr. Lanctôt, is it lines 32 to 35 on page 7 you want to delete?

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Since I have a serious problem getting what I want on the Official Languages Act, I'm going to leave that there because I don't want it to be done by regulation. But I will withdraw that amendment.

[English]

The Chair: Oh, it was paragraph 17(1)(g)? Why did you... Excuse me, could you give me just a short answer? Was it paragraph (g) you wanted deleted?

¼ (1845)

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: No, I have withdrawn my amendment. I am withdrawing my amendment.

[English]

The Chair: Yes, I hope so. I'm glad. That's good.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Just to make things perfectly clear, we're doing that because we want the act to contain these provisions, not the regulations.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Next is number BQ-9, on page 44.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Do you understand, Dennis?

The Chair: Yes, I understand.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: So we'll leave that there for now, in case...

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: He didn't understand that you...

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Yes, but I wanted it.

Amendment BQ-9 is in line with the comments I made and explained to the representatives of the dispute resolutions centre who testified. This concerns operations.

That Bill C-54, in clause 17, be amended by replacing lines 42 to 47 on page 7 with the following:

disputes, including:

(i) a mechanism for determining the manner in which the parties may select an arbitrator or mediator,

(ii) the principle that an arbitral award and a mediation agreement are final and not subject to appeal only with the consent of the parties,

(iii) the requirement to give written reasons for an arbitral award or a mediation agreement and to provide a copy of the award or agreement to each of the parties within 30 days after the date of the award or agreement,

(iv) the homologation of arbitral awards by a court of competent jurisdiction, and

(v) the language, according to the needs of the parties, in which the parties may be heard and the decision rendered;

I'm not sure whether you know what I'm talking about, but I would like the parties to decide whether there is to be an appeal, and I do not want the centre to be the last recourse. The parties would have the right to appeal. I would also like arbitral awards, decisions and agreements to be rendered within a set period of time, something that is currently not in the bill. I am also asking for homologation among awards, as we have in other fields. There is homologation in commercial and civil arbitral awards, but that provision is not in this bill either. So we have to specify exactly what we have to do, and there have to be appropriate provisions in an enabling framework statute. These are the provisions that would apply to decisions and agreements.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Charland, would you like to respond to that? That seems like a lot of good common sense to me.

[Translation]

Mr. Roger Charland: Here again, it should be noted that the government's intent was to establish a centre that would provide real services and support for arbitration and dispute settlement. We say arbitration, but in the case of sport dispute settlement, that includes mediation. The centre would be responsible for establishing appropriate rules for sport dispute resolution, and those rules, with that mechanism, would not be governed or controlled by the federal government. That is why section 17 already provides for several measures that the board of directors may take, some of which are in the amendment. I'd like to draw your attention to subsection 17(1)(i), which already states:

(i) the establishment of mediation and arbitration procedures for resolving sports disputes, including a mechanism for determining the manner in which the parties may select an arbitrator or mediator and the language, according to the needs of the parties, in which the parties may be heard and the decision rendered.

I think that this affects a number of things. I would also like to indicate that, as a general rule, arbitration awards are never enforceable.

So we would still need to go through homologation in the provincial courts, depending on the province in which the award is to be applied. That goes without saying, and it is not something we need to specify here. It is a fundamental principle of arbitration.

I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that, whenever we start talking about set periods in which to render decisions, written reasons and language, and everything else, we put it into the bill. The bill then starts to regulate the process. But the government's intent was to let the sports community regulate the process, by drawing up its own dispute settlement rules.

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Marcil.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil: But we could interpret the proposed amendment as being a kind of framework. It's very precise, but we could go beyond it. When the centre establishes its rules, it can go beyond what's in the bill. What the bill will provide is a direction, orientation. It is a framework, but the centre would not be restricted to that framework. In other words, we are not drafting regulations here. We are simply setting the basic approach that the centre must implement in establishing its own rule-drafting mechanism.

