36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 239
CONTENTS
Monday, June 7, 1999
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1100
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-251. Third reading
|
| Ms. Albina Guarnieri |
1105
1110
1115
| Mr. Randy White |
1120
1125
| Motion
|
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
1130
1135
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1140
1145
| Mr. Paul DeVillers |
1150
1215
1220
(Division 544)
| Motion agreed to
|
1225
1230
(Division 545)
| Motion agreed to
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1235
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Amateur Sport
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Motion
|
1240
1245
| Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
1250
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
1255
1300
| Amendment
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
1305
| Mr. Denis Coderre |
1310
1315
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
1320
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1325
1330
| Mr. John Solomon |
1335
| Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
| Mr. John Solomon |
1340
1345
| Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
1350
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF OLDER PERSONS
|
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
| CARIBOO—CHILCOTIN
|
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1400
| D-DAY
|
| Mr. George Proud |
| GOVERNOR GENERAL'S FOOT GUARDS
|
| Mrs. Judi Longfield |
| QUEBEC NURSES
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| ASTRONAUT JULIE PAYETTE
|
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1405
| THE LATE LÉON LAJOIE
|
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| CANADIAN SKILLS COMPETITION
|
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
| ASTRONAUT JULIE PAYETTE
|
| Mr. Claude Drouin |
| NEW BRUNSWICK ELECTION
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| FORCES OF LIBERATION
|
| Mr. Paul Mercier |
1410
| JULIE PAYETTE
|
| Ms. Susan Whelan |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| JEAN-FRANÇOIS LEGAULT
|
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| QUEBEC MODEL
|
| Mr. Denis Coderre |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1415
| FUTURISTIC SCIENCE PROJECT
|
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| KOSOVO
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1420
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| KOSOVO
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Mr. Julian Reed |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
1425
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| HOMELESSNESS
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
| KOSOVO
|
| Mr. David Price |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. David Price |
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| GOVERNMENT GRANTS
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1430
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| PRIME MINISTER
|
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1435
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1440
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
| Hon. Christine Stewart |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| FISHERIES AND OCEANS
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
1445
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
| CANADIAN COAST GUARD
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
| OWENS CORNING PLANT
|
| Mrs. Marlene Jennings |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| NAV CANADA
|
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
1450
| Hon. Claudette Bradshaw |
| STATUS OF WOMEN
|
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
| PRIME MINISTER
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| TANCOOK ISLAND FERRY WHARF
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
| INFORMATION HIGHWAY
|
| Mr. Janko Peric |
| Hon. John Manley |
1455
| PRISONS AND PENITENTIARIES
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| CANADA DAY
|
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| STATUS OF WOMEN
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
| TANCOOK ISLAND FERRY WHARF
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1500
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans
|
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| Committee Reports
|
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
1505
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Scrutiny of Regulations
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1510
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Bill C-82. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
|
| Bill C-83. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| MISCELLANEOUS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1999
|
| Bill C-84. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| PETITIONS
|
| Taxation
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| Health Care
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1515
| Canada Post Corporation
|
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
| Firearms
|
| Mr. Claude Drouin |
| Genetically Modified Foods
|
| Mr. Claude Drouin |
| Iraq
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Nuclear Disarmament
|
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
| Aboriginal Affairs
|
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
| Genetically Modified Foods
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Canada Pension Plan
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Civil Service Pension Plan
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1520
| Child Pornography
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Housing
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Yugoslavia
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Hon. Fred Mifflin |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Amateur Sport
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1525
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1530
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
1535
1540
| Mr. Denis Coderre |
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
1545
| Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
1550
1555
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
1600
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
1605
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
1610
| Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
1615
1620
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1625
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
1630
1635
| Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
1640
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1645
1650
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1655
| Mr. George Proud |
1700
1705
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1710
| Mr. Murray Calder |
1715
1720
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1725
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1730
1735
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1740
| Mr. Keith Martin |
1745
1750
| Mr. John Solomon |
1755
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
1800
1805
1810
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
1815
| Mr. John Solomon |
1820
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1825
1830
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Public Service Pension Plan
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Mr. Tony Ianno |
1835
| Health
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1840
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 239
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, June 7, 1999
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1100
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East, Lib.) moved that
Bill C-251, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections
and Conditional Release Act (cumulative sentences), be read the
third time and passed.
1105
She said: Madam Speaker, last week, for the second time, this
House resoundingly supported changes to the Canadian justice
system that would give judges the ability to set fair and
proportionate sentences for multiple murderers, finally putting
an end to Canada's automatic bulk rate for murder.
Since that vote, many of the more than 500 Canadian families who
have been devastated by multiple murderers have seen fit to write
to me, call in to talk shows, or otherwise let Canadians
understand the truth about our current system. They have never
been able to understand why anyone would insist that the murder
of their child, spouse or parent should continue to be
meaningless to the courts. Fortunately, they have found new
faith in parliament by last week's decision by this House and
many have written to express their thanks to members for
recognizing the value of the precious lives they have lost and
the need for justice.
Another all too common message was that of victims' families
being told by a sentencing judge that he wished he could give a
more meaningful sentence for the murder of their child, but that
the law simply would not allow it. That is the message that we
are hearing from the judiciary in open court, a clear message
that judges need more latitude to set fair and proportionate
sentences for these most horrific of crimes.
That is exactly what Bill C-251 is designated to deliver. It
would allow a judge to look at the facts of a case where a
murderer has been convicted of the murder of not just one, but at
least two human beings. The judge could look at those facts and
make an assessment of the intent of the offender, the brutality
of the crimes and any mitigating circumstances that may be
relevant.
Having considered all of the evidence, a judge would determine
first whether it is warranted to impose a consecutive sentence or
grant a concurrent sentence. If the judge determines that
fairness and proportionality require a consecutive sentence, he
has the further discretion to determine the length of that
additional term of parole ineligibility, anywhere from one day to
25 years. I call that double discretion.
For years I have heard colleagues insist that judicial
discretion was necessary and essential even in cases of multiple
first degree murder. I have listened and I have learned from
their advice. Now judicial discretion is the cornerstone of the
multiple murder and multiple sexual assault provisions of this
bill.
By passing Bill C-251, parliament will be declaring that every
victim of murder or sexual assault should matter to the court.
At the same time it will provide judges the latitude to account
for the specific circumstances of an individual case. As always,
we will be entrusting the judiciary with the responsibility to
render fair and proportionate sentences within the parameters of
the law.
During the past week I have heard that for some members judicial
discretion is not enough. Some hold the view that a multiple
murderer who kills his victims in quick succession should be
immune from additional consequences arising from the second,
third or fourteenth murder. The next Mark Lepine, Denis Lortie
or George Lovie should all be guaranteed concurrent, meaningless
sentences for all but their first murder, according to this
argument.
I say that there should be no such guarantee. There should be
no automatic benefit to planning to kill several victims in the
same event.
Instead, I propose that a judge is best placed to determine what
is fair and proportionate based on the facts. Let the judges do
their job.
1110
Another argument back from the slag heap this week is the
potential cost of keeping multiple murderers in jail longer. I
had thought this argument had long since been put to rest, but
back it comes when all else fails.
Let me be clear once again. There can be no cost implications
of the multiple murder provisions of Bill C-251 for at least 10
years as the bill is not retroactive and all multiple murderers
serve at least 10 years anyway. We know that it will not cost
one cent for ten years. Moreover, multiple murderers currently
account for about 2% of the prison population and it will take 30
years for a new generation of multiple murderers to replace them.
By the year 2030 the total prison population may well be 1% to 2%
larger than it would be otherwise. That is the price of justice
insofar as multiple murderers are concerned.
One reservation put forward over the last days was particularly
curious, that being that the bill has moved through parliament
too quickly. One even described it as having whistled through
parliament. Today is the sixth time the Chamber has debated this
bill over the last three years. It was introduced three times
before being made votable. Second reading occurred not
yesterday, but seven months ago. It was held in committee for
over four months and there was yet another debate at report
stage. More debate is yet to come in the Senate. Parliament has
had much time to debate this issue and render a well considered
decision. The House has decisively, on two occasions, voted in
support of Bill C-251. It is a decision that should be
respected.
For months I have been asked to put a label on Bill C-251. Is
it liberal to initiate this kind of change? I decided to find
out whether it was liberal and to find out whether people of
different political stripes had different views about consecutive
versus concurrent sentences for murder and sexual assault. I
commissioned a professional polling company, often regarded as
the Liberal Party pollster, to find out how Canadians broadly
viewed this issue. What they found did not surprise me.
Intuitively, I have always felt that the Canadian sense of
justice was non-partisan. That is the message I got at the door
in my riding. I got the same message in Quebec, the maritimes
and the west. All people, of every political stripe, from every
region of this country, have seen the injustice of concurrent
sentencing in their communities. Their outrage is not political;
it arises from the people's sense of justice.
Pollara found that 90% of Canadians support consecutive
sentencing for rapists and murderers on a mandatory basis. With
judicial discretion, that number would surely increase to an even
higher level. What the numbers show is very interesting when we
examine the political parties that respondents support.
Ninety-two per cent of Liberals polled support consecutive
sentencing. Support in the other five political parties was
similarly overwhelming, with no party showing less than 83%
support for consecutive sentencing. Just as striking was the
fact that women were the strongest supporters of consecutive
sentencing, with only 5% opposed to mandatory back-to-back
sentences.
1115
Consecutive sentencing for murderers and rapists defies the
labels. It is as non-partisan as the justice that victims in
this country require.
In amending the bill, I took into account more than just the
criticisms that some had offered. I also wished to address
legitimate concerns over the image given by certain potential
sentences. In particular, there seems to be some discomfort with
the notion of even a Clifford Olson being sentenced to a fully
consecutive term which could reach 275 years. In response, I
agreed to yet another amendment that would cap any additional
sentence at 25 years. Hence, sentences will not be imposed which
go far beyond the life expectancy of most multiple murderers.
We have before us today a bill I believe reflects the input of
many members of the House, including some who sadly continue to
oppose it. It achieves the core objective of eliminating the
automatic bulk rate for murder that disregarded the second, third
or eleventh victim. It makes this progress with all the
safeguards of complete judicial discretion.
I urge all members to look upon Bill C-251 as a bill that
responds to their advice and builds on the common ground that we
have found over the past three years. It is a bill that will
contribute to justice by providing greater proportionality and
fairness, and by recognizing that every victim deserves a measure
of justice.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-251. It has been
ongoing in the House for some time and, I must say, with a fair
bit of acrimony. I am not sure if the debate has gotten into the
rights or wrongs of the bill. It seems to be more that it did
not come from one particular source or that it was not sanctioned
by the cabinet, for instance, and therefore it is not going to
go.
This particular bill deals with a pretty basic issue in the
country, which is whether or not multiple murderers and rapists
are getting the right amount of prison time for their crimes. I,
too, have a private member's bill in the House on consecutive
versus concurrent sentences, but it does not deal murderers and
rapists. It deals with individuals who are already in prison and
who unlawfully go at large. At a facility in my community there
have been 23 unlawfully at large prisoners in the last six
months. That is only one facility out of the seven in the area.
What happens is that they go and commit a crime or whatever and
get a concurrent sentence. In other words, there is no extra
time. A guy goes into prison thinking he can escape on a dump
truck or something else in order to get out. Once he is out he
robs a bank. He just goes back to prison and the courts say that
he was a bad boy and that he should not do it again. He receives
the same amount of time.
At the moment, I am not going to deal with that particular
issue, even though I think it is important, because this
particular issue on Bill C-251 is much more important. This is
about people who commit severe crimes, multiple crimes, multiple
murders and rapes.
This frequently happens in my community in the lower mainland of
British Columbia.
Victims enter the courtroom thinking that the individual will get
life and they will never see him again. What happens most of the
time is that the faint hope clause, section 745 of the Criminal
Code, will take light and give opportunity for an individual to
get out of prison after 15 years.
1120
The terrible tragedy of all that is that those parents, families
and victims from way back when the original crime was committed
think the person is away for life and they can put the terrible
tragedy in their past history and get on with life. However,
after 15 years the person can apply under the faint hope clause
and the battle starts all over again.
I am already in a situation with Colin Thatcher who is about to
apply for a section 745 hearing. All of the victims will once
again have to relive the tragedy of 15 years ago. His wife was
bludgeoned to death 20 times and shot in the back of the head.
They will have to relive this all over again. They are asking
whether the punishment fits the crime. In this case we have
serious rape offences and multiple murders. Very few people
today are satisfied with the fact that an individual gets life
because life does not mean life in Canada.
Way back, when the Liberal government did away with the death
penalty, it said that it would bring in life as a penalty. Little
unknown to most of us, the Liberals said that life is 25 years
but it could be reduced by 10 years by applying under the faint
hope clause to get an early release. We did not know much about
that because by the time it started it was 1992, some 16 years
later.
We have seen some terrible situations of individuals who were
originally up for life, and where families thought they were in
prison for life, but who were in fact out on the street 16 and 17
years later.
What we have to deal with is whether Bill C-251 is an
appropriate bill. I sincerely believe it is. The second issue
is how we get it through the House of Commons. We know that
cabinet, by and large, is not in favour of this, but this is not
a cabinet bill. It is not a piece of government legislation. It
comes from an individual, an individual with the support of a
majority of the members in the House.
Just because it is not government legislation, it does not come
from cabinet and it does not have the support of those in cabinet
does not mean the bill should not be carried. It means that maybe
the individual who brought the bill forward to the House is a lot
closer to the grassroots of the country than the cabinet may like
to think. This is one of the difficulties with private members'
bills in the House. Cabinet thinks private members' legislation
interferes with an agenda.
I have had considerable experience with private members'
legislation being a member of a subcommittee that looks at it.
This legislation is a lot closer to the grassroots of the country
than much of the legislation put forward and tabled by cabinet.
It can be said that overnight success usually takes about 10
years in the House of Commons. We have been at this long enough
to recognize that this issue is not going to go away. It is time
for those of us who really believe in this to stand up and be
accounted for and not to stay home because we were told to stay
home by government members or a whip. It is time to stand up and
be counted.
It is interesting that in the bill, as the member who sponsored
it has said, judges have complete discretion as to whether to use
it or not. That in and of itself should be enough to waylay the
fears or concerns of anybody on the other side that here we go
down the slope of always issuing consecutive sentences.
1125
I wish it could be said that judges in the country issue the
maximums. However, in my experience judges are often
implementing and imposing sentences that are minimums, not
maximums. We see it all the time under the Young Offenders Act
and when they deal with drugs, they give minimum not maximum
sentences.
What is important here, although it says “using complete
judicial discretion”, the next stage for me would be to try to
convince some of these judges to use some of that discretion
rather than the minimum sentences that they give.
If an individual is sentenced to two consecutive sentences, to a
maximum of 50 years, is that so bad? I am not going to repeat
the names of those who should have it, but I am going to say that
any individual in the country perpetrating multiple murders
should serve an appropriate amount time for that crime. When we
get into two, three and four multiple murders, we should not be
saying that one 25 year sentence is adequate. It is not for the
victims of the crime.
In view of the bill, which is significant to the House of
Commons and to Canadians, I move:
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Madam Speaker,
the bill before the House has had substantial movement over a
number a years culminating today in the vote before the House.
The original bill came before the justice committee, on which I was
a member. We examined the bill and eventually it came forward in
the following manner with amendments that have been moved and
have substantially changed the bill.
I am going to address three things. First, I am going to
address the changes in the legislation that occurred last week,
to which the mover of the bill referred. Second, as this is a
private member's bill, I will be addressing my own views on the
bill. Third, I will also be addressing some of the comments made
by the earlier speakers.
I will say that the drafter and mover of the bill has
substantially changed the original legislation. One of my
criticisms of the original legislation was the lack of judicial
discretion. I believe the member has gone to some lengths to
address that. However, to some extent I think that was also done
in an effort to get the matter back before the House of Commons.
I do not blame her for that because it is a matter she feels
quite passionately about.
In the haste to move those amendments, I have some concerns
about the drafting. People should know that members of
Parliament only received these amendments a week ago today.
1130
There has not been time to adequately review them in the way we
normally would. Normally they should be vetted through the
justice committee to ensure that there are no charter challenge
objections or that they do not conflict with other sections of
the code. That causes me concern and I will come back to it
before I am finished.
Having provided for judicial discretion the member has narrowed
the focus of the bill. I ask that we have a respectful debate on
a piece of legislation upon which members of the Chamber have
very differing opinions. I have listened respectfully to those
with whom I disagree and I expect the same courtesy. We need
that kind of debate.
The issue has now been narrowed to what kind of society we see
Canada becoming, what kind of society we want to build. Is it a
society where justice is vengeful, or is it a society that sees
redemption in the spirit of mankind? Not just to be critical, I
say that because there are those who believe that justice should
be vengeful. There are those who believe in an eye for an eye, a
tooth for a tooth, a life sentence for a life.
Having redrafted the bill, the member caused me to think
carefully about this when I was home in my constituency. I had a
discussion with a young woman who is not sophisticated in the way
bills come before parliament. I explained to her what we were
talking about, how there was a motion that would allow a murderer
who commits horrendous murders—and I do not think anyone would
say they are not—to be sentenced to two consecutive life
sentences in the justice system.
This young 11 year old woman looked at me and said “But you
only have one life to serve. How can offenders serve more than
their life?” That is the question to ask. How can we sentence
offenders to more than God has given them? How can we sentence
them to more than their life?
There is some confusion around this question. I think the
member for Langley—Abbotsford mentioned it when referring to
these sentences as 25 year sentences. There are members of the
House who think that conviction for multiple murders is a 25 year
sentence. It is not. It is a life sentence with eligibility to
ask for parole at 25 years. Some prisoners have been released at
25 years and some have not. The sentence is not 25 years. The
sentence is an entire life in prison with the opportunity to ask
for parole at 25 years.
An hon. member: No, it is not.
Mr. Peter Mancini: A member of the Reform Party is
yelling at me, saying that is not it. I ask the mover of the
bill, then, why we have changed it from 25 years to 50 years. It
is eligibility to apply for parole at 50 years. That is what we
are extending. We are adding two or three life sentences.
In nations with the death penalty would murderer be hanged three
times? Is that the direction in which to go? If we say there
should be multiple life sentences then I ask that question. Maybe
there are those who believe that if offenders take three lives
they should pay three times.
I am sympathetic to the case made by the mover of the bill who
says that many people and many victims ask if the death of their
spouse, their child or their friend is meaningless. I respect
and believe this comment. Yet surely we cannot say that by
adding another life sentence to what is an impossible situation
we bring justice to that family. Surely by saying someone will
serve 200 years when it is not a possibility only mocks the
justice system.
I respect those who feel differently in this regard, but to me
there is an illogical aspect to it that plays into the question
of whether or not we are a vengeful society.
1135
We are also asking the judge to look at the offender and
determine whether or not the offender can be rehabilitated in 50
years. The burden we put on the judge is to look at the offender
and say “I believe that you are so heinous a human being that
you cannot be redeemed for 50 years and will make that judgment
now”.