¼ (1850)

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard: I think Mr. Charland has a very good point. There's a good idea here, but it should be expressed in regulatory language and not legislative language.

We have to leave some flexibility. Some change may be required in the years to come, and it's easier to attain change through regulation than through the legislative route. If you want to make a change, you'll have to go back to Parliament and open up the act and the whole thing. I think we should leave this kind of matter to the regulatory work.

The Chair: Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): I would speak in favour of the amendment for the simple reason that what I read being proposed here is something very basic that should be in the legislation, if for no other reason than instructional purposes. It still leaves the flexibility that might be required. This is a very basic principle that Mr. Lanctôt is trying to insert into the bill.

The Chair: Mr. Charland.

Mr. Roger Charland: I would like to point out that the language used here would indicate an indirect way of telling the centre what to do. The language sees:

[Translation]

“requirement to give written reasons”.

[English]

So even if the centre were under clause 17, it wouldn't be a question of being allowed or able to do something, or having the flexibility to do it. It really says they would have to do that. The principles of arbitrary award and mediation agreements are final and not subject to appeal. They are not directions; they're dictations. They tell the centre how to proceed in the settlement of disputes.

There is this issue that arbitration of private disputes doesn't fall under the federally regulated sector of activity. This is not a federal institution or a part of the government, so there are limits on dictating how they will resolve the disputes.

The Chair: Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Normally I like some specificity on this sort of thing. If we can staple the regulations to it, that's usually good advice. But in this case, exactly the point the official just made, this is an arm's-length centre. It's an embryonic thing. It's going to have to feel its way, and it's going to have to develop and establish its own rules for mediation and arbitration.

I think we can just leave it with them. I don't know that we need anything more specific.

The question I had was, either in the amendment or in the original drafting, just so I'm clear, when we “select an arbitrator or mediator and the language, according to the needs...in which the parties may be heard”, is it “language” or “languages”, or does it need to be?

I'm just concerned. This doesn't mean you have to pick one language or the other? It could be in both, or it could be in another language if necessary?

The Chair: It's “according to the needs of the parties”.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay. So, in other words, it could be more than one language. I just want that clear, because it's a singular “language”, and I'm just worried that--

The Chair: But aren't you making Robert's argument?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: About what?

The Chair: You're giving more clarity to the direction of the process.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I just want to be clear. I'm here like everybody else, just trying to find my way. But as long as you don't have to select an arbitrator and a mediator and a language...

Somebody might say, well, actually, I'm completely unilingual. Then the other guy says, well, actually, so am I. That's the problem here. Do we have to select a “language” or ”languages” in order to get the job done?

The Chair: It means “according to the needs of the parties”.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Well, okay, that's fine.

The Chair: The last point here, Mr. Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I know that people are calling this my amendment. But in Quebec, the content of the amendments I moved are part of the Code of Civil Procedure. That is not a set of regulations, but a statute that governs all agreements. I am familiar with this, because I am a mediator and have taken part in negotiations. This is part of the Code of Civil Procedure. These are not regulations. We are talking about a legislative framework that specifies what happens after an award. If you do not specify the right to homologation, it has to be in the enabling legislation. It has to be in your bill.

You are establishing the centre. The right to appeal must be provided for in the act, not in the regulations. If you include it in the regulations, it has no effect. It must be in the enabling legislation. If the parties want to appeal the decision, their right to appeal must be provided for in the act.

¼ (1855)

Mr. Roger Charland: The administration of justice in matters of civil procedure is governed by a provincial statute. Since it would provide arbitration, the centre would have to establish a code and a series of regulations. The intent is not to turn it into a federal institution, but into an arbitration centre like those currently in Quebec and in other provinces. In signing a contract, the parties would undertake to be subject to the regulations of a dispute settlement procedure, to the centre's regulations. They would also be subject to the province's rules of procedure, depending on where the decision is rendered, where the parties are domiciled, and where the decision is to apply.

You know that an arbitration award is not legally binding until homologation. This is governed by the rules of procedure already established by the provinces. The applicable rules of procedure would be binding, depending on the dispute and circumstances in question.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, I'm putting the question.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: We have one more amendment before we call the clause.

Mr. Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I will make an almost superhuman effort and present another amendment on the board of directors:

17.1 The board of directors shall establish a policy respecting the official languages of Canada that includes a mechanism for resolving disputes related to the application of the policy.

This is an addition to clause 17.

[English]

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Because, Mr. Lanctôt, you left paragraph (g) intact--you didn't delete it, you decided not to move that amendment--it seems to me this new amendment is redundant. It's already included now in 17(g), almost with the exact same language. I don't think we have to have another--

The Chair: Okay. I'm putting the question.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: That is correct, I am withdrawing it.

[English]

The Chair: You are pulling it? That's good.

We're going onto BQ-11.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Seeing that it is an addition, I will read it to you:

17.2(1) In the event of a dispute between two athletes, the dispute shall be submitted, with the agreement of the athletes, to a mediator for an informal resolution or to one or more arbitrators for a decision, but not to the courts.

(2) In the event of a dispute between an athlete and a Canadian sports federation, the parties shall submit the dispute, at the option of the athlete, to a mediator for informal resolution or to one or more arbitrators for a decision, but not to the courts.

(3) In the event of a dispute between an athlete and Sport Canada, the parties shall submit the dispute, at the option of the athlete, to a mediator for informal resolution or to one or more arbitrators for a decision, but not to the courts.

[English]

The Chair: Are there any comments?

Mr. Serge Marcil: I like this idea.

[Translation]

Mr. Roger Charland: I would like to draw the committee's attention to the scope of this amendment. This is the first time that I have read it.

The proposed amendment seeks to govern the dispute resolution process in sporting matters. The intention of the legislator was to ensure that these issues were resolved by the centre, independently of the government, according to rules that the sporting community accepts. That was the idea behind the centre. By imposing this type of procedure, we would be dictating how sports disputes should be resolved or, at least, what the preliminary steps should be.

I simply wanted to draw this point to the committee's attention.

½ (1900)

[English]

Mr. John Harvard: I think we're going to get into the same arguments, so we might as well ask the question.

The Chair: Are there any other comments on this?

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil: I understand what Mr. Lanctôt is afraid of, and I am too. We are creating a centre because we want the centre to administer things and resolve disputes. There was a dispute in women's hockey and an athlete was excluded. The centre didn't exist. We tried to find some way of resolving the dispute, but the people decided not to uphold the complaint filed by the athlete in question. It was decided that the athlete was not right.

We francophones have a different culture from that of the anglophones. For anglophones, everything is included in one word, whereas we need to try to be more precise. We do not want to lose something. I feel that Mr. Lanctôt's amendment is a good one. I also understand that we must not meddle in that or regulate before the centre even gets established. If the directors of the centre were to decide to make regulations dismissing this concept of allowing athletes to appeal... I will give you an example. Let's say that the directors had decided that they would not consider mediation and would allow the parties to go to court immediately. How could we intervene to let them know that this was not quite the spirit of the legislation? I do not know if we have to include everything, but...

Mr. Roger Farley: Mr. Chairman, the goal sought here is to see how disputes between two parties, the athletes and sport organizations, could be resolved. I think that we have to go back to clause 10, which details the centre's mission. Clause 10 indicates that the centre's mission is to resolve disputes between sport organizations and their members and persons affiliated with it. Consequently, clause 10 provides some direction about the centre's objective and mission. It is clearly stated that this mission is to resolve sport disputes between athletes and sport organizations. So that is already covered here.

You mentioned a particular case. Before this bill was passed, and given the fact that the Olympic Games were being held in Salt Lake City, the government of Canada had decided to implement a temporary program for resolving sports disputes. So a temporary program was used for that purpose.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Cuzner.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Might in fact the amendment bind Sport Canada? It would be restrictive for Sport Canada to enter into the centre. Right now they have access to the centre and they can utilize the service, but in fact the way this is written, would it not bind Sport Canada to use it? Right now, it's free to enter into agreements and identify it in agreements.