What other legislation would we pass in the House and say no one
can change it for 50 years? I ask members to think about that.
Would we say a piece of environmental legislation could not be
touched for 50 years because we as members of parliament have the
foresight to know what will happen in the next five decades?
Can we give a judge the power to sentence someone to two life
sentences and not be eligible for parole for five decades? We
can, and there are members who will vote for that. I disagree
and I have asked for a respectful debate on it.
My opinion is that I cannot entrust any other human being with
50 years of foresight. I say that there are all kinds of
prisoners, all kinds of horrendous human beings who have found
redemption, maybe not at 25 years but maybe at 35 years, maybe at
15 years or maybe at 5 years. Can I judge that? If I cannot,
can I ask the judiciary to do it? I object to the bill on those
terms.
I will turn to the comments made by the mover. Again I say I
respect her opinion. She referred to the Pollara poll. Many
people in that poll believed that a life sentence was 25 years
and the opinions were therefore skewered.
Let me end by saying that in a way we have perhaps increased the
life sentence. Perhaps we have taken more from the offender. If
we sentence someone without eligibility for parole for 50 years,
we take away hope and in so doing perhaps we take away not only
their life but their soul.
I have to vote against the bill because my conscience tells me
that justice is redeemable and not vengeful.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Madam
Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise again to speak in support of
Bill C-251. I am pleased to follow the comments of my colleague
from Nova Scotia, the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria. He raised
some very soul searching and gut wrenching questions in his
commentary.
Obviously today's debate and throughout the time that we have
seen this issue arise in the House and in committee it invokes a
very emotional response, as do victimization and violence in most
instances.
I pay tribute again to the member for Mississauga East for her
tireless work on the issue and for bringing it forward. Today's
vote will be a testament to that hard work and determination. It
is because of this perseverance and persistence that we will have
an opportunity to bring about a law that will in my opinion more
accurately reflect the conscience of the country and the need to
protect individuals from violent offenders.
The basic and just principle of consecutive sentences has proved
to be too much for some soft on crime members of the Liberal
government. As many members know and as has been previously
stated, previous polls have been conducted which seem to suggest
that Canadians overwhelmingly support the principle of stiffer
sentences when it comes to the issue of high end violence, the
violation of people and their lives.
While some members of the Liberal government defend
rehabilitation and parole for multiple murderers and rapist, Bill
C-251 calls for the House to defend the rights of victims of
multiple offenders such as Mr. Olson's victims numbered one
through eleven. The bill would given individualized recognition
to those victims and give their families some much deserved
justice for the atrocities that were committed against them and
their loved ones.
1140
It would also send a strong message to potential criminals that
the Canadian justice system would no longer ignore the number of
innocent lives that are shattered. I urge the House to take
action and follow the lead of the hon. member for Mississauga
East to stop the volume discount for crime sprees, for serial
rape and murder.
Perhaps our actions today will impact on the future of some
loved ones. This current incarnation of Bill C-251 reflects a
compromise, an improvement and an explanation of many of the
clauses that previously existed in a bill which the Progressive
Conservatives also supported.
While the current proposal cannot address the concerns of every
member in the House or every member of society, it is a concrete
shift in the right direction. It will not be retroactive. There
have been many arguments about discretion and the imposition of
judicial discretion on an issue such as this one. It has been
used on both sides of the argument quite ironically. I suggest
in this instance that it allows a judge increased discretion to
reflect the applicable laws upon the conscience of the community.
No one is suggesting for a moment that we remove all other
sentencing principles, the protection of the public and the need
for rehabilitation and general or specific deterrents,
considerations with which my hon. colleague for Sydney—Victoria
would be familiar.
It certainly does not remove the situation where a person can in
fact be rehabilitated. I am of the personal belief, and I have
read extensively on this issue, that there are some in society
who simply are not amenable to rehabilitation. They simply
cannot be rehabilitated. They are those who are at the very high
end of the violence inflicted upon individuals.
It is extremely unfortunate. It is not something that a person
wants to admit quite readily, but if we are to believe that the
protection of society is the primary responsibility of
legislators and the primary responsibility of our justice system
then we must recognize that a very small minority of criminals in
the country are simply beyond that rehabilitative scope.
The hon. member for Sydney—Victoria spoke of a 50 year
foresight, that he did not believe there could be such a thing. I
suggest quite the opposite. I would rather have an attempt at a
50 year foresight than a one year after the fact contemplation of
what could have been done when a person was released for whatever
reasons or whatever criteria and went out to rape and kill again.
Bill C-251 was previously introduced and dealt with in the
justice committee. It has had intense scrutiny. There has been
an opportunity for members of that committee and members of the
House to look at the issue in depth. There has been a concerted
effort on the part of some members of the justice committee to
undermine and completely dismiss or remove the issue from public
debate. That is very unfortunate because there are significant
number of members in this place and an overwhelming number of
Canadians who support the initiative of the hon. member.
The fact that this is a tough, philosophic issue, as are many
issues that we often find ourselves debating and facing in the
House, is not justification for turning a blind eye or refusing
to deal with each.
The current language in the bill shifts sentencing for multiple
crimes of rape and murder from concurrent to consecutive but the
discretion still exists. There is no mandatory minimum or
maximum reflected in this change.
The current bill and its amendments do not guarantee consecutive
sentences in any way. It grants judicial discretion for cases
where consecutive sentence would not be in line with our
fundamental principles of justice.
The bill does not change the status quo from mandatory
concurrent sentences to consecutive, barring any judicial
discretion on behalf of defendants. When justice chooses not to
enforce these consecutive sentences, however, the bill has
amendments that would require that justice explains to the
victims and their families why these sentences would not be
served concurrently or would be served concurrently as opposed to
consecutively.
1145
If this legislation is enacted, judges will be given the
opportunity to mete out an appropriate sentence for animals like
Bernardo, Olson and Roby. I want to put these cases forward
because it is important in the context of the debate.
After being found guilty of the savage sadistic murders of two
teenage girls in the 1990s, Paul Bernardo received two concurrent
life sentences. He can apply for judicial review of his sentence
in 2008 and is eligible for day release in 2015.
Clifford Olson is serving 11 concurrent life sentences. His
sentence is not all that more serious than if he only took one
life. That is to say all of his sentences together reflect the
same sentence that a person would receive for taking one life.
Pedophile John Roby was convicted of 35 counts of sexually
abusing children. The victims' families were shocked to learn
that after being convicted of 27 accounts of these assaults, Mr.
Roby received a two year prison term. After several other
victims came forward, the Ontario Court of Appeal increased the
sentence just to five years.
In 1995 serial killer John Martin Crawford was charged with
three counts of first degree murder. After being convicted he
will be eligible for early parole in just 15 years under the
faint hope clause.
They are just some examples, some of the more extreme high end
examples, but nonetheless they are examples for the need of this
legislation. It would be a shift in the right direction. It is
my hope that this bill will also mark an important shift in the
mindset and the philosophy of the government.
It is also a welcome example of what can occur with
co-operation. In tribute to a member of the government, a
backbench parliamentarian, without the support of her party
leaders and without the support of a logical explanation as to
why that support does not exist, she has persevered. Under the
current government, the debate let alone the passage of this bill
has been opposed by a number of party members, her colleagues.
This is a rare occasion where a vote will take place that would
allow a very logical and very worthwhile piece of legislation to
pass.
Much semantics and rhetoric accompany the debate but it is
important to point out again that life in this country does not
equal life imprisonment. That attachment does not occur. Parole
eligibility in 25 years is not the equivalent of life
imprisonment.
Very few high end criminals make it to that 25 year point before
they apply and are indeed accepted for parole. Fifty years
ineligibility would be a more reflective response. It would be a
move in the right direction if judges were permitted to mete out
a sentence that was more reflective of the public sentiment.
Rehabilitation and other principles of sentencing will not be
overridden.
This greater discretion should be encouraged and embraced by
members of the House. Democratic principles should be respected
as they were when previous occasions allowed members of the House
to vote in favour of this bill. I encourage all members present
to support Bill C-251.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
much has been said this morning about this debate being a battle
of the backbench against the government. There are many members
on the backbench who are not in government and have extreme
difficulty with this bill and with the fact that it has not been
voted through the committee system.
The amendments that are the subject of today's vote were
negotiated while the debate at report stage was carried on. There
are many issues that should be studied. Certainly many of us
feel that this bill should be sent to committee.
There are some factual errors. For instance, what is a sentence
for first degree murder? It is life without eligibility for
parole for 25 years. In fact, the average sentence served in
Canada is 28.4 years. Some members disputed or denied that, but
those facts and figures are available from Corrections Canada.
We had those amendments reviewed by Professor Allan Manson, who
is a professor of law at Queens University. He said that in his
opinion “Bill C-251 in its present form is unsound
constitutionally, an example of regressive, inconsistent and
unjustified penal policy and the product of an irresponsible
process of legislating penal reform”.
1150
In those circumstances certainly because of the timeframes that
were imposed upon the House and the lack of the bill being
referred to committee there has not an opportunity to properly
study this bill.
The motives for this bill are certainly commendable. Everyone
empathizes with the plight of victims. In our penal system life
does mean life, but there is the opportunity for rehabilitation.
I think that is very significant and should be retained.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 11.50 a.m., the
time provided for debate has expired.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the yeas have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Call in the members.
1215
Before the taking of the vote:
[English]
The Speaker: This is a private member's bill and the question
is on the motion of the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford that
the question be now put.
[Translation]
The first to vote will be the mover of the motion. Accordingly, we
will begin at my left with the rows at the back and work forward.
1220
[English]
During the taking of the vote:
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi: Mr. Speaker, I want to vote in favour
of the motion.
The Speaker: Were you here when the voting began?
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi: Yes.
The Speaker: You will be recorded.
[Translation]
The Speaker: I am addressing the hon. member for
Charlesbourg. How do you want to vote?
Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Speaker, I am voting for the motion.
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Baker
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bellemare
|
Bergeron
| Bevilacqua
| Bigras
| Bonin
|
Brien
| Brison
| Bryden
| Cadman
|
Calder
| Cannis
| Cardin
| Casey
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Comuzzi
| Crête
| Cullen
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Debien
| Desrochers
| Doyle
|
Drouin
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Easter
|
Epp
| Fontana
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Gouk
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guarnieri
| Guay
|
Hanger
| Harb
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hoeppner
| Ianno
| Jaffer
| Jennings
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
|
Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Leung
| Longfield
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Meredith
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Mitchell
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Obhrai
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Penson
| Peric
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Reynolds
| Richardson
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Serré
| Solberg
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Turp
| Ur
| Venne
| Volpe
|
White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| White
(North Vancouver) – 122
|
NAYS
Members
Bakopanos
| Bélanger
| Bertrand
| Boudria
|
Bulte
| Caccia
| Carroll
| DeVillers
|
Dromisky
| Earle
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Godfrey
| Grose
| Harvard
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Mancini
| Marleau
|
Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| McDonough
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| Paradis
|
Phinney
| Riis
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Solomon
|
St - Julien
| Vanclief
| Wasylycia - Leis – 31
|
PAIRED
Members
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Barnes
| Canuel
| Chamberlain
|
Charbonneau
| Clouthier
| de Savoye
| Folco
|
Guimond
| Laurin
| Lefebvre
| Ménard
|
Mifflin
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
The next question is on the main motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
1225
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: We will take this vote in the same fashion
as we took the last vote, with the mover of the motion being
first to vote, in this case to my right. Then we will start with
the fifth row and come forward.
1230
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bellemare
| Bevilacqua
|
Bonin
| Boudria
| Brison
| Bryden
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
| Cardin
|
Casey
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Comuzzi
| Cullen
|
Debien
| Doyle
| Dumas
| Easter
|
Epp
| Fontana
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Gouk
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guarnieri
| Guay
| Hanger
|
Harb
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
|
Ianno
| Jaffer
| Jennings
| Jones
|
Jordan
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Lastewka
| Leung
| Longfield
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Marchand
| Marleau
| Matthews
|
Mayfield
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Mitchell
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Obhrai
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Penson
| Peric
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Reynolds
| Richardson
| Riis
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Serré
| Solberg
|
Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Szabo
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Turp
| Ur
| Vanclief
|
Venne
| Volpe
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
White
(North Vancouver) – 117
|
NAYS
Members
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bakopanos
| Bélanger
| Bergeron
|
Bertrand
| Bigras
| Brien
| Bulte
|
Caccia
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duceppe
| Earle
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Gauthier
| Godfrey
| Grose
|
Harvard
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Mancini
| Marceau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
|
McDonough
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| Paradis
| Phinney
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| St - Hilaire
| St - Julien
| Wasylycia - Leis – 40
|
PAIRED
Members
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Barnes
| Canuel
| Chamberlain
|
Charbonneau
| Clouthier
| de Savoye
| Folco
|
Guimond
| Laurin
| Lefebvre
| Ménard
|
Mifflin
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1235
[Translation]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—AMATEUR SPORT
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ) moved:
That, since the government ignored most of the
recommendations by the Sub-Committee on the Study of Sport in
Canada, a Sub-Committee of the Standing Committee on Canadian
Heritage, the House demand that the government place amateur
athletes at the heart of its concerns and make a commitment to
placing their interests before the interests of professional
sport.
She said: Mr. Speaker, before beginning, I would like to draw
your attention to the fact that I will be sharing my time with
my colleague from Témiscamingue. This will be the case with all
Bloc Quebecois members throughout the day.
I must first say that I am delighted to be able to debate
amateur sport in this House today, and I trust that our debate
will have the attentive ear of the other side of the House.
The Bloc Quebecois is introducing the following motion on its
opposition day:
That, since the government ignored most of the
recommendations by the Sub-Committee on the Study of Sport in
Canada, a Sub-Committee of the Standing Committee on Canadian
Heritage, the House demand that the government place amateur
athletes at the heart of its concerns and make a commitment to
placing their interests before the interests of professional
sport.
If hon. members find this motion long, I must point out that
every word has a meaning and a reason to be there. I would even
say that each problem I shall address today could easily have
been a motion onto itself, for the problems to be addressed
throughout this day by my colleagues are but the tip of the
iceberg. In fact, my impression in researching this matter was
that it was like opening Pandora's box. Members will, I am
sure, get that same impression.
I would like hon. members to know before I go any further that I
too was part of the wonderful world of amateur sport. Yes, I
was a competitive figure skater. I loved the sport and dreamed
of taking part in international competitions, but I had to make
a choice. That choice was to give up skating because my parents
and I could no longer afford the skates, the costumes and the
coaching.
I focused on my studies and then went into politics. Some
might say I am still skating, but around issues. On this one, I
will say right out that I want nothing to do with the kind of
society that does not encourage its athletes, that politicizes
sport and prefers to subsidize professional sport to the
detriment of amateur sport.
Do members know what is serious here? Nothing has changed
in the past 15 years. Nothing. Since the Liberals were elected
in 1993 transfer payments for amateur sport have dropped from
$76 million to $57 million. We are far from an improvement. In
fact, I would call it a backslide.
For a moment we could have believed that the Liberals wanted to
redeem themselves when the matter of striking a subcommittee on
amateur sport came up, but no.
In passing, I would like to congratulate my colleague, the
member for Rimouski—Mitis, who worked very hard on this issue and
is undoubtedly following the debate today.
Although the Bloc Quebecois participated in good faith on this
subcommittee, we have always felt that it was just an excuse to
support professional sport and ensure the visibility of the
maple leaf. We are still wondering if it was not a way to
include the member for Bourassa.
The facts would certainly seem to bear us out. It is now clear
that the subcommittee's report accomplished nothing because the
minister did not implement any of the recommendations that might
have helped athletes.
Although we were promised that this report would be the answer
to all the problems encountered by athletes, the government is
giving professional sport the nod over amateur sport.
What a sad comment on society, at a time when life is not easy
for these promising athletes. Every year they face the same
financial constraints and must struggle to find the necessary
resources. The government should do more for these athletes,
who do us proud and who give us a window on the world. It
should match the commitment of the private sector.
The assistance now provided by Sport Canada falls badly short.
Additional funding for our athletes should be made available
immediately. Athletes cannot wait for the 2001 symposium and
the resultant visibility for the government and its flag. If
professional sport is in urgent straits, amateur sport is even
more so.
As recently as May 1, 1999 one of our very well known athletes,
Jean-Luc Brassard, asked whether athletes would have to walk
behind their sponsors' flags. This is not a good sign.
Despite all the remarkable achievements of our athletes, of whom
we are proud and who deserve greater assistance, the Liberal
government's record on sport is a disgrace and I denounce it.
1240
Since the tabling of the Mills report I have had the
opportunity to speak to our athletes. There are many financial
problems and they must be dealt with immediately.
As I said before, the issue of funding is among the most serious
issues. Ten minutes are not enough to list all the problems that
exist in amateur sport, but I will try to give an overview of
the situation.
Let us be very clear. I want everyone to clearly understand that
the Bloc Quebecois is not opposed to professional sport. We just
want to make sure that the interests of millionaires are not
given priority over those of amateur sport.
I also want the government to clearly understand that before
funding professional sport millionaires there are questions
that need to be answered. We should first determine the exact
costs involved, know the spinoffs for Quebecers and Canadians,
and control skyrocketing salaries.
No independent study has yet shown the economic impact of a
professional franchise, and no professional team has made a
commitment to remain in its host city in exchange for taxpayers'
support. There are still many unanswered questions regarding
professional sport, and if I had more than 10 minutes I would
mention many more.
Sport Canada only gives 8.3% of its financial
resources to amateur athletes. Every study conclusively shows
that athletes often live below the poverty line. Even the hon.
member for Bourassa agrees with me on that issue.
Coaches are not required to be bilingual and there is no
training program to help them learn to speak French.
Francophones are subject to serious discrimination. I could
definitely use another 10 minutes.
There is a shift toward centres such as Calgary and Toronto. For
example, the synchronized swimming federation transferred the
team's training location to Toronto, in spite of the fact that
the majority of its athletes are from Quebec.
Also, athletes cannot engage in politics; otherwise they could
be expelled from the Canadian Olympic Association. They must,
however, promote Canadian unity and prominently display the
Canadian flag.
If the athletes forget, the minister makes sure to take flags
along with her and constantly reminds athletes that integration
of Sport Canada with Canadian Heritage has focused attention on
the contribution high level sport makes to Canadian pride and to
national unity.
Amateur sport is so important to the minister that she rejects
all measures that could really help athletes; such consistency,
once again, from the minister.
Would hon. members like another example, just for the fun of it,
since they are beyond counting? In her letter to the head of
the committee, the minister wrote:
The committee has made a convincing demonstration of the
necessity of solid assistance from the federal government to
amateur sport.
Such a convincing demonstration that the minister is going to
wait a while yet. She is not too sure. Stay tuned for further
developments.
As I said, amateur sport is full of problems. Did hon. members
know that there is no system to monitor the federations, and no
assurance that taxpayers' money will be properly managed and our
athletes respected?