Mr. Roger Charland: Thank you. That's a good point. My earlier comments were more on subclauses 17.2(1) and 17.2(2).

In subclause 17.2(3), it does say here “In the event of a dispute between an athlete and Sport Canada, the parties shall submit”. So I would argue that the language proposed could be read as meaning that it would apply to Sport Canada.

On that ground, I would like to bring to the attention of the committee that the centre's purpose is to offer a service. Nobody has to go there. It's not mandatory under the law. It doesn't oblige everybody to go. Therefore, anybody who would submit a dispute to the centre would do so on a contractual basis, consensual, the two parties deciding in an agreement, in a contract, that they will settle their disputes, going to the centre. That was what the sport community had asked for and that was the intention of the government.

Adding a subclause 17.2(3) would pose a problem because I would argue that there are decisions Sport Canada makes that fall under ministerial prerogative and Parliament's use of money, and also the government's decision to fund certain activities over the other. So you have major policy decisions that could be captured in broad language like this.

I think that would be dangerous for many reasons, one of which is that, traditionally speaking, government has always been able to use its discretion wisely. To challenge the discretion or decisions made by ministers of the Government of Canada, courts are the avenue for those types of events.

So subclause 17.2(3) would in fact create a situation where some important decisions, more on policy and funding, an arbitration such as this one or a centre such as this one wasn't conceived to deal with or may not be the appropriate forum to do so.

½ (1905)

The Chair: I'm going to Mr. Strahl and then to Mr. MacKay. But I have just a short question.

I've never understood why you have a bill like this and you don't include Sport Canada in the process.

[Translation]

Mr. Roger Farley: As my colleague Mr. Charland mentioned, the centre was created to provide a service, and no one is compelled to use this service. It is therefore done on the basis of mutual consent. The same logic applies to Sport Canada. Should there be a dispute between an organization or an athlete and Sport Canada, it will be up to the government of Canada to decide whether or not it wants to use the services of the centre in order to resolve this dispute by means of a consensus.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I agree with what both of the officials have said since I put up my hand, but it's both too specific and too loose. It doesn't cover every eventuality, and it's too specific in that it names Sport Canada as the one organization.

Also, I'm not sure it should be at the option of the athlete, for example. Maybe it should be at the option of either party. These are the kinds of details that should be determined, I would suggest, by the centre. This is an optional service for humanity; it's not a compulsory thing. This reads like a compulsory thing, and I think they'll figure out the details of the mediating and arbitrating service that they're offering, rather than putting it in here.

It's not bad, but I think it raises as many questions as it solves.

The Chair: Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: It seems to me this takes away the discretion entirely. By the wording of it being “shall”... I thought we wanted to encourage the use of this body as opposed to obliging people and saying you can't pursue this through traditional means of the courts. This would completely do away with the discretion, as I read it.

The Chair: Everybody has had a chance.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 17 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 18--Designation)

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Do you have a time when you...

The Chair: Yes, we'll be out of here at 7:30 p.m.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Regardless?

The Chair: We're going to make it.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I hope so. I'm going to be an hour and a half late for my last appointment.

The Chair: We are going to make it. I'm in the same boat as you and other members.

Next is amendment BQ-12.

I want to make sure everybody feels they've had their experience here.

½ (1910)

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I would rather begin to do it.

The Chair: There are only two more clauses, and then the rest passes.

Mr. John Harvard: Could Mr. Lanctôt explain his amendment?

The Chair: The clerk is giving me advice here, which we should all listen to.

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy: Just as a piece of information, there is a line conflict between BQ-12 and G-8. So if BQ-12 is carried, G-8 cannot be put.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: We're going to deal with mine first. Mine is easier.

Mr. John Harvard: Can we hear about his amendment?

The Chair: Yes. That's what he's going to do right now.