I will give one example: the skaters Isabelle and Paul
Duchesnay. They were forced to go to France to train and to
compete for France, and now have had to go to Florida to teach
figure skating because the Canadian skating federation refuses
to allow them to coach here. And the government is doing
nothing to resolve the situation.
When there are problems within a federation, athletes have to go
elsewhere if they want to continue or have simply to give up.
This simply makes no sense.
If I had more than 10 minutes I could also speak about another
problem, that of francophone athletes who are often discouraged
because they have to go elsewhere and learn English because
national centres offer few services in French. As Sports Québec
indicated to the Bélanger-Campeau Commission barely eight years
ago:
Unilingual francophone athletes must overcome an additional
obstacle in Canadian selections when they are unable to fully
communicate in their own language with their trainers and those
responsible for selection... They have less opportunity...
because the majority of professionals and volunteers responsible
for the selection and training of athletes are unilingual
anglophones.
If I had more than 10 minutes I would also talk about the
problems within the Canadian Olympic Association, but once again
10 minutes is not very long.
The third recommendation in the Mills report on the matter of
funding for the drug program is another hot topic. Clearly, the
minister's response to the Mills report is a vast
disappointment.
What has to be understood is that there are problems in sports
at the upper echelons, and the government was elected for
everyone, not just for the millionaires contributing to election
coffers.
1245
The government must become a decisive player and correct things
now. In this case, why not let Quebec have its own banner?
Quebec could do sports as it understands them. We could manage
our federations properly and really give priority to our
athletes.
This is the sort of society I want. Who knows, perhaps
Quebec might beat Canada at the Olympic Games.
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, in this question and comment period I say to the member
for Longueuil, a member from the Bloc Quebecois, that this motion
is a great initiative.
As the chair of the House of Commons committee that tabled the
report, it is only fair and proper for me to acknowledge on the
floor of this House of Commons the fantastic contribution the
member for Rimouski—Mitis made to the committee. The member,
Suzanne Tremblay, was with us—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member
surely knows that we do not name members in this House.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Madam Speaker, I know what the rules
are but I also know that my friend, the member for
Rimouski—Mitis, is not with us today. She was unable to be here.
I know her spirit and her heart are totally behind the work we
are doing in the House of Commons today. She is caring and
compassionate.
I must say the only problem I had with the member for
Rimouski—Mitis was that I could never figure out why she was
part of the Bloc. I sensed in her a real passion for young
amateur athletes from coast to coast to coast. As we debate this
report today I hope we in the House of Commons can do justice to
all the good work she did on behalf of young people, amateur
athletes, not just from the province of Quebec, but from every
region of our country. I had to put those remarks on the floor of
the House of Commons.
I also have to say that the government is passionately committed
to amateur sport. When the Minister for Canadian Heritage
responded some three weeks ago, she tabled a report wherein 53 of
the 69 recommendations were accepted by the government. It is an
unprecedented response.
The most important thing that should be put forward once and for
all is that in the report “Sport in Canada: Leadership,
Partnership and Accountability, Everybody's Business” there were
69 recommendations and 68 of them were dedicated to amateur
sport. Only one recommendation dealt with the fact that we have
small market professional teams which need to be dealt with in a
serious and constructive way.
As we launch this unprecedented debate in the House of Commons,
and I realize it is only questions and comments right now, let us
make sure that our focus is on amateur sport. Let us not get
sidetracked by the professionals. Let us not let the media
sidetrack us.
[Translation]
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Madam Speaker, I in turn
thank my colleague for his able participation on the committee.
I think he made a substantial contribution to amateur sport.
His heart was in the right place, and I do not fault him
personally, but rather the government, and the response of the
Minister of Canadian Heritage in particular.
I also wish to concur in the kind words addressed to my
colleague, the member for Rimouski—Mitis. I am sure that she is
here with us today in heart and in spirit.
I would like to tell my colleague, who mentioned 69
recommendations, 68 of them having to do with amateur sport,
that I fully agree with him.
I would like to ask him whether he finds it reassuring that his
colleague, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, has rejected all
of the amateur sport recommendations, or at least those that have a
positive impact and would help athletes.
1250
Right off the bat she approved the recommendation for
professional sport, invested money and delegated the Minister of
Industry—
An hon. member: That is not true.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: —to meet with people in the sector. She wants
to invest money, but does nothing for amateur sport.
I do not find this in the least reassuring, and I know that
neither do the athletes of Quebec and of Canada. If the member
wants to do something, I urge him to join the Bloc Quebecois,
because he does indeed tend to think like us when he says that
there has to be investment in amateur sport. He is welcome at
any time.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in today's debate on amateur sport, in the
wake of the report tabled by the Sub-Committee on the Study of
Sport in Canada on the needs of amateur athletes.
I want to point out that sport is an integral part of our
culture, both in Canada and in Quebec. Everyone has, at one time
or another, taken up one or several sports, or closely followed
family members or friends who were actively involved in sports.
Every community has an arena, a gymnasium and other sport
facilities.
In fact, economic spinoffs from sports are obvious in every
community. Most municipalities have facilities that were built
by people and that provided permanent work for others.
The problem right now is that a great deal of attention and
energy are focused on what must be done to help professional
sport. The Sub-Committee on the Study of Sport in Canada is no
stranger to the problem. Even though most of the subcommittee's
recommendations concern amateur sport, what got people's
attention was the future of professional sport and some
government members were quick to take a stand in that regard.
Yet the future of professional sport is not so—
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Is was only one recommendation.
Mr. Pierre Brien: —promising. It will never be what it once was.
With the Americanization of professional sport, several of our
professional sport clubs are being threatened, and it will be
very hard to save some of them.
The positive effect of this is that our sports reports, of which
there are many—one need only read a morning paper to be convinced
of that—may give more attention to amateur sport in future.
As for sports broadcasts, some radio stations have five hours of
phone-ins every day. Perhaps they would give more time to
covering amateur sports. This would focus more attention on the
unprecedented success stories.
I recently attended a boxing match. What goes on there can very
easily happen in amateur sport. It is a very good illustration
of how things are. A fighter's career can be over in a matter
of seconds. An athlete may have spent his whole youth training,
but a few moments of vulnerability can stop him from attaining
his desired goal.
That said, there are other values to sport: team work, aiming
for success, pushing one's limits, which can impact on our daily
lives. Athletes devote a great deal of effort and energy to
their passion, and the values stay with them for their entire
lives, as they do with those of us who participated in various
sports when we were young.
Do we give them enough support? I think not. A goodly number
of our athletes lack financial support. Of course the best of
them, that tiny minority of athletes who manage to win medals in
amateur sport, or an international or Olympic medal, manage to
gain sponsorship from a company like McDonald's. Yet few have
sufficient sponsor support to be able to increase training time
and perform at the level they would like.
The government also has a great deal of trouble monitoring
Canadian amateur sport associations because its financial
contribution is insufficient. The more room left for other
financial partners—and partnerships are not a bad thing—the more
the government plays a minor role and the less it can impose
its views on choices and strategy decisions.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
1255
Mr. Pierre Brien: Despite what some whiners on the other side
of the House are saying, I have heard a member of the Liberal
Party, whom I will quote in a few minutes, say some really bad
things about the Canadian Olympic Association with respect to
the Calgary clique, which had some cleaning up to do. We
certainly agree with that.
I have no doubt that members of the Liberal Party
must also support the principle that the government must invest
more if it wants to play a greater role, and I challenge
Liberal members interested in amateur sport to tell me
otherwise. I am not talking about the gang that looks after
professional sports, but rather those interested in amateur
sport.
Some things have to be settled: the language problems in
Canadian federations, location problems and strategic choices.
There is a strong pull from Calgary in amateur sport. They
deprived Quebec of a number of sports facilities. They even sent
athletes to train there when most of them were from Quebec.
There have been a lot of dubious decisions such as these, and I
am not talking about the place French occupies in events. Even
in events where they are trying to make a public show French is
forgotten. Imagine what is going on in the wings.
There are places in the world that are more open to Quebec's
having its own delegations at certain sporting events, and I
would like to see Canada being more open. Would it not be just fine to
see Canada and Quebec competing in the finals of an
international hockey tournament? It would be extraordinary and
something else.
When these same professionals were on strike and organized
hockey tournaments before the start of the season, they
established regional groups very different from our Canadian
political groups. There was a team from Quebec, and it was great
to see the game. It was also great for once to watch our
professionals not play for money, because they were on strike at
that point. The competition was really interesting.
The government should, among other things, increase its
financial involvement with all the federations. There are
currently a number of sport federations that are not even
funded. How can they be expected to develop and to help
athletes? There should be a review of all of them.
The selection of those federations that are currently getting
help is highly questionable. Several need support but are not
getting it. The government should quickly look at this issue.
This was in fact one of the subcommittee's recommendations, but
the government did not follow up on it.
I congratulate the hon. member for Longueuil for raising this
issue today, as the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis did before. I
hope this debate will at least have the effect of reviving the
report of the Subcommittee on the Study of Sport in Canada,
which had been shelved.
When I say that it was shelved I am being positive. Indeed, for
all I know, it may well have been thrown into the garbage.
Let us hope for the best, that the government will dig it out
and implement a number of recommendations included in it.
Many people are actively involved in amateur sport and are
expecting positive developments and signals. At a time when
professional sport is becoming less appealing to many people who
enjoy watching sport, this is a good opportunity to promote
amateur sport.
It is somewhat disconcerting to ordinary people to see
professional sport millionaires sometimes drag their feet and not
perform as well as expected.
Amateur athletes do not have that luxury. When we attend a
baseball game we may see a player earning $4 million or $5 million
performing poorly.
An amateur athlete cannot afford not to turn in a good
performance during a competition because, unless he meets the
very high standards he needs to qualify, he may lose the little
support he has from sponsors, as well as from the government.
He cannot afford to make any mistakes if he wants to survive in
his sport.
I have a much greater respect for amateur athletes than for some
professional athletes. We are all proud of Gaétan Boucher,
Myriam Bédard and Sylvie Fréchette. Canadians of whom we are
proud include swimmers Alex Bauman and Victor Davis, who
projected a positive image and did Quebec and Canada proud.
One danger is that the government will simply see this debate as
an opportunity for political visibility.
It would be just like the Minister of Canadian Heritage to want
to tattoo a maple leaf on the best athletes' foreheads to make
sure that Canada is visible at competitions.
That is not the goal. The goal is to support athletes. Instead
of conducting propaganda campaigns, as she did with the flag,
the minister should provide funding for the daily expenses of
these people so that they have a decent income while they are
training, so that their passion for what they do will not be
fettered. Let us agree: what we need is not a flag campaign,
not money for visibility, not money for the government, but
money that will go to athletes. If we keep that as a goal we
will be on the right track.
1300
In conclusion, I would like to move an amendment to the main
motion moved by the member for Longueuil. I move:
We are moving this amendment because we want action now, not
commitments in principle saying that the government will study
50 or so proposals at some distant date. We want action now
and that is why we are adding the word immediately to the main
motion.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Madam Speaker, I would
first like to thank my colleague from Témiscamingue, who made a
fine presentation.
However, with the little time he had at his disposal, I would
have liked for him to speak more about the impact that Quebec
having its own banner might have. Where did he get this idea and
what would be the effect?
Mr. Pierre Brien: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her
question.
Only yesterday I was involved in public events. We were
discussing various subjects of concern to people, who are
increasingly interested in what happens internationally, whether
it involves the economy, various subjects or different
variables.
A number expressed the desire to see us on the international
stage soon, whether it be in the Olympics or other events. It
was not just the sovereignists saying so. There were federalists
as well who would like to have Quebec with its own group, its
own team in certain international competitions.
For example, this is already possible in the Francophonie games.
But here again, we could have a debate on the selection of
athletes, how it is done, whether the Canadian or the Quebec
teams have precedence in the selection of the people taking
part.
I would like to add one thing that I did not have time to
develop in my remarks. We have extremely capable athletes. Where
I come from we have Denise Julien, in badminton, who is a great
athlete. At the moment, however, Canada sets its own standards
for athletes going to the Olympic Games. In theory, it wants to
send the people most likely to be among the best. While
she is among the top 20 in the world, she may not be able to
meet the standards Canada sets in order to go to the Olympic
Games.
There is the whole business as well of elitism or of the
visibility that the federal government is aiming for with its
athletes. These are participatory sports, and our best athletes
in Quebec and in Canada should be able to go. If Canada does not
want to send them under its banner, it should let us send them
under our own.
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, it is very important that our listeners and viewers
today understand that the motion on the floor of the House of
Commons is essentially about amateur programs in Canada.
They would be a little confused if they did not understand that
currently we have a Canada games system where each and every
province goes to the games and has its own flag. That condition
already exists for the Quebec teams, the Prince Edward Island
teams and the Ontario teams. It is called the Canada Games.
1305
It is very important to remind the Bloc Quebecois that there has
never been a player from the province of Quebec, who put a Team
Canada jersey on his or her body to represent Canada on the world
stage, who has said that he or she did not think it was one of
the greatest experiences in his or her life.
Let us not bastardize the great work we have done in the House
of Commons, as the member from Rimouski has done in talking about
amateur sport, by trying to bring in the notion of separatism for
athletes. There is not an athlete who espouses that theory who
has put on a Team Canada jersey.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien: Madam Speaker, I cannot help but smile at the
hon. member's grandstanding.
First of all, we have all heard about the Canada Games. We were
not talking about the Canada Games, but about Quebec having its
own delegation. Of course, our athletes are in a difficult
situation and I am not asking them their point of view. However,
when athletes start wondering if they will have to wear their
sponsors' trademarks at the next Olympic Games, there is indeed
a problem with the level of funding for amateur sport and our
athletes do not feel they are getting the support they need from
the federal government that is sending them to compete at the
international level.
Private corporations are making up for the lack of funding and
commitment from the government and soon enough they will have
our athletes covered with their trademarks from head to toe and
defending their interests instead of those of the country these
athletes should be representing.
The hon. member should reflect upon this and go after his own
colleagues, who choose to close their eyes or to worry only
about professional teams, without lifting a finger to help
amateur sport. They have not done a single thing to help the
people in amateur sport.
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I find
it regrettable that members of the Bloc are trying to get some
credibility at our athletes' expense. Not only that, but we saw
from their speeches that they do not have the depth, passion and
credibility of the member for Rimouski—Mitis, whom we miss.
I have been working on this issue for two years. Contrary to
those who are trying to score political points because they have
yet to make a breakthrough in this House, I have met
individually with each and every Canadian and Quebec federation, and
when we are able to meet them all together, I challenge those
members who are trying to score political points to find out who
those people want as representatives.
Last week, I was at the general meeting of the Fédération du
patinage de vitesse du Québec, which took place at the Auberge
des Gouverneurs in Sainte-Foy. Some people there told me “Mr.
Coderre, you don't want to get involved in flag flaps. You
really work for athletes and we acknowledge the fact that your
government has already given its support to 53 recommendations
out of 69”. This is an important point.
While some members are trying to make political hay at the
expense of professional sports, athletes will be judge and jury
and will understand. The Bloc is taking a position against
professional sport. One individual, by the name of Lucien
Bouchard, got involved in the Expos situation. The first thing
he said was “I will never invest in professional sport. I will
never invest in Montreal's Expos. This is inhuman.
This does not make sense”.
Several months later, the head office—I am not talking about the
valets—said “Okay, we will give between $7 million and $8 million a
year for 20 years”. Not a tax abatement but a direct
contribution amounting to some $160 million, because the head
office understood that professional sport is an industry which
generates revenues of $300 million and represents 35,000 jobs.
I will stop talking about professional sport, because they have
understood nothing.
1310
The hon. member for Témiscamingue mentioned sports fans and open
lines. However, when there is a serious problem in sport issues,
do experienced sports columnists, people who gave their life for
amateur sport or for sports in general, ask themselves “What
will the Bloc do about it?” People would be more inclined to say:
“All the Bloc wants is to create winning conditions for a
new referendum”.
People want to talk to the hon. member for Bourassa, to my
friend, the chairman of the Sub-committee on the Study of Sport
in Canada, and to my friend, the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier.
What does that mean? That means a very precise thing: the Bloc
tried once again to make some political hay on sports. The hon.
member for Témiscamingue predicted that the report would die
after only 48 hours, but we are still talking about it. Then
the Bloc Quebecois decided to raise the issue of sports in the
hope of scoring a few points.
I want to talk about specific and important issues. I will not
talk about the Bloc, but about amateur sport and especially
about athletes. It is true that opposition parties did not
support all of the report. They would have liked to go further
on some recommendations. However, one thing is certain. Those
who predicted that the subcommittee's report would be stillborn,
who today are trying to make some political hay with it, failed
to grasp one thing, that the subcommittee's report is the first
one in 30 years to examine the whole future of sports in Canada.
That is my first point.
The second point is that the report on sport is the beginning of
a process. This means it will take some time. This means we will
be talking about the sport issue. The separatists tried to
produce a minority report and to throw their venom at us. We
decided to take a stand on amateur sport. We decided
to take a stand for athletes, because it is true there are
problems.
It is because this government followed through with our
demands that we demonstrated once and for all that we, on this
side of the House, want to work in the interests of athletes.
Some things must be done about taxation. Instead of making
personal attacks, as does the hon. member for Longueuil, who is
trying to score points because she has not yet made a
breakthrough in the House, Bloc members should have suggested
some alternatives.
In this report, which they have rejected outright, there are things
that are extremely important; so much so that the finance
minister decided to follow up by planning consultations
at prebudget committee level for the next budget.
While they are trying to wage flag wars to campaign for the
referendum and to create the winning conditions, we have decided
to see the associations. Do we think people at Sports
Québec will fall in love with this gang on the other side? Who
do they come to talk to when there is a problem and
when they want not only to send a message but also to find a
solution? It is not to the gang on the other side. Let us be
serious. They talk to my colleague, they talk to me, they talk
to the minister and to the parliamentary secretary.
If we have proven to be sensitive to this issue, and if we have
established our credibility and our intellectual honesty, it is
because we have decided to take a stand on certain issues. We
heard remarks a while ago about the Canadian Olympic
Association. I am one of the instigators of the boycott of the
last movie, which was in English only and produced by
Americans. Guess what? Not a single senator, not a single
member of parliament on this side went to see this movie,
because we all know this is a bilingual country and there is
problem here that needs to be dealt with.
If this does not demonstrate our sensitivity and our concern for
both official languages in amateur sport, I fail to see what
could do it.
Secondly, it is obvious that we need to bring forward a new
approach to our tax system.
This excellent report presents a blueprint for our society
to improve the social, economic, political and
environmental quality of life.
This report makes suggestions that cannot all be implemented
overnight. We have suggested alternatives. We have decided for
example, to have a tax credit per child for parents with a
household income of $75,000 and less. These things are
important, but they have been set aside. The finance minister
has decided to go ahead with prebudget consultations.
1315
The other point, and I think it is important to mention it, is
that, while they make a fuss in an attempt at flag wars, in an
attempt to score points because servility is the order of the
day, we came up with a very important recommendation. This
recommendation provides for a sports summit.
We will recall that two years ago there was a health summit.
What happened with it? In the latest budget, the most important
item, the cornerstone, was health.
Therefore, if we create not only a sport summit, but one that is
chaired by our Prime Minister, there is no better decision
making than that. Give us time. We will work, we will send a
positive message and, from that, things will certainly start
moving.
I want to launch an appeal to the associations, to the
federations and to the athletes. I do not care what the other
side may think. What I know, for example, is that people have
given us this credibility.
I invite federations and athletes to tell their viewpoint and to
take an active part, like the president of Sports Québec,
Jean-Guy Ouellet. I want all federations to be involved in this
process. It is not a matter of trying to make the referendum the
cornerstone, as they are doing the other side, but they should
provide the solutions, approaches and, especially, show us their
importance in this matter.
We can do things together. I have no interest in swapping a
maple leaf for the fleur de lys on team jerseys. That is of no
interest.
This is what was said last week—and members can check
it—when the Fédération de patinage de vitesse unanimously gave me
its support. Its representatives said “Finally, here are
politicians not involved in the flag flurry, who want to work
actively for our welfare.
They want to help athletes. They want to help parents”.
I invite all those who are really interested in athletes and
sports, not
those interested in making political points at their expense, to
become fully involved in this process and to work so that
together we may find a solution that is viable and meaningful,
because our goal, their goal, is to work for the well-being of
society.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Madam Speaker, I hope
that simply rising in this House will not make the member for
Bourassa feel persecuted.
I would like to remind him that he is the king of
personal attacks. He has not stopped talking about members of
the Bloc Quebecois. Maybe he has not heard my speech, so I will
remind him that I said clearly that the Bloc Quebecois is not
against professional sport. Far from it. We just want to remind
the government opposite that it must place amateur sport at the
heart of its concerns. I too made a little tour, as did the
member for Bourassa. I know there is determination on the part
of the athletes.
There is one thing I would like the member for Bourassa to
explain to us. During the subcommittee hearings on October 29
the member for Bourassa expressed his indignation.
Here is what he said “I will ask him (the Commissioner of
Official Languages) to investigate and make sure that any
problem of accessibility is settled, whether it has to do with
documents, translation or services”.
Can the member for Bourassa tell us if he followed through on
that commitment made at the subcommittee hearings? He was
talking about Jean-Guy Ouellet. Can he say a few good words about
him?
I would also like to remind him that the colleague who
worked with him for a year is from the riding of
Broadview—Greenwood. It would be good for him to keep that in
mind.
Mr. Denis Coderre: Madam Speaker, it is extremely easy for me to
praise someone like Jean-Guy Ouellet, who dedicated his whole
life to amateur sport and who worked tirelessly including—and
this is for the information of the member for Longueuil—in
university volleyball.
He was also a referee.
We discussed these issues. Instead of
going on tours, I deal with the issue. When we worked together,
including at the Canadian university volleyball championship, we
discussed this sort of thing.
I did indeed apply pressure regarding official languages. These
are issues. However, contrary to members opposite, I looked for
solutions and alternatives.
By contrast, what members across the floor decided to do—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Denis Coderre: the poor martyrs opposite are whining. If
only they listened, it would help them.
What I have to say is helpful to me also, because it will help
Canadians see who is serious about this issue. I will simply say
that yes, we do think there is a language issue here.
1320
Yes, we also think there are all manner of problems, but that is
no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water.
We are aware of what they are up to as compared to what we are
trying to do. We really want to work toward solutions and solve
problems. From the start, they have tried to use personal
attacks and demagoguery. They have tried to say that the sport
millionaires contribute to slush funds. I do not know what
funds they are referring to, or which sport millionaires.
Answers to those questions are needed.
For us on this side of the House, what is important is to work
together and to continue the good work. Of the 69
recommendations, 53 have been accepted. Looking at all of the
parliamentary committees, this was a relatively inexpensive one,
costing only $15,000, yet it attracted a great many people and
triggered a public debate. That is what is important to us.
There are some people over there who have been carrying on about
this, like the hon. member for Témiscamingue, who has been at it
for some time now, telling us that we do nothing but speak of
professional sport. Unlike the people on the other side, I have
no need to backtrack on what I have said. Right from the start
I said that we needed to focus on amateur and professional
sport, because this is an industry that brings in $9 billion
and is responsible for 260,000 jobs and 1.1% of the gross
domestic product.
We are not going to put our heads in the sand, not like
Lucien Bouchard. At one point he said “It is unthinkable that
we would help the Expos, but, on the other hand, maybe it is a
good thing because now the federal election is over. So, when it
comes down to it, we will put in $160 million”. People will be
in a position to judge who has the greater credibility in this
matter.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Madam Speaker,
usually the member for Bourassa makes me laugh. What he says
often has to be taken with a grain of salt. Today, however, I do
not find it funny at all. Amateur sport is a very important
issue and the member for Bourassa is trying to give the debate a
type of levity I do not really care for.
First of all, things have to be said in all honesty. If the
member for Bourassa really complained to the official languages
commissioner—we have checked and it does not seem to be the
case—then I would ask him to table his letter of complaint.
Mr. Denis Coderre: Madam Speaker, it is not the first time that
I complain. Way back when I talked to the commissioner. If
the files do not reflect that, that is another matter, but I
will check.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I am very pleased to rise to debate this particular topic. I
would like to completely change the tone of where we have been.
I would first like to recognize the dedication of the member for
Broadview—Greenwood to this particular topic and commend him for
having made the effort to bring focus to the issue, which is
indeed a very important issue here in Canada.
The member made an intervention earlier and he is correct when
he states that the report does examine all aspects of sport. He
will also recall that as the heritage critic for the Reform Party
at the time, I chose to boycott the hearings. Unfortunately, the
reason I chose to boycott the hearings, has been borne out. I say
this in all sincerity, but I never believed there was a
commitment on the part of the Liberal government to do anything
with the report.
The report itself is an excellent report. The work of the
people involved in generating the report is good. The
determination of the member to make this happen was also good.
Unfortunately, there never was a commitment on the part of the
heritage minister or on the part of the government to ever do
anything with the report.
At the time, I called it the hockey report because I predicted,
unfortunately correctly, that it would deteriorate into a
discussion about the NHL and about hockey. It has deteriorated
into a worthy discussion about taxes, particularly taxes as
compared to U.S. jurisdictions.
Indeed, all Canadians and all businesses are looking for relief
from the government at some future point in time for at least a
recognition of how the Canadian tax level puts us at such a
severe disadvantage against the U.S.
1325
I note that the Minister of Industry is going to be proceeding
with a summit of the mayors and all the people involved with the
NHL teams in Canada, I believe in the next couple of weeks.
Certainly that side of the issue has received the high priority
that I predicted it would receive.
There have been some good suggestions. Ron Bremner, the
president of the Calgary Flames, has suggested that there are
lotteries that relate to the scores that happen in the NHL. He
wonders why the NHL cannot get some proceeds from those
lotteries. That is worthy of consideration.
I note that when the Edmonton franchise was in deep trouble it
ended up giving $2 million of concession fees; that is, earnings
from concession sales in the Northlands Coliseum to the new
group. That, by the way, was just fine by me because the
Edmonton Ice, the junior team that was there at the time, was
looking for a home. They ended up in my home in Cranbrook, B.C.
and are now the Kootenay Ice. So there was a concession there.
One of the things that was not covered, which was because it was
an all-encompassing report, was that it would have been helpful
to have noted that the NHL Players' Association also gains great
revenue with tens of millions of dollars of merchandise sales
that goes into the players' association pocket. There is a lot
of money within the system as it presently sits.
I also note that the issue of taxation is not just a federal
taxation issue. The Molson Centre, as I understand it, is hit
with a bill of some $12 million annually in municipal taxes. That
is more than all the other franchises pay in all of the United
States.
Finally, there is the Canadian exchange rate which, of course,
is another function of how the government continues to mismanage
the Canadian economy vis-à-vis the U.S. economy.
The point is that this was, unfortunately, all predictable.
Hockey is a high profile issue. It is, after all, our Canadian
sport. I cannot think of another country where there is as much
attention paid to any individual sport as there is here in Canada
as far as ice hockey and the NHL are concerned.
What is missed and what is essential in the report is the whole
issue of a discussion moving toward a commitment by the
government to coaching programs and to facilities. I look at the
Canada Games as being a good thing that the government is
continuing to carry on. If the Reform Party was government, we
would carry on the whole idea of the Canada Games because that is
where we are involved with facilities, national organizations and
national coaching programs.
An unfortunate fact of life and politics is that all these
things end up leading inexorably toward things like the Olympics
and very high profile issues like that which again become a
financial commitment from the government. There seems to be a
lack of understanding on the part of the government that it is
the amateurs and amateur sport that ultimately feed into the
Olympic program and, for that matter, even into the NHL.
I believe, and I know my party believes, that it is very
important for kids to be active in amateur sport. This is a way
in which kids can be focused. This is a way in which we can
build our society. This is a very healthy outlet for young
people today.
We have to re-establish our priorities for amateur sports
without a doubt and I have indicated the two areas. Number one,
because of the high profile of the NHL, we knew that it was going
to fall off the track and become a hockey report. Number two,
because of the high profile of international sports like the
Olympics, again we end up focusing on events like that.
There does not seem to be any recognition of the travel expenses
or any kind of tax relief for people who are involved in making
sure that their kids have an opportunity to take part in sports
or, for that matter, in cultural events. There is just a total
lack of recognition, a complete void of any attention to the
many, many dollars and hours that parents, guardians and team
adults put into amateur sports.
1330
In that respect I agree with the motion of the Bloc. I agree
that there has to be more attention. As I said at the outset, I
have already commended the member for Broadview—Greenwood for
having brought forward this report, but where is the commitment
of the government to the report? Where is the commitment of the
government to enact the necessary things that are required in the
report?
Unfortunately, we may have to re-invent the wheel. In other
words, at a time when the government finally gets serious about
amateur sport, about seeing tax relief and support for parents
and guardians, and the community, who are attempting to support
children who are involved in sports or in cultural events, at
that point, unfortunately, although this report will act as an
excellent template, an excellent starting point, I would see it
probably being done all over again. That is really unfortunate
considering the amount of hard work that the member and the
committee put into it.
Canada is a compilation of all of us, all of us in the House and
the people watching this debate; all Canadians. Part of who we
are is how we interact with and react to each other. Amateur
sport plays a very important part in how we relate to each other.
It brings us together in good, healthy competition and
camaraderie around events. I would commend to the government of
the day that it take another look at this whole issue and finally
get serious about enhancing amateur sport in Canada.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I have a very brief question for the Reform member
for Kootenay—Columbia with respect to tax breaks. He has talked
about tax breaks for Canadians. In the recent federal budget we
saw a tax break for the very wealthy individuals in this country.
For example, if a person is making $1 million a year in the
current fiscal calendar year, he or she will receive a tax break
of about $8,000 for that million dollars earned.
As a matter of fact, there are 650 hockey players in the NHL who
are paid, on average, $1.187 million U.S. per year, which
translates into about $1.8 million Canadian. I am wondering
whether my Reform colleague would agree with the Liberal tax
break for these very wealthy hockey players who, in this calendar
year, on the basis of those wages, will receive a $13,000 to
$14,000 tax break, when in effect those in the middle and lower
income groups will receive maybe $150. What does he think about
that? Does he support that? How would he rectify the situation
if he does not support it?
Mr. Jim Abbott: Madam Speaker, that is certainly a very
thought provoking question. The reality is that as a percentage
of their income the people at the high end of the income scale
receive a significantly smaller proportion as a percentage of
their income.
The problem that we are faced with and the problem that is an
immovable object is the fact that if I am playing hockey for the
Calgary Flames or the Vancouver Canucks or the Toronto Maple
Leafs, the tax scale against me in Canada is significantly
greater than it is if I am earning that money in the United
States.
I happen to think that $1.8 million is a grotesque amount of
money. I cannot imagine earning that kind of money in the first
place. I really seriously question, as do many Canadians, that
level of income for professional athletes. Nonetheless, it does
bring us to the point that the difference in the tax rate for
people in Canada versus the tax rate for people in the United
States is a good 10 to 15 percentage points.
That is too big a difference.
1335
An hon. member: Do you support the tax cuts?
Mr. Jim Abbott: Yes, I do support the tax cuts.
If nothing else, the point that has been drawn out is the fact
that we have to have more of a level playing field between
ourselves and the United States, which shares our markets and is
our biggest competitor.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, the member stated in his comments that he boycotted the
committee. However, because he spoke today he obviously read the
report. He knows that 68 of the 69 recommendations in this
report dealt with the amateur sport fabric of the country. He
knows that 53 of those 69 recommendations were accepted almost
immediately when the minister announced the response to the
report three weeks ago.
Why does the member persist in saying that this report is only
about hockey? Why does he not acknowledge the 53 decisions that
the government supported and that only one of the 69
recommendations concerned hockey? The House is about dealing in
hope. Why does the member repeatedly say things that he knows
are not factually correct?
Mr. Jim Abbott: Madam Speaker, very briefly I will say
exactly what I said in my speech. Yes, 68 of the 69
recommendations in the report had nothing to do with the NHL. My
prediction was that, unfortunately, this report would end up
dealing with NHL issues.
The industry minister is not having a meeting about amateur
sport with people across Canada. The industry minister is having
a high level meeting with mayors and people involved with the
hockey industry. The member for Broadview—Greenwood makes my
point, which is, what was the point of preparing the report if it
is simply going to receive lip service from the heritage
minister?
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I am very pleased to join in the debate this afternoon.
I support the Bloc motion, which states:
That, since the government ignored most of the recommendations by
the Subcommittee on the Study of Sport in Canada, a subcommittee
of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, the House demand
that the government place amateur athletes at the heart of its
concerns and make a commitment to placing their interests before
the interests of professional sport.
I would like to congratulate my colleague, the member for
Broadview—Greenwood, for having chaired this committee. I was a
member of the committee for the last three months. My colleague
in the New Democratic Party caucus, the member for Kamloops,
Thompson and Highland Valleys, sat on the committee on behalf of
our caucus for a number of months prior to my arrival. Both the
member for Broadview—Greenwood and my colleague from Kamloops,
Thompson and Highland Valleys did a fair amount of work,
particularly in promoting the growth and development of amateur
sport in this country. I wanted to acknowledge that because it
is very important.
As a citizen of Canada I have participated in a number of
amateur sport activities. I have coached soccer, T-ball, hockey
and curling, which most members know is a big sport in
Saskatchewan. In essence, what I am saying is that athletics and
amateur sport are very important cultural activities in our
country. In particular, amateur sport promotes a very positive
mental attitude and physical well-being. It promotes physical
fitness. It provides skills in personal achievement and motor
skill development. It is a very healthy focus for competition.
It also teaches young people and adults the very significant
value of co-operation and working with each other to achieve a
common goal.
It provides a sense of belonging and camaraderie. It enhances
communication and interpersonal development for our youth. That
is why I support initiatives with respect to the amateur sport
recommendations in this report.
1340
As an aside, I want to say that I co-sponsored a bill in the
House of Commons, which was passed, which made hockey our
national sport. The member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland
Valleys moved the bill. I co-sponsored the bill and I am very
proud of that because it is an indication, in my view, that I
represent a number of members of parliament in terms of saying
that sport is a very important activity and a very important
value in which we all can participate.
There are many positive things in the report that I want to
briefly touch on because my time is limited. I support, as does
the New Democratic Party caucus, a number of issues. For
example, we support the Government of Canada undertaking a sports
facility infrastructure program which would improve and increase
the number of facilities, in particular in communities that do
not have adequate facilities. We support the eligibility for
charitable tax deductions to be extended to qualified provincial
and territorial level not for profit sport organizations.
I might add that in Saskatchewan we have gone one step further.
About 20 years ago we turned over the lottery proceeds for Lotto
649 and other lottery revenues to the sports organizations in
Saskatchewan so that they can fund amateur sport, and they do
that very well. They are in charge of marketing and selling the
tickets and gathering the revenue, as well as paying their share
of the taxes to the provincial and federal governments. They
also play a very important role in developing the sports
organizations in our province.
We are also very supportive—and this is something that I
personally recommended—of examining the possibility of creating
a non-refundable tax credit for annual fees that parents pay for
their children taking coaching, officiating or first aid courses,
as well as deducting some of their fees for sports, up to about
$1,000, because it becomes very expensive when there is more than
one child. I know people who have three and four children who
all want to get involved in sports. That costs money. How do we
facilitate these youngsters getting more experience in the sport
world? Perhaps we could provide tax deductions for them.
The member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys
recommended a millennium sport bond. He called it a sport bond,
but the committee enhanced it by calling it the millennium sport
bond. This would be a mechanism which would allow individuals in
this country to invest in bonds, and the revenues and interest
from those bonds would be shared with the investor and with those
sports organizations which issue the bonds. We think that would
be a good opportunity to broaden financing for the sports world.
As the New Democratic member on the subcommittee I issued a
minority report. I did not agree with all of the recommendations
because there were some which I felt I was unable to support. For
example, one of the recommendations was to look at further tax
considerations for professional sport.
Let us take hockey, for example. There are 650 professional
hockey players in the NHL. The average income is $1,187,000 U.S.
or $1,800,000 Canadian. That is the average income of the 650
players. This is an example of perhaps going the other way in
terms of expenditures for hockey. Prior to issuing salaries, the
owners received money which was for their benefit and that of
their families. Now it is being spread out to the hockey players
and their families. It has gone the other way in the sense that
some salaries are $4 million, $5 million and $6 million U.S. per
year for particular hockey players.
That is competition, but it is hurting Canadian hockey teams.
Our concern with respect to the subcommittee report is that we
are looking at providing them with additional tax breaks before
they deal with their own problem.
For example, in the Canadian Football League there is a pooling
arrangement. All cities pool their revenues and the weaker
markets are subsidized by the wealthier markets. For example,
the Saskatchewan Rough Riders, which play out of Regina, which
has a population of 200,000, subsidize the Montreal Alouettes,
the Toronto Argonauts and the B.C. Lions. We are a small
community, but we make money in our community with our football
team and we pool with the bigger communities. We do not have a
problem with that.
1345
The NHL does not do that. For example, before they sell one
ticket, the New York Rangers get about $50 million U.S. off the
top from American Cable Systems Corporation, the company that
owns them. That is cash they have to play with in terms of
paying for expenses and salaries. That drives up the salaries of
players like the great Wayne Gretzky and others which is good as
they deserve to be paid well, but it is a disadvantage for every
other hockey team market.
In Canada it is the same time situation. The Montreal Canadiens
pay $11.2 million a year in property taxes. Should this be a
responsibility of those provinces and cities that do not have an
NHL team or should it be the responsibility of the the Montreal
urban governments? They are the ones charging the taxes. If
they have a problem and the Montreal Canadiens cannot pay the
taxes, maybe they should reduce their taxes. I would support
that.