Go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: With amendment BQ-12, I would like to move that the appointment be made by the board of directors rather than by the minister. I am moving this amendment at the request of nearly all of the witnesses who appeared before us.

[English]

Mr. John Harvard: But it says in the bill the board of directors may designate it, not the minister.

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: No. It says the minister.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: No, it's the minister. I am asking that it be the board of directors and not the minister who makes the appointment.

[English]

The Chair: Would you like to...

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: No. We have had this debate several times. We could have it again this evening, but I think that we have already...

Mr. Serge Marcil: I agree that it should be the board of directors who appoints the executive director. There could be a conflict between the executive director and the board of directors, and the board of directors would not be able to fire its director. It doesn't make sense. No company works in this fashion. The board of directors appoints an executive director. The members are appointed to the board of directors. Well, you change the board of directors and they then fire the executive director. I do not think that it should be the minister who appoints the executive director. The minister should perhaps appoint the members of the board of directors, but not the executive director.

That's the way I see things.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I don't think this is about appointing the executive director; this is about the chairperson.

The only question I have, Mr. Lanctôt, is by amending the first part of this about the board of directors choosing a chairperson, did you mean to leave in the end of that same clause, where it says that person could still be removed by the minister for cause?

The Chair: Could we have clarification on that, please?

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: It is the chairperson. In BQ-13, we talk about the executive director.

[English]

The Chair: Chuck, we're going to try to answer your question.

Go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Roger Farley: It was the government's intent that there be a balance struck between the centre's accountability to the government in terms of public monies and the centre's independence. In order to ensure that this balance was struck, the government wanted the minister to appoint the chairperson of the board of directors from the 12 members who would have been appointed at the start. The chairperson would therefore be one of these 12 members. That was the clear intent of the government.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Harvard and then Mr. Marcil.

Mr. John Harvard: I find the wording a little confusing. You could read it as suggesting the board of directors may appoint an interim chair for a period of up to 90 days, but if they want to appoint someone beyond 90 days they would need the approval of the minister.

Is that your understanding of it, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: We're on clause 18, Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard: Oh, I'm on clause 20. I'm sorry.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I will provide an explanation that may help Mr. Harvard. We could have looked at amendment BQ-13 at the same time as amendment BQ-12 if they had amended the same clause. The purpose of these amendments is to make the centre truly independent. I agree that the minister should appoint the members of the board of directors. In BQ-12, I am suggesting that the board of directors appoint a chairperson and, in BQ-13, that the board of directors also appoint its executive director. These are two separate clauses, but in order for you to get the picture, I would say that the minister is to appoint the board of directors which in turn will appoint its chairperson and executive director. So that is how the centre would operate.

½ (1915)

[English]

The Chair: Chuck, go ahead.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: It's still a problem, though, Mr. Lanctôt. Under clause 18, under your proposal, which is debatable, but I could be persuaded I think that this is a good way to go, it says that the board of directors shall designate someone to be the chairperson and the minister can remove him if he doesn't like him. That's the way it would be. You either have to do more amending than that to change it the way you would like, or else the way it would read is the board of directors appoints the chairperson and the minister may remove that chairperson for cause. This would change more than you've just changed there.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: This amendment would ensure that there is good accountability. If the minister truly is not in agreement, it is still possible that he... As Mr. Farley was saying, we want to make the centre accountable. The board of directors will appoint its chairperson, and if the minister feels that the choice doesn't make any sense... You have got more or less what you wanted, but that would make the centre even more independent.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, are there any other comments? I'm putting the question.

Oh, excuse me, Ms. Neill, I'm sorry.

Ms. Sue Neill: Sorry, Mr. Chair. I'd just like to point out that this is consistent, the way it exists now, with the portfolio of the minister, that is, the minister appoints the chair and the executive director of entities within the portfolio of Canadian Heritage.

To leave the clause as it currently exists is to be consistent with the other entities within the minister's portfolio.

The Chair: Well, the ministers always appoint the chair of whatever.