Why should Saskatchewan, Manitoba or the Atlantic provinces
support additional tax breaks for these franchises when their
municipalities are jacking them around in terms of high taxes? I
say let the municipalities address the issue. The Montreal
Canadiens pay more in property taxes than 21 U.S. franchises
combined. Do we want the Canadian taxpayers to subsidize
Montreal further? I and other Canadians think not.
We have a few other issues here. Should they get tax breaks? In
the budget the Liberal government which is are so supportive as
it says of low income people, gave the millionaire hockey players
on average $14,000 a year in tax cuts. People making $50,000 a
year got $200 in tax cuts. What a fair system that is. It is
unfair and we should look at this situation.
The subcommittee on sport has made some very positive
recommendations with regard to amateur sport. The Liberal
government has failed to act on those recommendations. I urge
the government to revisit those particular recommendations in the
report, those issues that will support our young people and will
support the development of amateur sport in this country. Because
farmers in western Canada are facing a financial disaster, the
lowest income since the depression, because health care is being
cut back at the federal level, because our social safety net is
being butchered by the Liberal government opposite, maybe the
government should look at those as priorities before it looks at
the wealthy hockey players and the wealthy owners of the hockey
teams.
I support the motion of the Bloc. I seek unanimous consent to
make the motion votable.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member seeks
unanimous consent to make this a votable item. Is there consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I thank the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre for
his great contribution to the subcommittee. His insight and his
own family experience in terms of working with young people and
bringing that knowledge to the subcommittee were sincerely
appreciated by all members on all sides.
I have to go back to the member's comments on the professional
side of this debate. We will repeat this many times today. In
our report there was only one recommendation called the sports
pact which dealt with the professional sports systems. It would
have been very easy for us to say let us forget about the
professional stuff because it is going to create too much
controversy and criticism because all Canadians will do is focus
on the salaries of the multimillionaire players.
It is very important for us to let the House and Canadians know
the reason we took on that very tough decision of signalling to
Canadians that we have a problem on the professional side. The
NHL alone over a five year period contributes $1.35 billion to
all levels of government. That money goes into the treasuries.
1350
These NHL teams are not being subsidized. They are sending huge
sums of the money to the various treasuries in Canada, those of
the municipal and provincial governments and even the national
government. Canadians in the end will decide. I think it is very
important that as we criticize the high salaries of the players,
we should also be well aware of what the treasuries in Canada are
receiving from the professional sports industry. I think $1.35
billion over five years is a substantial amount.
We know that our smaller market teams are facing difficulties.
We know there is a strain because of the exchange rate of the
dollar and the disadvantage to our tax system. We did not say
the government should absolutely deal with tax fairness, but we
did we have a problem and it is a debate for all Canadians. When
we have this debate, let us not refuse to acknowledge the great
contribution made to the treasuries by the professional teams.
Mr. John Solomon: Madam Speaker, the member makes an
interesting point.
It is one of the issues I did not raise because I ran out of
time. I am glad he has raised this point and I can raise it now.
We obtain revenues from the professional franchises. However, a
$120,000 box in a hockey arena costs the taxpayers of Canada
between $27,000 and $30,000 a year. That is the amount the
company gets to write off against its income and that is a loss
of revenue to the federal treasury. I do not know what it is
provincially but we can add another 30% or 40% to that. Tens of
millions of dollars subsidize the hockey teams now through
subsidizing the boxes. If a business buys a set of hockey tickets
at $5,000 or $6,000 a ticket, $10,000 for a few tickets for the
business and public relations, guess who subsidizes that.
I am not saying it is wrong. I am just saying we should put the
facts on the table and make sure that Canadians know how many
millions of dollars are subsidizing professional sports already
so we can have a fair debate.
We did not have an opportunity to obtain that information from
Revenue Canada. I hope at some point the minister will table
that information so we can see exactly how many millions of
dollars subsidize these hockey teams to the tune of taxpayers'
loss to tax expenditures.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Madam
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like some
clarification about the question that was asked by the member.
The only member who answered no was not in
his seat and popped out from behind the curtains like a
Jack-in-the-box.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I have to say to the hon.
member that I heard more than one no.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of the Bloc motion.
It is my pleasure to say that I was part of this debate from the
beginning with respect to the subcommittee that was headed by the
hon. member for Broadview—Greenwood. I congratulate him on the
effort and passion he brought to that subcommittee. I know the
work of all the members was appreciated.
Members of the subcommittee on sport heard hours of testimony.
We heard a passionate debate on both sides of the divide. We
read hundreds of pages of documents which spoke of the benefits
of active and well funded amateur sport organizations.
The most contentious issue was obvious. It is the same
contentious issue which is before the House today, the issue of
some form of subsidy for professional sport. Hockey is the sport
that has been singled out most often, but it is fair to say other
sports are being jeopardized as well. Here locally the Ottawa
Lynx are under a very crucial time period with respect to their
funding. The Montreal Expos have experienced problems. The CFL
time and time again has been struggling to make budgets and
payrolls.
I want to state quite clearly on the record that the Progressive
Conservative Party supports all of the recommendations with
respect to amateur sport in Canada. We are strongly in favour of
the recommendations that encourage Canadians to engage in a more
active and healthy lifestyle as well as those that promote the
idea of ethics in sport, the integration of disabled persons into
sports and their governing bodies and the support of parents and
coaches in Canada.
1355
Canada urgently needs an overall improvement to amateur sport.
It bears mentioning that if we do not make those recognitions and
contributions financially there will be a price to pay at the
other end. I am talking about the criminal justice system.
I was raised in a small community in rural Nova Scotia. I
participated in amateur sport, rugby, hockey, baseball and most
sports on the go at high school and at the amateur level. I was
constantly reminded by parents and coaches that I would stay out
of trouble if I hung around ballparks and rinks as opposed to
standing on a street corner and getting involved with drugs and
criminal activity. Those are real facts and challenges faced by
Canadians, parents and children alike.
I refer to some of the correspondence I received in regard to
the issue before the House. I received a letter from Dal Bryant
on January 14 which I will quote in part: “I am a parent of
three athletes. My observation however was that unless you were
very well off, your children would not even be provincially
competitive and just plain forget the national and international
levels”. This comes from a parent.
Charles Schafer wrote on January 7: “Amateur sport is a
benefit to all communities at the grassroots level. These sports
and athletes have been underfunded and often ignored by the media
and politicians alike. This is where I would like to see my tax
dollars directed”.
The final reference is to the Nova Scotia director of the
Federation of Canadian Archers. Eric Mott wrote the following
words: “Our national athletes receive zero dollars. We
presently have several athletes who are in training at the
National Archery Centre in Quebec, one of which trains eight
hours a day and has to pay for her training to represent her
country internationally. Imagine having to pay to train to
represent your country”.
It is obviously not just professional hockey. It is not just
any one sport we are talking about in the broader context of this
debate.
I state again quite clearly that the Progressive Conservative
Party does not endorse recommendations that would hand over
subsidies outright to professional sports. This would be a
failure to account for the actual overall costs of the subsidies
and the effects they might have on those franchises.
Before the recommendations can be truly debated, there is a need
for a full and proper examination of the concept of income
sharing among professional organizations such as the NHL and a
concrete plan for how any form of subsidy would benefit the
greater overall community and promote greater community
involvement.
No real assurances have been given from the league, the players,
the owners, the associations. Mr. Wayne Gretzky has a bit of
spare time on his hands now. Perhaps we could get some of his
wisdom and insight because it is the wisdom of Solomon, and I am
not talking about the previous speaker, that is required here.
We need a real debate on how the effects of subsidizing sports
ahead of important issues like health—
The Speaker: My colleague, I will interrupt you now. You
still have half of your time left and you will have the floor
when we return to debate if you so seek it.
[Translation]
It being nearly 2 p.m., we shall move on to Statements by
Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF OLDER PERSONS
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to send a special greeting to everyone involved in a
celebration of seniors at an International Year of Older Persons
wine and cheese party taking place at the Heidehof Home for the
Aged in my riding of St. Catharines.
The United Nations has designated 1999 as the International Year
of Older Persons. This special year for seniors recognizes the
world's aging population. For Canada the year holds special
meaning because we have one of the fastest growing seniors
populations in the world. Our national theme for 1999 is
“Canada, a society for all ages”.
In this special year for seniors I join with the seniors and the
organizers of the St. Catharines wine and cheese to promote and
enhance understanding, harmony and mutual support across
generations. Working together we can truly make Canada a society
for all ages.
* * *
CARIBOO—CHILCOTIN
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this summer I invite all Canadians to come and meet the friendly
people of beautiful Cariboo—Chilcotin in central British
Columbia.
Why not follow the Cariboo gold rush train up the Fraser Canyon
and then head west through the Chilcotin for the ferry ride past
dolphins and whales to Vancouver Island? While driving through
this spectacular part of Canada, you will be looking for
something to do.
Drop in and see the good people of Lillooet. Then check out the
Bo Beep Ladies Golf Tournament as well as the Only in Lillooet
Days, the Begbie Revue and the Lillooet Gold Trail Triathlon.
Then mosey into Ashcroft for the Ashcroft Hog Run or the 12th
Annual B.C. Old Time Drags and Rod Run.
1400
Stop by 100 Mile House and check out the Bridge Lake Cattle
Drive and Rodeo and the Square Dance Jamboree or take part in the
Magoo Memorial Funball Tournament.
While in Quesnel take in the B.C. Old Time Fiddling Contest, the
Quesnel Club Horseshow and the Bill Barker Days Festival and then
go into the historic Barkerville gold rush town site.
On the way to Bella Coola for the ferry, make sure to squeeze in
the Williams Lake and Anahim Lake rodeos.
Once you have tasted Cariboo hospitality I promise you will be
back for more. See you in the Cariboo.
* * *
D-DAY
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the
wee hours of June 6, 1944, while 450 Canadian paratroopers rained
down on France behind German defences, 109 vessels of the Royal
Canadian Navy sailed for France as part of the massive allied
armada.
Canadian aircraft engaged the enemy in the sky and on the
ground. That was 55 years ago. By the evening 14,000 Canadians
had landed in Normandy and had gained more ground than any of our
allies. The liberation of Europe was under way.
Between the morning and the evening there was the heroic but
bloody story of D-Day, of troops striking mines hidden by high
tides, of others landing in plain view of enemy strong points and
of house to house combat with the enemy. On that day 340
Canadians died, 547 were wounded and 47 were taken prisoner.
The Canadians who helped smash German defences did so with
unflinching courage and unflagging energy, a kind of spirit and
commitment that few of us could even fathom.
We must not allow time to diminish this magnitude of sacrifice,
nor complacency to fade the importance of the day.
* * *
GOVERNOR GENERAL'S FOOT GUARDS
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Monday
marks the anniversary of one of Canada's oldest and most well
known Canadian forces militia units. The Governor General's Foot
Guards is celebrating 127 years serving Canada and Canadians.
It is one of the two units that provides soldiers to the
Canadian forces ceremonial guards on Parliament Hill. The red
uniforms and bearskin hats these soldiers wear are symbols of
Canada known throughout the world.
The changing of the guard ceremony performed every day in the
summer is one of the most popular tourist attractions in Ottawa,
but the Governor General's Foot Guards is more than a ceremonial
presence on Parliament Hill. It is a well trained militia unit
whose members have served Canada since the early years of
Confederation.
Members of the Governor General's Foot Guards helped their
fellow Canadians during the Manitoba flood and the 1998 ice
storm. They serve the cause of international peace in wartorn
places like Cyprus, Somalia and Bosnia.
I am sure all members of the House will join me in
congratulating the Governor General's Foot Guards on its
anniversary and wishing its members every success in the years to
come.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC NURSES
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this week there will be two one-hour strikes by
hospital nurses in the Abitibi-Témiscamingue and Quebec City
regions, respectively.
The purpose of this pressure tactic is to show their
dissatisfaction with the slowness of negotiations with the Parti
Quebecois government of Lucien Bouchard.
In 1982-83 that same Lucien Bouchard was the chief negotiator
for the Parti Quebecois government with the nurses of Quebec.
In addition to the fee paid to his Chicoutimi law practice,
Lucien Bouchard received a $250,000 bonus from the Parti
Quebecois government for cutting the salaries of Quebec nurses
by 20%.
The nurses of Quebec deserve an increase of more than 15% for
their loyal services to the people of Abitibi-Témiscamingue,
particularly since they have not had a raise for some years.
Despite their mistreatment at the hands of the Parti Quebecois
government, we are very well looked after by the nurses in our
hospitals, who provide excellent patient care.
* * *
ASTRONAUT JULIE PAYETTE
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am proud to rise today to salute Julie Payette, our Canadian
member of the Discovery mission.
[English]
Julie Payette is an astronaut, engineer, pilot and musician who
speaks six languages. Her life of tremendous achievement is
testimony to the unlimited possibilities for excellence that can
be found in all of us.
We can only hope that her life becomes a model for all young
people who aspire to greatness in science and engineering.
[Translation]
Julie's eyes may be on the sky, but we all know that her heart
is right here in Canada. On behalf of the Reform caucus, I am
pleased that Julie has returned to earth safe and sound after an
excellent mission.
* * *
1405
THE LATE LÉON LAJOIE
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Léon Lajoie, a
Jesuit who was the priest in Kahnawake for 39 years, died on May
14, and the whole community is in mourning.
The Mohawk honoured Léon Lajoie for his lifelong dedication,
openness and receptiveness by giving him the name sakohá..wi,
which means “the one who leads and shoulders the burden”. “Our
captain is gone”, commented parishioners as they were coming out
of church.
Everyone trusted Léon Lajoie. His church was always open, and
secrets, however serious they were, remained secrets.
As a show of respect, an eagle feather, the symbols of the bear,
turtle and wolf clans, and a flower representing Katéri
Tékakwitha were laid in his coffin.
“The one who leads and shoulders the burden” played a major role
during the difficult events that took place, even though that
role was a quiet one and was overlooked. In fact, Léon Lajoie
maintained a quiet but effective link between all the Mohawk and
other Quebecers.
Léon Lajoie, is worthy of all our admiration. Let us hope
we can learn from his example.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN SKILLS COMPETITION
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this past weekend Kitchener—Waterloo welcomed 600 young people
from across Canada who have proven they have skills of the
future. They were participants in the fifth annual Canadian
skills competition which ran from last Wednesday until yesterday.
This national competition offers young Canadians the opportunity
to showcase their skills and abilities in trades and disciplines
ranging from architecture and cabinet making to fashion and
culinary arts, computer animation and auto mechanics.
In addition, some 100 young Canadians competed to determine who
will be part of team Canada at the upcoming 35th world skills
competition to be held this November in Montreal.
I am proud that the Government of Canada is a major sponsor of
the Canadian skills competition through Canada's youth employment
strategy. This event celebrates the excellence of Canada's young
people.
These young people know the economic opportunities of tomorrow
will be available to people with the skills and dedication they
are showing in Kitchener—Waterloo today. Congratulations to all
the weekend's participants.
* * *
[Translation]
ASTRONAUT JULIE PAYETTE
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what can we say
to mark the return of Julie and all the other members of the
space shuttle? Hear, hear.
Not only did Quebecer Julie Payette represent us brilliantly,
but she is also an example of determination and patience for
young people looking for a dream.
All Canadians followed her throughout a complex mission during
which Julie had to perform a series of risky manoeuvres that
were essential for the space shuttle's crew.
We are now hoping that Julie will share her experience with us,
and we are convinced that she will have given many young
Canadians the desire to follow in her footsteps, with the same
spirit of determination, risk taking and adventure.
We welcome Julie back. We are all proud to say with her “Mission
accomplished”.
* * *
[English]
NEW BRUNSWICK ELECTION
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is decision day in New Brunswick. We encourage the people
of that great province to get out en masse and vote for the
political parties, the policies and the candidates of their
choice.
It has turned into a proverbial political horse race between a
standing champion and a young challenger. Reigning Camille Red,
trained and nourished on McKenna oats, burst out of the gate with
a big lead but as we all know early leads do not guarantee late
wins.
Old political warhorses in Fredericton, Ottawa and everywhere
else eventually realize that the jockeying of the backroom boys,
the punditry of the press and the betting of the crowd are not
enough to win today or tomorrow. New ideas, new energy and fresh
blood are what it takes to win in the future.
In New Brunswick, Lord Blue has tracked brilliantly to the
inside lane of lower taxes and a brighter economic future for
children. He has pulled ahead in this race with the finish line
in sight. There is a message here for the old warhorse in
Ottawa: “You can't win in the future by running forever on your
past”.
* * *
[Translation]
FORCES OF LIBERATION
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
June 5, 1944, just 55 years ago, millions of Europeans in
occupied countries who were anxiously listening to the BBC, as
they did every evening, heard, as I did, despite the jamming by
the Germans, a mysterious phrase that translated roughly as: The
drawn out sobs of fall's violins soothe my heart with their
monotonous languor.
The next day they understood. Deliverance was at hand. The
landing had just begun. The mysterious coded message was a
warning to the French resistance.
That day 20,000 Canadians and Quebecers launched an
attack on Juno beach and 359 of them died for the liberation
of Europe. Let us never forget.
Today, obviously on a smaller scale, the same countries have
again mobilized to liberate another people from an
occupation they oppose; the Kosovars.
Let us be proud to belong to the free world, to the western
world, which knows how to mobilize not just to defend its own
freedom, but the freedom of others, even when its own material
interest is not threatened.
* * *
1410
[English]
JULIE PAYETTE
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all Canadians
welcome astronaut Julie Payette who returned to earth yesterday
after a successful mission aboard the space shuttle Discovery
to deliver two tonnes of supplies, including tools, clothes,
water and other supplies to the new international space station.
When Discovery emerged from the night sky at 2:03 a.m.
above the Kennedy Space Centre, it was only the 11th time that a
space shuttle had landed in darkness. Mission Control waited
until almost the last minute before giving the seven astronauts
approval to fire the breaking engines and come home.
Astronaut Payette worked gruelling 15 hour days to prepare to go
into the space station on the way to fulfilling her dream. As
Julie has said herself, there is no miracle recipe or magic road
to follow, but one of the keys is to maintain a positive attitude
and to be true to oneself”.
We are proud of Julie and welcome her home.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians are becoming increasingly concerned about
their food safety and increasingly frustrated with a government
that appears more concerned with pleasing corporations than with
protecting their health.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has proven itself incapable
of taking decisive action to protect our health. When imported
raspberries poisoned hundreds of Canadians last year, it refused
to step in to ban the imports because of liability concerns.
When salmonella tainted alfalfa sprouts poisoned nearly 200
people, the CFIA backed away from reporting the industry
responsible.
The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada that
represents the scientists and food inspectors charged with
safeguarding our food supply has said the agency has totalled
abandoned its mandate. It has cut hundreds of field inspector
jobs and stopped conducting annual safety audits of meat
establishments.