Ms. Sue Neill: Yes.

The Chair: Peter.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Chair, just for very pure reasons of independence in such a situation, I can't see how we wouldn't want this appointment to be made by the board. It empowers them.

The Chair: Not only that, the minister appoints all the directors.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Yes. It gives them an ability to put the person they're most comfortable with and most satisfied with. It's the same argument you would make to appoint the chair of a committee.

The Chair: Well, I have made that argument.

Serge, did you have a comment?

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil: I would like to ask Ms. Neil a question. You said that the minister appoints the chairperson and the executive director of all of the organizations that come under Canadian Heritage. Once the centre is established, will it come under the Department of Canadian Heritage or will it be independent?

[English]

Ms. Sue Neill: It's an independent entity, but it's created by legislation, so it's within the portfolio but not a federal agency.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil: Are there any other independent organizations for which the Department of Canadian Heritage appoints the chairperson and the executive director? Could you cite one or two?

[English]

The Chair: You said board of directors. This is about the chair to the board.

Mr. Roger Charland: Offhand, I'm not aware of any institution that would fit this scenario. However, I would like to point out that in the other agency that falls under the Minister of Canadian Heritage portfolio, where she's the Minister for the CBC, for example, she appoints the chair.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil: Yes, but this is a crown corporation.

[English]

Mr. Roger Charland: Yes, but I'm just saying that those that I am aware of, offhand, every one I can think of, she appoints them.

Mr. Serge Marcil: Un autre.

Mr. Roger Charland: For the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, she appoints. For Le Conseil des Arts du Canada, she appoints as well

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil: This is important, Mr. Chairman.

Therefore, there are government institutions that are not at arm's length. If I understood correctly, the minister appoints the chairperson or director general of a government institution, but in this case, they are saying that it is an arm's length body. I agree that the minister should appoint the board and even its chairperson, but it is the board that should appoint the director general.

½ (1920)

[English]

Mr. Roger Charland: I would just like to point out that I believe it's section 85 of the FAA that indicates that the CBC is not a crown corporation. This is information that I can bring to the committee.

The Chair: Okay, I'm putting the question. We're running out of time.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: When it comes back to the floor of the House, there's going to be responsibility and accountability, and with the minister making that appointment, that's where the responsibility will land--on her lap.

That's why I would not support this motion.

The Chair: Okay, I'm putting the question.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Marcil: One minute, Mr. Chairman. What amendment are we voting on?

[English]

The Chair: We're voting on amendment BQ-12, on page 48.

(Amendment negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: We have amendment G-8.

Okay. Go ahead.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: It's just a technical amendment on clause 18. With the amendment in clause 13, it now makes the line “other than executive director” redundant. So it would be just the insertion in line 22, page 8, of “director”.

The Chair: Okay, I'm putting the question.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 18 agreed to as amended)

(Clauses 19 and 20 agreed to)

(On clause 21--Appointment)

The Chair: Mr. Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: We just spoke about it. I am suggesting the following wording:

21.(1) The board of directors shall appoint an executive.

I think that takes care of it. There are perhaps others who want to add something. Personally, I think we should vote on it right away.

The amendment is carried

[English]

(Clause 21 agreed to as amended)

(Clauses 22 to 40 inclusive agreed to)

The Chair: Now we go back to the preamble.

Mr. John Harvard: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment for the preamble, which I hope will meet with the approval of the committee.

The Chair: We're listening, Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard: This amendment, Mr. Chairman, would replace lines 4 to 6 on page 1 with the following. I'll read it slowly:

and produce benefits in terms of health, quality of life, economic activity, cultural diversity and social cohesion, including strengthening the bilingual character of Canada;

I think that's in keeping with the change we've already made in one of the clauses in the body of the bill, and I hope this will address the concern of Mr. Marcil.

The Chair: I think that essentially meets everything.

Would you like to discuss this, Mr. Strahl?

½ (1925)

Mr. Chuck Strahl: There are three amendments to the preamble. This is another one, but we don't have it in writing.

The Chair: Yes, we do. I just received it.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Well, we'll start over.

[English]

An hon member: What other amendments are there?

The Chair: Mr. Keyes is not here, so his amendments fall by the wayside.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: But there's one by Mr. Lanctôt.

The Chair: I know. We're just getting some of them out of the way. We're dealing with Mr. Marcil.

[Translation]

Do you have a copy of Mr. Harvard's amendment?

Mr. Serge Marcil: Yes, I have one. That answers my question.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, we're in business.

You go first, Chuck.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I'm just looking at it right now.

The Chair: While we're waiting for you, we'll go to Mr. Lanctôt.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: If we adopt that one today, will I be able to put my amendment to the preamble again? Someone said earlier that if an amendment is adopted, then that precludes putting other amendments forward. I want to be sure. I don't want it to be worded in such a way that if it is adopted, I won't be able to put my BQ-1 amendment forward.

[English]

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy: The amendment by Mr. Harvard replaces lines 4 to 6, and after that you have an amendment by Mr. Marcil, LL-1 on page 1, which replaces line 5. If Mr. Harvard's amendment is agreed to, LL-1 cannot be put. For BQ-1, the first part also deals with line 5. This one cannot go ahead if you move it as a block.

The Chair: If it's accepted.

What do you think of it? Chuck, do you want to go first?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Overall I think it's good. As you know, I expressed some reluctance to specify one thing it will do. It says “including”, so it doesn't mean it's only about that. I'm fine.

The Chair: Great.

Who's next? Peter, did you want to make any comment?

Mr. Peter MacKay: I'm fine.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: The clerk has suggested we go to Mr. Lanctôt's amendment, BQ-1. Part (a) of the amendment is out, because we've already done that. The clerk has said that parts (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) are in order. Is that what you said?

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy: Let's deal with them one at a time.

The Chair: Is there something in there that's--

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy: No, paragraph (b) is fine, paragraph (c) is fine.

The Chair: Carry on.

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy: Paragraph (d) is fine.

It's still the same principle for paragraph (f). It's adding something that the committee must decide upon if it reflects changes made through the bill, because these are additions.

Also, certainly the fifth paragraph, which says “replace the office of the Secretary of State (Amateur Sport)”, would go beyond the scope of the bill.

[Translation]

The fifth paragraph, which says “replace the office of the Secretary of State (Amateur Sport) with the office of Minister”, goes beyond the scope of the bill. The next one, which says “establishment of a central common non-governmental organization”, also goes beyond the scope of the bill, as well as the last one, which says “establishment of an official languages advisory committee”.

In terms of the other points in f), we just need to decide whether or not they reflect changes in the bill.

½ (1930)

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Cuzner.

Mr. Rodger Cuzner: Again, being the novice here, in the preamble are we not trying to lay out the principles of the bill? And are we not getting into some specific aspects of the bill here?

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, for the sake of moving through this, could we do them by paragraph?

The Chair: Okay. Do you want me to put the question or do you want to talk on it?

An hon. member: Put the question.

The Chair: Okay.

Those in favour of the amendments in paragraphs (b) to (d)? Those opposed?

(Amendments negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: The amendment in paragraph (e) is one that's... go ahead, Hélène.

[Translation]

Ms. Hélène Scherrer: Mr. Chairman, like Mr. Cuzner, I feel that if we make a list, we will only create problems for ourselves because we might forget something. I don't want to do them one at a time, because each one has its merits. If we accept one, we may forget another one. I would like us to look at it as a whole.

[English]

The Chair: I'm putting paragraphs (e) and (f) together as a whole. Those in favour? Those opposed?

(Amendments negatived—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Shall clause 1 carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the preamble carry as amended?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall I report the bill to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the committee order a reprint for use at report stage?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Okay, ladies and gentlemen, this is the first time in 40 years. Congratulations!

The meeting is adjourned to the call of the chair.