Today a scientist said the government uses wrong procedures when
it comes to assessing the environmental and food safety risks
posed by genetically engineered foods. Today scientists said
that when it comes to soy based infant formula Health Canada
chooses to ignore the scientific evidence.
* * *
[Translation]
JEAN-FRANÇOIS LEGAULT
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on July 27,
1997, Jean-François Legault, a 14 year old resident of the
municipality of Mascouche, saved his father from certain death,
an action for which he recently received the Governor General's
medal of bravery and the Quebec National Assembly's citation for
citizenship.
When an explosion threw his father into his garage, Jean-François
risked his life to extinguish the flames enveloping the man and
drag him out of the inferno, despite the intense heat and smoke.
Mr. Legault hovered between life and death for 48 hours and was
kept in the burn ward of Montreal's Hôtel-Dieu hospital for six
months. Today, he is continuing his rehabilitation.
I say “Bravo”, to Jean-François and thanks for that example of courage.
* * *
QUEBEC MODEL
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Lucien Bouchard
has decided to play tough in recent days. Now he is usurping the
notion of the Quebec model in the name of his political party. Worse
still, he is also appropriating the definition of Quebec's
identity.
The Quebec model was not established by the separatists. It was
established by Quebecers themselves. They are also the ones who
toiled away in recent decades to build a modern Quebec within
Canada.
The Quebec model is not that proposed by the separatists, who
are now sending patients to the United States for care. The
Quebec model is not the one proposed by the separatists, where
groups of individuals they do not want in the definition of a
Quebecer are excluded.
The Quebec model is the one Quebecers want for themselves; the
means they want to put in place to develop and improve their
regions, their country, Canada and their outlook on the world.
This is the model people want.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
government's complete and total disregard for the personal safety
of Canada's emergency rescue personnel has reduced morale to an
all time low.
We are all well aware of the inherent dangers involved with
flying one of our Sea King helicopters. Each day our military
personnel risk their lives by flying these outdated military
aircraft. In recent months our Labrador helicopters have
experienced their own problems, culminating with the tragic
deaths of six search and rescue officers.
Despite that tragedy and subsequent problems with burnt wiring,
the government continues to risk the lives of our airmen. The
government cancelled the EH-101 helicopter deal for purely
political reasons, putting at risk the lives of our military
personnel.
Why will the government not quit putting Canadian lives at risk
by immediately providing our personnel with the necessary
equipment they need to fulfil the mandate the government has
given them?
* * *
1415
FUTURISTIC SCIENCE PROJECT
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
congratulate Robyn Massel, Katie Mogan, Olivia Maginley and
Patricia Lau, four grade nine students from Point Grey
Mini-school in my riding of Vancouver Quadra. They have been
awarded first prize in the prestigious Toshiba/NSTA Explora
Vision Awards program. Their science project is intended to
combat osteoporosis. Last week they travelled to Washington,
D.C. with each one to receive $10,000 U.S. for post-secondary
studies.
The federal government's commitment for funding research in the
basic sciences will ensure that imaginative cures for
debilitating diseases like osteoporosis will one day become a
reality for all Canadians.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
KOSOVO
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the peace deal in Kosovo suffered a setback last night
forcing NATO to step up air attacks on Serb military positions.
In spite of the expressed support of the Serb parliament for the
G-8 peace proposal, the Serb military leaders continue to resist
the G-8 peace plan.
Does the government view the objections of the Serb military to
the G-8 peace plan as a temporary setback, or does this
constitute an outright rejection of the G-8 peace deal?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, our position is clear. The Yugoslav government must
follow through with its commitments to the G-8 peace plan which
it agreed to last week.
Certainly the NATO military people are ready to resume
discussions. Until there is a resolution consistent with the G-8
peace plan of the military discussions, the bombings will
continue.
While the leader of the opposition speaks of a setback, I would
like to think that the discussions will resume and the agreement
in question will be carried out.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the G-8 foreign ministers are meeting in Bonn today to
discuss how to get the G-8 agreement back on track.
The House has been concerned about the lack of strong and
specific Canadian input into both the defence ministers meetings
at NATO and the G-8 deliberations on Kosovo.
What specific instructions did the Prime Minister give to
Canada's foreign minister to take to today's meetings in Bonn?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, our Minister of Foreign Affairs is meeting with his G-8
counterparts. The purpose is to develop a resolution to be
placed before the United Nations which would authorize the
military and civilian aspects of a peace settlement.
Those are our foreign minister's instructions on behalf of the
government. I am sure he is carrying them out with great skill
and with great vigour.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, 400 more Canadian forces troops leave Edmonton today for
the former Yugoslavia. They are heading for Yugoslavia at a time
when the outcome of these peace negotiations is still uncertain.
We owe it to both the troops and their families to tell them the
circumstances under which NATO will deploy them.
Is it intended that our troops will enter Kosovo only as
peacekeepers, or could they be used as part of a NATO ground
force to drive unco-operative Serb forces out?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it has been said over and over again, and this position
has not changed, that our troops are going to that area of the
world to take part in peacekeeping operations. No decision has
been made to change that position. If it does, certainly the
House will be informed and there will be opportunities for
further debate.
* * *
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, our
Prime Minister refuses to admit his blatant conflict of interest.
For the sake of seeing whether we really know what a conflict of
interest is and whether he has any idea, I would like to consider
the following: First, a businessman receives a multimillion
dollar government contract; and second, that same businessman
donates $10,000 to a particular politician's campaign and
subsequently buys a half million dollars worth of land from that
particular politician's company.
Does the Prime Minister see that this is a conflict of interest,
or does he think that this is just business as usual?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no conflict of interest. The contract in
question went to a company to carry out work in Mali. This
contract was decided on not by the Prime Minister but by an arm's
length committee of whom a majority of voting members represented
the Mali government.
1420
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
those arms get pretty short.
The Prime Minister owns shares in a golf course that not only
stands to benefit from government contracts and grants, its value
was then boosted by a half million dollar land deal from a friend
who happened to, just as luck would have it I am sure, get a $6
million CIDA contract.
The truth is that the Prime Minister knows full well that he is in a
conflict of interest. He just thinks that there is nothing wrong
with it.
I would like to ask, I would like to demand as Canadians would
like to know, why the Prime Minister will not just clear the air
and clear his name.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member is wrong again. She has been wrong every time
she has got up on this subject. The Prime Minister does not own
the shares in question. They were sold before he became Prime
Minister. The Prime Minister does not need to clear his name.
His name stands unblemished, as one of the leading and most
dignified persons full of integrity in the country.
There is no conflict of interest. The hon. member should be
ashamed of herself by repeating over and over again, misusing the
process of the House, to make these unwarranted charges without
any shred of evidence to back them up.
* * *
[Translation]
KOSOVO
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
one of the arguments of the Serbian generals to delay or block
the Kosovo peace accord is the fact that the accord is not based,
at the moment, on a United Nations security council resolution.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister indicate whether Canada will in
fact put the peace plan proposed by the G-8 to the security
council so a resolution may be adopted by it, thus eliminating
one of the arguments of the Serbian generals?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our
Minister of Foreign Affairs is working with his G-8 counterparts
to draft a resolution that will be put before the United
Nations. Obviously the terms of this resolution will be in
keeping with the position of NATO and the G-8 countries.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
other important argument is the fact that the Serbs are saying
they are unable to evacuate Kosovo because of the damage done to
roads, bridges, infrastructure and even to their trucks and
weapons.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether these arguments
advanced by the Serbian generals are valid and, if that is the
case, could Canada not contemplate having the peace plan apply
over a somewhat longer period?
[English]
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon.
member that those details are all being discussed today in Bonn.
As a matter of fact, at the present time we are waiting for a
report at the end of that meeting. I will do my best to try to
convey to the House anything that comes out of that meeting
before three o'clock.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
this weekend technical discussions were held between Yugoslav
and NATO military commanders on implementation of the peace plan
approved by the parliament in Belgrade last week. These
negotiations appear to be hung up on details, on technical
issues.
In light of the impasse, does the Canadian government believe
that more negotiating time is needed in order to work out these
details, and just how much time?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
House is not the right place for negotiating with the Serbs.
The negotiating must be left to our military spokespersons and
the military spokespersons of NATO.
They are prepared to resume these discussions but, if no
agreement is forthcoming, the air attacks will continue because
our position is clear, as is the position of NATO: the Yugoslav
government must honour its commitment to accept the G-8 peace
plan.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if
we have understood correctly, if we give more time to the
Milosevic regime, we also want to continue, and even step up, the
air strikes.
I would like to know whether the government is in agreement with
both maintaining and stepping up the air strikes during this
period of negotiations.
1425
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
these steps will represent the consensus of the G-8 and NATO
countries, and we are part of that consensus.
* * *
[English]
HOMELESSNESS
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Federation of Canadian Municipalities met in Halifax on the
weekend and once again urged the federal government to do
something about our homelessness crisis.
We used to have a minister of housing with a budget. Now we
have a minister of homelessness with no budget. As one mayor
said, “all Ottawa did was send us a nice minister with no
money”.
When can Canadians look forward to having an effective minister
with the budget to get the job done?
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to inform the hon. member that I am not the
minister for homelessness. I am the Minister of Labour. I was
asked to co-ordinate homelessness.
I was at the FCM meeting. I met with the FCM executive. The
hon. member for Oak Ridges will to continue to meet with the FCM.
We are going to take its report and look at its recommendations.
I want to assure every Canadian that something will be done on
homelessness.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, to date
not one homeless person has been helped by this minister.
The municipalities have made homelessness a priority. They have
done their homework and produced a detailed plan of action.
When will the federal government accept its responsibility, do
its homework and play its part in developing an effective housing
strategy? When will the government show some leadership?
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government started when it appointed me as a
conciliator. It appointed 19 different departments that we are
now working with. We have done something.
We want to make sure that this time when we come with
recommendations for homelessness that it is sustainable, that we
fix it and that we never see the problem happening again in the
country.
* * *
KOSOVO
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Minister of National Defence stated that the KLA
needs to disarm. General Shelton, chairman of the joint chiefs
of staff, said yesterday “We never said we were going to disarm
the KLA”. Not everyone is on the same page here.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Are NATO and NATO
peacekeepers going to disarm the KLA or not?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the answer is contained in the agreement that was reached between
the Serbian government and parliament and the G-8 countries.
That is where the answer lies to the hon. member's question.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
am afraid that is far from it.
We do not need another Somalia. Soldiers must know and
understand the rules of engagement because it is very likely that
our troops will find themselves in Serb areas defending Serbs
from the KLA.
What are Canada's rules of engagement for dealing with armed
members of the KLA? Are they to be disarmed or not?
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime
Minister has stated that the rules are contained in the
agreement. If the hon. member would like to check them, I am
sure he would find his answer.
* * *
GOVERNMENT GRANTS
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Grand-Mère golf course stands to benefit from government grants
and loans given to a neighbouring hotel. It also benefited
financially by selling $500,000 worth of land to the recipient of
a government contract.
The Prime Minister called the ethics counsellor in January 1996
to warn him that the sale of his shares in the Grand-Mère golf
course had fallen through. In other words, he admitted that he
was now in a conflict of interest and he asked the ethics
counsellor what he should do.
Well, if he saw that it was a conflict of interest in 1996, why
can he not see that it is still a conflict of interest today?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the ethics counsellor did not find a conflict of interest. There
was no conflict of interest. There is no conflict of interest.
1430
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
maybe we should take a crack at what is a conflict of interest.
An interest is when two parties have a common stake in something.
In this case it is the Prime Minister and the taxpayers.
The conflict comes in when there is a direct opposition to those
two interests. In this case it is the Prime Minister's personal
financial interest and that of the taxpayers. They are in
conflict. Everyone can see that they are in conflict.
The Prime Minister admitted in 1996 that he was in conflict.
Why will he not admit today he was in conflict of interest and
make this bad situation right?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question is wrong. The
Prime Minister made no such admission.
Furthermore, the Prime Minister has no financial interest in the
golf course in question, so the hon. member is wrong again, as
was his colleague in her previous question.
They are wrong, wrong, wrong, and they are taking up the time of
the House just to hide the fact that the united alternative
policy is destroying their party. Why do they not admit that and
let us get on with some serious business for the people of
Canada?
* * *
[Translation]
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
we read in the Ottawa Citizen that the law firm of Roy Heenan, a
lawyer sitting on the CBC's board of directors, has been awarded
generous contracts by the CBC, with the blessing of the
government's ethics counsellor.
My question is for the Prime Minister. In the case of Mr.
Heenan, is the government's ethics counsellor not demonstrating
that he is merely a pawn of the Prime Minister by magically
declaring ethical that which is not?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is well established
in Canadian law that the director of a crown or other
corporation may have interests in the corporation in question,
provided those interests are declared, that they are recorded in
the corporation's minutes, and that the individual in question
does not take part in discussions or votes on the contract in
question.
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I would have liked to hear what the Prime Minister had to say.
By offering an accommodating ruling in the Heenan case, the
ethics counsellor loses a lot of credibility. Does the Prime
Minister realize that his own defence in the Auberge Grand-Mère
case is consequently seriously weakened, involving as it does
the judgment of this same ethics counsellor?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is not an
accommodating ruling; it is an established and accepted
principle in Canadian law.
When someone sits on the board of directors of a crown or other
corporation, that person may have interests, provided that he
declares them and that he takes no part in discussions or votes,
and Mr. Heenan meets both conditions.
* * *
[English]
PRIME MINISTER
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister keeps telling this House that he sold
his shares in the Grand-Mère golf course in 1993, but his lawyer
says that she has been trying to sell those shares for three
years. Who is telling the truth?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I question the veracity of the hon. member because her
misleading assertion relied on what she said the Prime Minister's
trustee said in a newspaper article.
The article did not say that she owned the shares on behalf of
the Prime Minister. The article quoted her as saying that Mr.
Prince still owns the shares. In the process of trying to
facilitate the repayment of the amounts owed to the Prime
Minister's trust, the trustee notes that she had been working
with Mr. Prince to identify a potential buyer for the shares.
The hon. member did not accurately state what Madam Weinstein
said in her interview. She should admit that and apologize for
it.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I realize that the Prime Minister is in full damage
control mode, but the fact of the matter is that these shares are
for sale.
Is the Prime Minister telling the country that he is offering
shares for sale that he does not even own?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister, through his trustee, is not offering
the shares for sale. It is Mr. Prince who has to sell the
shares, and to help Mr. Prince the Prime Minister's trustee is
taking some steps in that regard.
1435
The hon. member was wrong when she cited the National Post
as saying that the trustee of the Prime Minister was trying to
sell shares, implying that he owned them. She was wrong, wrong
last week and she is wrong, wrong, wrong today.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the more time
passes, the harder it is to figure out what exactly is the Prime
Minister's interest in the transaction involving Auberge
Grand-Mère and all the related issues.
Do the government, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime
Minister himself not agree that, to put an end, once and for
all, to this whole issue involving him, the Prime Minister
should, in all conscience, simply table in the House the
agreement confirming the sale of his shares in that company?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister repeatedly provided accurate and clear
information to this House to the effect that he has no shares in
that venture.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, members
opposite may rise in this House and use every possible defence,
but
there is only one thing the Prime Minister can do to
unequivocally clear himself. It is quite simple, and it is clear
to those who are listening to us. Why does the Prime Minister
not table the agreement confirming the sale of his shares? Then
we will stop asking questions on this issue, but first we want
to see the bill of sale.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to
try to put the Prime Minister in a conflict of interest
situation is bewildering, especially since all these matters are
in the hands of his trustee. They concern his trust. It is not
up to the Prime Minister to provide the document mentioned by
the Bloc Quebecois House leader.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
after the second world war Canada's navy was the third largest in
the world. Look how far we have sunk.
Jane's Fighting Ships, a respected military publication,
found the capabilities of the Canadian navy to be so lacking that
it ranked us along with Mexico and Chile. That is shameful.
When is the Minister of National Defence going to present to
parliament a realistic plan to renew the beleaguered Canadian
forces?
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me first say that I
totally disagree with the hon. member's preamble.
The Canadian navy currently has 12 new frigates. It has 12 new
maritime coastal defence vessels. We are waiting to take
delivery of four new Upholder class submarines. We are working
on a procurement plan to replace our Sea King helicopters.
The Canadian navy served in the gulf war and it continues to do
so.
[English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
of course the Liberal government is going to disagree. It cut
25% of the budget to the military. It cut all clothing, the
military is working with outmoded equipment, it lacks personnel
and the defence minister really does not care about the military
at all. Jane's says this: “Other western
countries—should watch (Canada) carefully to see what may
happen if and when servicemen finally lose their hearts because
of political indifference”.
What is the Minister of National Defence going to do to correct
this deficiency?
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in addition to what I
mentioned a while ago, the Canadian navy has the Tribal Class
Update and Modernization Project for the four destroyers, which
has been delivered. As well, towed-array sonar systems for the
two destroyers and our 12 frigates, and the maritime
environmental protection program, which includes nuclear,
biological, chemical and damage control equipment that allows
maritime operations and training to be conducted in an
environmentally responsible manner, have all been delivered.
* * *
[Translation]
IMMIGRATION
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has finally realized that
her government made a mistake in 1995 when it introduced a $975 head
tax on refugees, a measure denounced by the Bloc Quebecois.
1440
Is the minister really planning to withdraw this unfair measure
in next fall's reform, as mentioned in La Presse?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that there
is no head tax on immigrants or refugees entering Canada.
Anyone wishing to become a permanent resident of this country
may apply for landed immigrant status.
Clearly, the government regularly reviews its policies, and that
is what it will do when immigration is reviewed.
* * *
[English]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
with the advent of summer, its hot hazy days and the increased
use of automobiles, there will be an increased use of fossil
fuels. These fossil fuels interact with sunshine, creating a
temperature inversion and the resultant pollutants to the
atmosphere. This creates a lot of problems for Canadians.
What is the Minister of the Environment doing today to improve
the quality of the air which Canadians breathe?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question
because just a little while ago I announced the final regulations
to reduce sulphur in gasoline. We have implemented a regulation
that was proposed last year. I have listened to the comments and
I am following through on the proposal. We will reduce sulphur
to 30 parts per million by January 1, 2005. We are the leading
country on this continent with regard to these reductions. This
will mean 2,100 less premature deaths over the next 20 years and
millions of fewer asthma cases, pneumonia and acute lung
problems.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Wing
Construction, an old and established Manitoba company, is more
than $2 million in debt and on the verge of bankruptcy because of
fraudulent actions by former Sagkeeng band chief Jerry Fontaine.
This would be the same Jerry Fontaine who ran for the leadership
of the Manitoba Liberal Party. This would be the same Jerry
Fontaine who has four close family members working directly or
indirectly for the minister.
Does the minister not see the conflict of interest that is
generated by the close ties between her department and the
Fontaine family?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said last week, there
was a contractual relationship between the first nation and this
construction company. That contractual relationship has
dissolved.
The first nation and the construction company proceeded with a
capital project outside the accountability regime of my
department, so moneys from my department have been forwarded to
that project. Surely the hon. member would not ask me to do
otherwise.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister
promised Wing Construction over a year ago that she would do
something to straighten out this mess. Does the minister not
understand that members of the Fontaine family working in her
department, some of whom are working on this file, have a huge
conflict of interest? Can she spell conflict of interest? Would
she tell us what is the extent of the relationship between the
Fontaine family and her and her department?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question
is completely inappropriate and wrong. An arrangement has been
made with KPMG to look at the work undertaken by the construction
company. I would suggest that the two private interests in this
contractual relationship sit down, deal with that undertaking and
make sure there is a fair and quick resolution to this challenge.
* * *
FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Pacific salmon treaty has
obviously contravened the law of the land. In 1997 the
Delgamuukw decision stated clearly that all aboriginal first
nations people must be consulted prior to having any of their
rights or treaties affected by any treaties signed by the
Government of Canada. The United States brought its tribal
councils to the table and its state governors. We know that the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans ignored the wishes of the B.C.
government and B.C. industry. More importantly, it ignored the
wishes of the first nations people of British Columbia.
If this deal is so good for B.C and Canada, why did the
Government of Canada ignore the first nations people of British
Columbia and break the law?
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite
feels an obligation to defend the actions of the B.C. government,
which were indefensible in terms of this situation.
There have been many processes over the years. There was
government to government negotiation. There was an
all-stakeholders process.
1445
There was a multi-stakeholders process in which all people were
brought in. It would always end up in deadlock.
Strangway-Ruckleshaus recommended the government negotiations. We
undertook those negotiations. We moved fish to Canada and now we
have a deal that is good—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Sackville—Musquodoboit
Valley—Eastern Shore.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we know that the minister signed a
10 year deal. The $209 million the minister is bragging about is
only money that goes into an endowment fund. Only the money
gained on interest from that money will be spent on any habitat
programs over a four year period. Four of the jurisdictions are
American and one is Canadian.
I ask the parliamentary secretary, why did you sell out
thousands of jobs and get rid of millions of pounds of fish for
American pennies?
The Speaker: All questions must be addressed to the
Chair.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this was not a
sell-out, it was a gain for Canada. The endowment fund helps
science and helps habitat. We have moved fish to Canada. In
terms of Fraser River sockeye they have been in place for the
last number of years. There have been 4.1 million more fish for
Canadians.
There is an article which sums it up best on the steelhead and
salmon issue said:
Now the 20th century closes with the courageous actions of David
Anderson, proud Canadian to the core, determined to do right by
his country's rivers and oceans and the wild salmon they nurture.
* * *
CANADIAN COAST GUARD
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, a few years
ago the federal government attempted to cut costs by removing
West Nova's emergency helicopter service. Only stiff opposition
from local residents prevented the government from cancelling
this vital service.
The Canadian Coast Guard is presently reviewing all of its
operations to identify possible cost cutting measures. Will the
minister assure the people of West Nova that their emergency
helicopter service will not be sacrificed as a result of this
review?
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister has
made it very clear many times in the House that safety is and
will remain a priority with the coast guard. When the various
reviews are done, that information will be provided.
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, the fishing
industry is the cornerstone of West Nova's economy. Our fishers
need to know that Yarmouth's coast guard helicopter service will
be there to help them in the event of an emergency.
Can the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans explain to these
fishers why he would even consider removing the service from
Yarmouth and putting their lives at risk?
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the minister has
made it very clear many times. We are not in terms of our
program review and cost cutting exercise putting lives at risk.
We are finding a more efficient and better way of doing things
and ensuring that all the safety factors are in place so that
fishermen can fish. On top of that, we are providing better
management plans so that the fishermen will have the fisheries in
the future in order to gain a decent livelihood.
* * *
[Translation]
OWENS CORNING PLANT
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
Employees of Owens Corning in Candiac have been without work for
close to 15 months, and this is a community with over 10%
unemployment. Canadians expect their governments to work
together to help them when they are in need.
I would like to know what the minister is planning to do to help
these workers. The situation is urgent.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that
the Government of Canada will contribute $1 million to help
Owens Corning reopen its doors. I thank and congratulate the
member for Brossard—La Prairie for his excellent work on this
issue.
In partnership with the Government of Quebec and the Fonds de
solidarité des travailleurs, we have helped Owens Corning put
102 people back to work, which means that the Government of
Canada, with its partners in the provinces and with economic
agencies, has put 35,000 people back to work thanks to Canada's
transitional job creation fund.
* * *
[English]
NAV CANADA
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. On Friday I
asked the government a very specific question with respect to the
looming strike action of air traffic controllers.
I did not get an answer, so I will ask the question again.
1450
In order to avoid heavy-handed essential services designation or
back to work legislation, will the minister publicly endorse
final offer selection arbitration, a civilized bargaining tool in
which the controllers have expressed interest?
Hon. Claudette Bradshaw (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, both parties are at a crucial time right now. My staff
is working both with NavCan and CATCA. It would jeopardize the
situation if I commented any further. We are in crucial
negotiations. I hope to see and end to this dispute soon.
* * *
[Translation]
STATUS OF WOMEN
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
morning I met with the National Action Committee on the Status of
Women, which is extremely disappointed and distressed by the
government's lack of action in all areas of concern to women.
For months now they have been asking the government to reinstate
funds in support of programs promoting women.
When will the Secretary of State for the Status of Women take a
positive step in support of women's groups by asking the
Minister of Finance for the money necessary to fund this
program?
[English]
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government has worked
with women's groups in an unprecedented way for the last five
years. The issue of women's equality has been at the top of our
agenda. We continue to fund women's organizations. There is no
women's organization that had been funded five years ago or four
years ago that is not funded today.
We will continue to work with women to achieve the gains that we
have made and continue them into the next millennium.
* * *
PRIME MINISTER
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, when someone sells shares, the transaction is not
finally completed until something of value has been received for
the shares.
The Prime Minister's lawyer is still arranging the sale of the
shares six years after the Prime Minister says he sold them to
Mr. Prince who denies ownership because he never paid for the
shares. The Prime Minister is not sued for default or breach of
contract. Therefore he may still own them.
Will the Prime Minister clear the air today for Canadians and
table the share transaction agreements and related correspondence
to prove his innocence?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has said he does not own the shares.
They were sold before he became Prime Minister. The shares
belong to a Mr. Prince. The Prime Minister's trustee is helping
Mr. Prince to find a buyer. That does not mean that the Prime
Minister owns the shares.
I am shocked to hear the NDP say that someone has to prove their
innocence. This is not consistent with Canadian and British
traditions of justice. The NDP should be ashamed of themselves
for abandoning this basic principle.
* * *
TANCOOK ISLAND FERRY WHARF
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Public Works Canada and ACOA
are involved in a parking project at the Tancook Island ferry
wharf in Chester, Nova Scotia.
This government set funds aside to help finance 48 permanent
parking spaces. Now the 250 residents of big and little Tancook
Island find they have only 26 temporary parking spaces on and
adjacent to the ferry wharf.
Can the Minister of Public Works explain how federal moneys
could be spent reducing service to Tancook residents when the
original plan they supported guaranteed Tancook residents the 40
to 50 spaces they traditionally had?
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's
question. I will take note of his question and report back to
him as soon as possible.
* * *
INFORMATION HIGHWAY
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry.
Canadians often hear the words knowledge based economy. My
constituents and all Canadians need to be reassured that their
hard earned tax dollars are well spent by the government. What
are the real benefits of the government's investment in knowledge
based programs such as smart communities?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, with respect to a knowledge based economy, the member
for Cambridge represents a community where some of our best
academic institutions are based. He will know how important it
is that we advance the cause of learning and innovation.
That is one of the reasons we have made a goal of connecting all
of Canada to the information highway, literally making us the
most connected nation in the world. We were the first G-7
country in March of this year to have successfully connected 100%
of our schools and public libraries to the information highway.
This weekend I had the opportunity to introduce the national
call for proposals to the smart community demonstration project.
Communities across the country need the opportunity—
1455
The Speaker: The hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford.
* * *
PRISONS AND PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to ask the solicitor general about the critical
state of drugs in Canada's prisons with the overdoses there are
today and the pressure put on prisoners.
He has indicated that there will be a national review of the
drug situation. I would like to know when the review will start,
when it will end and what its scope is. I would also like to know
whether or not the solicitor general intends to have people other
than Corrections Canada employees on that review.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, indeed I am pleased my hon. colleague
found out last week there was a drug problem in our federal
institutions. I have instructed my officials to evaluate the
programs we are now using and to put programs together that will
fit the offender and make sure that we address the drug problem
in our federal institutions.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA DAY
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
in the matter of federal expenditures for Canada Day, even when
the budget for the events in Ottawa paid for by the National
Capital Commission is taken into account, Quebec still had more
than 54% of all money spent by the federal government in 1998
for Canada Day.
Since the Minister of Finance—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The member for Laval Centre.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Since the Minister of Finance did
not hesitate to cut health care in Quebec in order to comply
with the reality of demographics, how does the Minister of
Canadian Heritage explain that the argument no longer holds in
the case of Canada Day and that Quebec ends up with more than
half of the money spent?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it really takes someone
from the Bloc to object to the fact that there is more money in
Quebec, first, and to object that Canada Day is being celebrated
when the subject is the Year of the Francophonie, second.
We might now wonder whether the next objection from the Bloc
will be that French Canadians not living in Quebec cannot
celebrate Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. Frankly, this is beyond
comprehension. These people have but one objective in mind, and
that is to break up the country, and this clearly despite even
the wishes of the people of Quebec.
* * *
[English]
STATUS OF WOMEN
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a
few moments ago the Secretary of State for the Status of Women
said that women's equality was at the top of the agenda. I have
to say that the evidence from NAC and from women is very
different, whether it is massive cuts to EI, federal stalling on
pay equity, federal abandonment of social housing or no action on
early childhood education. We have to question where the Liberal
commitment for equality for women is.
I ask the minister, what concrete steps have been taken on the
national early childhood education program?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can speak about support for
the women's equality movement. That is what I can speak about.
I can also tell the hon. member that at this point in time the
government is spending $10 billion on children in Canada. We are
continuing to work on refining a children's agenda to deal with
issues of child development, which is what the member is talking
about in terms of early childhood education.
The government has implemented something very important known as
gender based analysis in which every department, not just Status
of Women Canada, has committed itself to looking at how it
affects the issues of women's equality within its own department.
* * *
TANCOOK ISLAND FERRY WHARF
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Chester ferry debacle gets worse and worse. In 1931 the then
federal government expropriated land in Chester. It paid for the
land in 1936. Tancook Island residents have parked on this
federal property since that time.
My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. How
could his department take land that had been used for ferry
parking since the 1930s and give it to private interests, to a
private person? How could that be done?
1500
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a moment ago the
parliamentary secretary answered basically the same question,
that we would take this question under advisement and get back to
him with an answer on the specifics of it.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
on the question of privilege raised last Friday I would like to
state that it was my intention to speak in an honourable way and
only to reflect my personal opinion. In no way did I wish to
jeopardize the work of the committee.
Upon reflection on what was reported in the media, I accept
responsibility for communicating in a way which could be
construed as that of the report of the committee. For that I
would like to apologize to the House and to the members of the
committee.
The Speaker: This question of privilege was raised. The
hon. member has apologized to the House and we accept his
apology. The matter is closed.
[Translation]
I have received notice of a question of privilege from the hon.
member for Sherbrooke. Is it a question the hon. member has
already raised, or is it a new one?
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, not the one of
today. It concerns the member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges and the
Finance subcommittee.
In the past three years it has become a common, even systematic,
occurrence for reports of the House standing committees and the
contents of in camera meetings to be leaked by Liberal members
to the media before they are officially tabled in the House of
Commons.
These leaks betray the spirit and the letter of our guidelines
for the procedure of tabling reports by the Liberal majority,
accompanied by dissenting opinions by the opposition parties, in
the House of Commons.
Last Thursday the Toronto Star disclosed the contents of the
report from the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on
Finance, which was to address the issue of tax equity for
Canadian families with dependent children.
This report ought to have remained confidential because it is
due to be tabled in the House later this week.
1505
In reading the newspaper article, it can be seen that the
chairman of the subcommittee and member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges
duly performed his duties, and there are several quotes from
him.
Maingot states in chapter 2 at page 229:
Any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of
Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which
obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the
discharge of his parliamentary duty, or which has a tendency,
directly or indirectly to produce such results may be treated as
a contempt even though there is no precedent for the offence.
Disclosure of a report of a committee or of the contents of in
camera discussions among members of this committee before the
dissenting opposition opinions are produced and the entire
report tabled in the House of Commons is a contempt of—
[English]
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I believe this is the same question of privilege that was raised
by my colleague from Medicine Hat last Thursday.
The individual concerned was not in the House. We have been
waiting to address it and I did not think we would address it
until he was in the House.
The Speaker: I asked whether this was a new question of
privilege and I was listening to the question of privilege.
[Translation]
If the hon. member for Medicine Hat also named the hon. member
for Vaudreuil—Soulanges, then I would ask that the hon. member
wait until the hon. member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges is in the
House to answer this question of privilege, which was already
raised by another member. I will ask all members to hold off
until we have had a chance to hear the hon. member for
Vaudreuil—Soulanges.
I will let this matter rest for the time being, and once the
hon. member is back with us in the House, he will be able to
explain himself.
[English]
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek
unanimous consent of the House for the following motion.
That this House supports maintaining the reference to God in all
constitutional, legal and government documents.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have permission to put
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to seven
petitions.
* * *
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
SCRUTINY OF REGULATIONS
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 123(1) I have the honour to present
the sixth report of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of
Regulations concerning SOR/82-171, relating to the
Stuart-Trembleur Lake Band.
Your committee requests that the government table a
comprehensive response to this report.
* * *
1510
CRIMINAL CODE
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-82, an
act to amend the Criminal Code (impaired driving and related
matters).
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-83, an act
respecting the election of members to the House of Commons,
repealing other acts relating to elections and making
consequential amendments to other acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I do not know if this is an appropriate point of order, but since
the government House leader is here and he has just tabled the
changes to the Elections Act, does it include lowering the voting
age to 16?
The Deputy Speaker: I know the hon. member for Kamloops
is knowledgeable of procedures in the House. He cannot ask
questions about bills under the guise of a point of order.
I suggest he have a look at the draft bill when it is printed. I
suspect he might find a copy in the lobby now and perhaps he
could consult with the minister.
* * *
MISCELLANEOUS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1999
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-84, an
act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies and errors and
to deal with other matters of a non-controversial and
uncomplicated nature in the Statutes of Canada and to repeal
certain acts that have ceased to have effect.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
TAXATION
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36 I would like to present a petition signed by
over 800 of my constituents.
The petitioners ask that moneys received by low income senior
citizens, namely CPP and OAS, be tax free and that for those
individuals the basic personal exemption be raised to $10,000.
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to present yet
another petition from more Canadians concerned about our health
care system.
The petitioners come from all parts of the country and want to
register with the government their concern about the impact of
government policies and its failure to reinvest significantly in
this field and what it has meant for themselves and their
families.
They point out to the government that its policies have resulted
in families facing huge waiting lists, crowded emergency rooms,
badly overworked health care workers, nurse shortages, lack of
access to diagnostic tests and services, two tier American style
health care, and other threats to the integrity of Canada's
health care system.
They call upon the government to reinvest in the health care
field, to guarantee stable funding for health care and to ensure
the enforcement of the five principles of the Canada Health Act.
1515
[Translation]
CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
table a petition signed by a number of Quebecers and dealing
with the Canada Post Corporation Act.
The petitioners call upon parliament to repeal subsection 13(5)
of the Canada Post Corporation Act, which prohibits rural route
mail carriers from having collective bargaining rights.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that freedom
of association and the right to bargain collectively are among
the fundamental freedoms of every person. To deny such freedom
is discriminatory against rural workers.
Therefore, parliament must repeal subsection 13(5) as quickly
as possible, to comply with its own charter and to respect the
right to organize and to collective bargaining.
FIREARMS
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36(8), I wish to table two petitions in the
House. The first is from Claude Gilbert and concerns the
Firearms Act. This petition was signed by 25 residents of the
riding of Beauce.
GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition, which I am tabling on behalf of the Hon. Martin
Cauchon, calls for mandatory labelling and comprehensive
inspection of genetically modified foods, and was signed by many
residents of the riding of Outremont.
The Deputy Speaker: I wish to inform the hon. member that he
must not use the name of another member in his presentation,
just the name of the riding or the title.
[English]
IRAQ
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to present a petition today signed by people who are
desperately concerned about the impact of the sanctions against
Iraq.
They point out in their petition that four million people, or
one-fifth of the population, are currently starving to death in
Iraq, and that there have been 650,000 Iraqi children who have
died as a result of embargo related causes. This is from a
UNICEF report.
The petitioners call on parliament to use all possible
diplomatic pressures to urge the UN to end the sanctions against
Iraq based on humanitarian compassion and the need to keep
children alive.
NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today I would like to present a petition voicing the concerns of
a group of British Columbians.
The petitioners are asking parliament to follow through with
action concerning nuclear disarmament.
Canada is a member of the non-proliferation treaty and has made
pro-disarmament statements in the past.
The petition calls for Canada to support those steps toward
disarmament with action.
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present the
following petition which comes from my riding of
Nanaimo—Alberni.
The undersigned believe that citizens of B.C. deserve a
referendum on the Nisga'a treaty and request that parliament
reject the Nisga'a treaty on constitutional grounds.
[Translation]
GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to present one petition.
[English]
The petition concerns mandatory labelling and thorough testing
of all genetically engineered foods. It is signed by a number of
constituents right across the country.
The petitioners are calling on parliament to legislate clear
labelling of all genetically engineered foods and their
byproducts available in Canada; and furthermore, to ensure that
these products are banned from the market until they have been
rigorously tested to prove their safety when consumed by humans.
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and indeed a privilege to
present a number of petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The first petition points out a whole number of concerns that
the petitioners have about the security of their pension system.
They are asking the national government to take whatever steps
are necessary to ensure that the CPP remains a viable pension
system.
CIVIL SERVICE PENSION PLAN
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, in the second petition, the petitioners
are very concerned that the federal government is appropriating
the pension funds belonging to the 670,000 current and future
retirees from federal departments, crown corporations, agencies,
the military and the RCMP.
The petitioners are asking parliament to take some kind of
action. It is a little late to take action, because the action
has already been taken, but nevertheless, that is their petition
and their position.
1520
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, on another topic, the petitioners
throughout western Canada are concerned about the issue of child
pornography, recognizing that child pornography hurts children
and thus could never be justified, and that the possession of
child pornography perpetuates the production of child
pornography.
Therefore, the petitioners are calling on parliament to
recognize the fact that Canadians reject the legalization of
possession of child pornography and ask the government to
intervene in this matter to establish and strengthen laws
relating to the possession of child pornography to ensure that it
will never be legalized.
HOUSING
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, on a final topic, the petitioners are
dreadfully concerned about the federal government's decision to
offload the development of social housing onto provincial
governments, particularly when we look at the pathetic efforts
that most provincial governments have taken, with the exception
of Quebec and British Columbia.
The petitioners are concerned that this will have a major impact
on native housing throughout the country. They are asking
parliament to smarten up and take some action.
YUGOSLAVIA
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to present a petition from citizens of the Peterborough area
concerned about the bombing in Yugoslavia. They believe that it
violates international law and undermines the United Nations.
The petitioners call on parliament to advocate that the
Government of Canada withdraw its political and military support
for the bombing in Yugoslavia, and ask for the bombing to be
stopped immediately; and, that the government use its influence
with the United Nations and the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe to establish a process of genuine
negotiations intended to seek a fair and balanced solution to
the crisis in Kosovo.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I would ask that you seek unanimous consent to return to Tabling
of Documents.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to revert
to Tabling of Documents?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
asked for this because I understand I inadvertently said that we
were tabling the responses to seven petitions. It should in fact
have been no less than 20.
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I was wondering if I could have unanimous consent to
revert to question period.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Question No. 238 will be answered today.
.[Text]
Question No. 238—Mr. Rob Anders:
How many full time equivalent positions is ACOA directly and
indirectly responsible for creating during each of the following
fiscal years: 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary
of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): The
following table outlines the number of direct and indirect jobs
that ACOA, along with its provincial and private sector partners,
has helped to create and maintain during the fiscal years 1995,
1996 and 1997 as reported in the agency's five year report to
parliament, 1993-1998, as well as for fiscal 1998.
Year—1995-96—1996-97—1997-98—1998-99
Direct Jobs—7,000—7,500—10,000—9,700
Indirect Jobs—2,800—3,000—4,000—3,900
Total Jobs—9,800—10,500—14,000—13,600
Please note that total jobs figures represent the total number
of jobs created and jobs maintained. All jobs are calculated in
full time, long term equivalent.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall the remaining questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—AMATEUR SPORT
The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the
amendment.
The Deputy Speaker: When the debate was interrupted, the
hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough had the floor.
He has five minutes remaining for his remarks.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to finishing my remarks as they
pertain to the Bloc motion before the House for debate.
I was at a point in my remarks where I was emphasizing the
importance of recognizing not only the contribution that sports
make in terms of the effect it has on providing children and
youth with an activity, but the downside of not putting financial
resources into that aspect of Canadian culture and the effect it
will have on the other end. If there is not sufficient emphasis
put on activities such as this there is a social cost to pay with
respect to our criminal justice system.
I think the report highlights the importance of putting emphasis
on Canadian sport. Another aspect that is somewhat intangible
and somewhat difficult to quantify in terms of how much money
should go in is the aspect of Canadian culture and the sense of
pride it gives to Canadians in having competitive sporting teams,
not only at the professional level but at the amateur level as
well.
I also believe that the report, under the guidance of the Chair,
highlighted the cultural aspect and importance of sport in the
country to give Canadians a sense of pride and to give them
something to unify them and cheer for collectively at times of
international competition, such as the Olympics, and regionally
at the Canada Games.
1525
I have a constituent in Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough named
John Brother MacDonald who has been a fierce competitor, a
tireless supporter of amateur sport and, later in his years, a
coach and referee. He epitomized this concept and this
psychology that sport makes many contributions at many levels. He
used to say, sometimes jokingly, “f you cannot be a good sport,
you can at least be an athletic supporter”.
The debate taking place today is certainly one of great
importance. It should not just be focusing on whether we give
tax breaks to the NHL. That is an obvious issue of great
consternation and it is an issue that will continue to plague the
national hockey league in the country because of the economic
issues that surround it.
It also comes down to priorities. Do we as a country,
specifically as a government, decide to allow an industry, which
professional hockey has become, to be subsidized when we know
there is a huge surplus in the players' fund that is untouchable
and untaxable? We also know there are markets, particularly in
New York and in Florida, where Canadian hockey clubs cannot be
competitive, cannot return the revenues and do not have the
market to accumulate revenues like those teams? Sadly, we have
seen, and it has been noted, the loss of teams in Winnipeg and
Quebec and some of our clubs are currently in jeopardy of moving
south of the border.
I congratulate the Bloc for having the foresight to bring the
matter forward again. I would suggest, on the specific issue of
subsidies for professional teams, that it comes down to one of
priorities. Canadians, for the most part, have said quite
clearly that it is not palatable at this time to offer tax breaks
when we still have huge problems with unemployment, health care,
and other sectors of our economy. It is simply a matter of
choosing priorities and singling out where the money is most
needed and will be best received.
I again put forward that the Progressive Conservative Party's
position is in support of the motion. I would suggest that we
have an opportunity here to single out and look separately at the
issue of professional franchises and their subsidization, but we
should be encouraging and implementing the other very important
recommendations.
I wish we had time to expound on one other aspect, that of
gambling and the huge revenues that are generated both legally
and illegally. We know that the provincial and federal
governments have stepped into this area with respect to
professional and sometimes amateur sport. However, I suggest
there is more we can do in terms of having a return from the
aspect of gambling that stems from sport.
We have to develop sound fiscal policy that is consistent with
the development of amateur sport and the preservation of
professional sport in Canada. With this in mind, I and the
Conservative Party support wholeheartedly the motion put forward
by the Bloc. I would once more put forward a request for
unanimous consent to we make this a votable item.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that the
item be made votable?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with great interest to what the member had to say. I
know he was on the subcommittee and has studied this matter in
great detail. I regret to say that although I have had a
lifelong interest in sports, being actively involved in sports,
chairing the Ontario Summer Games and things of this type, I am
not as well informed as he is.
I cannot help but notice that the Bloc motion mentions something
about an emphasis on professionalism as distinct from the support
of amateurism. It is my understanding that the federal
government spends roughly $60 million a year on sports. I know
about the seven national sports centres. I know about the Canada
Games. I have been involved with those. It is a wonderful
device for bringing on young people and for encouraging sports in
the regions.
I know that a great deal of the money goes directly to our
international athletes and that they get support of various
types.
I also know there are special initiatives for women athletes, for
athletes with disabilities and for first nations and Inuit
people.
1530
I have a question concerning the motion. Could the member give
me some idea as someone who was not on the subcommittee how much
of this expenditure is going to the professional sport mentioned
in the motion?
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question. I have always felt that he was a very good
sport.
My understanding of the intent and the spirit of the Bloc motion
is one of setting a priority between any commitment of fiscal
responsibility on the part of the government toward professional
sport coming subsequent to the issue of a firm commitment to
amateur sport and the development of our programs on an amateur
level. That is my reading of it.
As for any concrete dollars or any figures that permanently
attach, I am afraid I am not familiar with them, even having sat
as a member of the committee. The chair of the committee might
be able to provide that information. As far as the dollars go, I
know one figure that was mentioned here. That was $1.3 billion
in terms of revenue returned to the economy as a result of the
contribution of professional sport in Canada.
The crux of the matter, as the member is aware, centres around
the issue of offering some form of subsidy or financial incentive
to our current franchises. This is what we are at a sticking
point on.
Do we put that priority ahead of the other priorities that were
set out quite clearly in this report, that we should be putting
money into amateur sport, the development of Olympic programs,
the development of community sport and all the very positive
benefits the member has pointed out which flow from that level of
sport as opposed to professionalism?
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to take part in the debate on the motion moved by the member for
Longueuil.
The motion reads as follows:
That, since the government ignored most of the recommendations
by the Sub-Committee on the Study of Sport in Canada, a
Sub-Committee of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, the
House demand that the government place amateur athletes at the
heart of its concerns and make a commitment to placing their
interests before the interests of professional sport.
I am delighted at my colleague's initiative because, since the
report of the Sub-Committee on the Study of Sport in Canada was
tabled, there has been no initiative from members opposite
except the April 28 announcement by the Minister of Industry,
who said he was calling the first meeting of all professional
sports stakeholders to try to find out the status of hockey club
franchises and Canadian teams here.
What does the report say? It says no to any additional funding
for amateur sport, but yes to any activity that will ensure the
federal government's visibility, and maybe to professional
sports demands.
Let us take a look at professional sports, particularly the
hockey millionaires who are doing nothing to help their teams
survive.
These millionaires play well one year and gather impressive
personal statistics and then they completely forget about their
teammates.
We can take, for example, the most arrogant of all players, the
star of Colorado, who hit pay dirt and recently criticized his
teammates following a defeat. For most of these millionaire
hockey players, there is no loyalty to their team or to their
fans, no commitment to the community, except for some rare
players—and we all remember the unfortunate incident with the
Ottawa Senators' No. 19. The owners give in to their
players' every whim. They build huge sportsplexes and then come
to Ottawa to complain about being broke.
Let us talk about the wages. In 1970 the earnings of a hockey
player were four times those of an ordinary worker; in 1980
they were eight times; in 1990 ten times; and in 1996 38 times
those of ordinary people.
No serious business granting these kinds of salaries to its
employees would stand a chance of surviving. It would be doomed
to bankruptcy.
We all know what is going on in Pittsburgh. Tampa Bay is short
$20 million. Most of the handful of Canadian teams, including the
Sainte-Flanelle, otherwise known as the Montreal Canadiens, are
losing money.
1535
These people come to Ottawa to complain about their situation.
Then we have to listen to the hon. member for Bourassa, who
buys the principles of this false crusade. In fact, the hon.
member for Bourassa takes part in numerous radio sports hotlines
in Montreal and Quebec City, where he only talks about
professional sports and completely ignores amateur sport. His
behaviour is unacceptable.
Mr. Denis Coderre: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have no
problem debating ideas in this House, but we have heard too many
personal attacks and falsehoods since the beginning of this
debate.
Yes, it is true that I often talk publicly about professional
sport, but I always talk about amateur sport as well. I ask the
member to withdraw his remarks because he said that I only talk
about professional sport.
The Deputy Speaker: It seems to me that this is a matter of
debate and not a point of order, but a representation has
already been made. The hon. member for Lotbinière may address
the representation made by the hon. member for Bourassa in his
remarks.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Speaker, I think these are points for
debate, and if the member for Bourassa is uncomfortable with
what he told sportscasters, it is not my problem.
A few moments ago, the member for Bourassa—and this is true since
he was in the House—bragged about having met with each of the
federations, but he forgot to mention that he has also met with
the majority of hockey club owners in Canada.
In fact, the member for Bourassa feels a lot more at home in the
front rows of professional hockey club arenas than in the front
rows of those who defend amateur sport. This is understandable
since two hockey clubs contributed directly to the Liberal Party
of Canada's election fund in 1996-97: the Calgary Flames
contributed $4,433, and the Ottawa Senators contributed $6,235.
And at the Molson Centre—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of
privilege. The member for Lotbinière has insinuated that certain
people contribute to campaign funds and this reflects on me.
This is a question of honour and I ask that the member withdraw
what he said.
If we had to start looking at all the money spent by the Bloc
Quebecois, we would have plenty to say. I raise the question of
privilege because it is unacceptable to say things like that.
They are not only indulging in petty politics at the expense of
athletes but they do not even know the issues they are talking
about.
The Deputy Speaker: I did not hear the remarks attributed to the
hon. member for Lotbinière. I heard him referring to numbers
which were not about contributions, election campaigns or
anything of that kind.
The hon. member for Bourassa will have the opportunity, during
questions and comments, to make clarifications. We can wait
until then.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that it is the
member for Bourassa himself who made the connection and who
asked us for evidence. I brought this evidence here this
afternoon. Two hockey clubs have contributed to the electoral
fund of his party, the Liberal Party of Canada. I do not
understand why he does not feel concerned about the situation,
because he is a member of the Liberal Party of Canada.
Now, let us talk about the Molson Centre, which received half a
million dollars to put the maple leaf on the ice. This is
another nice gift from the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Under
the circumstances, it is really degrading to see how these
people are defending amateur sport.
I can imagine the disappointment of the chairman of the
subcommittee when he saw his report put aside, after having
worked for weeks and weeks on the issue of amateur sport.
Unfortunately, the heritage minister did not listen to him.
1540
The only thing he has learned is that while the Canadian
heritage minister was abroad her parliamentary secretary
tabled, on April 28, 1999, the government response of the report
and forgot all about the contents of the subcommittee's report.
I know a lot of members opposite cringe when they are told the
truth. It rubs them the wrong way. Maybe they will have more to
say to sports fans tonight, but I do not need these fans to
speak my mind in the House.
When the heritage minister asked the Canadian Olympic
Association to postpone the announcement of the city that would
be the Canadian candidate for the Olympic games in 2010 so as
not to hurt Mr. Charest's chances in the last Quebec election,
she broke the Olympic charter. And I know what I am talking
about, having worked with the organizing committee of Quebec
City for the 2002 Olympic Games.
The Liberal Party and the hon. member for Bourassa have become
experts in political and media manipulation, in propaganda
campaigns and misinformation every day, every month. They are at
it again today.
In conclusion, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to
make the motion of my colleague from Longueuil votable.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to make the
motion votable?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to
see the true face of the Bloc. People will notice that, apart
from personal attacks, no solution was brought here. Besides
exchanging the flag of Canada for a fleur de lys, not much was
said since the beginning.
I have a question to ask based on a quotation. In the Saturday,
March 13 edition of Le Soleil there was a report entitled
“Quebec Games, a Flag Flap. Quebec prefers to pay rather than
accept Ottawa's partnership”. Apparently, the Government of
Quebec had paid the tidy sum of $200,000 to prevent the federal
government's presence during the Quebec Games in Trois-Rivières.
This was not revealed by a politician but by the games' director
general, Mr. Réjean Tremblay.
These lackeys are playing holier than thou and claiming that
members on this side are big bad wolves, but from the beginning
they have been levelling personal attacks against us.
I would like the very famous member for Lotbinière—who,
perhaps this time will know what he is talking about—to
comment on the statement made by the Jeux du Québec's director
general, Mr. Réjean Tremblay.
Does he agree? Is he happy to know that the mother house in
Quebec City decided to buy off the games in order to keep out
the maple leaf?
Is he in agreement with this decision?
Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Speaker, first of
all, I am not familiar with the memorandum of understanding that
was in place between Quebec and the Jeux du Québec organizers.
However, knowing the honesty and objectivity of the Government of
Quebec, it certainly did not propose a propaganda protocol of
the type the other party has become a specialist in.
A maple festival was held in my riding. Plessisville had a
Canada Place tent imposed upon them. That is propaganda.
The government is a propaganda specialist. That is all I have
to say to those on the other side of this House. They are not
familiar with the issue. They do not know what was in the
memorandum of understanding between Quebec and the Jeux du
Québec organizers. Before they rise to speak they ought to get
their facts straight.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to make a preliminary comment in order to set things straight
after the speech by the member for Bourassa.
A number of my colleagues have risen to speak, and one of the
very concrete things suggested to this government was to put
more money into the various federations. Some are not getting a
cent at the present time. That was even one of the
recommendations of the subcommittee. If the member for
Bourassa has amnesia, that is not our problem.
I would like to ask a question of my colleague from the greater
Quebec City region.
1545
How did they make the choice of candidate cities for the
Olympics when some ministers in the Liberal government openly
supported Vancouver and the supposed staunch defenders of
Quebec in cabinet remained totally silent? How did this lack of
support go over in the Quebec City region?
Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would remind
this House that the Quebec caucus, yours truly among them,
supported Quebec's candidacy. I did so publicly on CHRC.
The Deputy Speaker: Once again, I do not believe this is a point
of order.
Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Speaker, I must say that Quebec City was
very disappointed. However, given the operating style of the
government, which does not honour its objectives and which
meddles in Olympic matters, it was not surprised to lose its
candidacy.
What proved that it would be lost was the intervention by the
Minister of Canadian Heritage a few days before the ballot
to prevent the release of the results. This was the definitive
proof that they already knew Vancouver would be the candidate
and it was out of fear of losing votes in elections in
Quebec—Quebecers are very proud—that she hid this information.
This is the way the government works.
Quebecers are not fools. They know the government. They accept
the decision, but they know where the Liberals come from.
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
seing the behavior in this House, I am not sure I am pleased to
rise this afternoon.
I wanted to speak about the Mills report, which was very well
done, a job the member should be proud of. However, it was with
regret that I noted that the Minister of Canadian Heritage
trashed the recommendations of the report on amateur sport in
Canada.
In fact, on April 28 the Minister of Canadian Heritage turned
down all of the recommendations calling for additional money for
amateur sport. She said yes to every activity that would ensure
the visibility of the Canadian flag. With the help of the Prime
Minister, she passed the recommendation concerning professional
sports on to her friend the Minister of Industry.
Amateur athletes were horrified.
I would like to quote at least three statements by athletes and
by directors of federations on the Mills report and what the
minister said on April 28.
First, here is what John Thresher, head of Athletics Canada,
said, as reported in the Globe and Mail on April 29, 1999:
From the standpoint of G-7 countries, our Canadian athletes are
second class citizens.
Quebecer Jean-Luc Brassard raised the following question:
And, finally, here is the most bitter, which comes from Lane
MacAdam, president of the Canada Games Council:
It is a black day for amateur sport. It would appear that the
government has chosen hockey millionaires over the 1.3 million
poor children who have no access to sports. Amateur sport has
been cheated.
1550
That same day, April 28, the Minister of National Revenue held a
meeting with the mayors of the cities that have the main
franchises in professional sport to find ways to help
professional sport.
At that meeting, I believe the minister called another meeting,
scheduled for mid-June, where he will ask mayors and provincial
officials to provide means such as tax breaks, tax holidays,
sales tax reductions or others to help NHL teams to the tune of
at least $10 million. These NHL teams are playing in a small
market.
However, we are still waiting for a definition of small
market. Does it apply to cities such as Ottawa, Calgary or
Edmonton, or does it also include Montreal, Toronto or
Vancouver, when compared to an American market such as New York?
If the six NHL Canadian teams play in small markets, this means
that the municipal, provincial and federal governments will have
to provide $60 million annually to these teams, through all
sorts of schemes. Over a five-year period, we are talking $300
million.
I am not saying that these teams do not need the money. However,
the government's priority should be to put money into amateur
sport, because it is amateur sport that is really suffering in
Canada.
I have a few suggestions for the Minister of Industry.
Before deciding to help professional sport, particularly hockey,
as he said, the minister should ask himself the following
question: Do Canadian taxpayers help fund professional hockey
teams?
They do through tax deductions given to companies for
entertainment expenses, meal expenses and the purchasing of
tickets. Such deductions amount to tens of millions of dollars.
Before making a decision, the minister should ask himself
another question: Should he give priority to the funding of
professional or amateur sport? Personally, I think amateur sport
should have priority over professional sport, which is
experiencing serious problems.
Professional sport should first solve the problems it is facing,
the first and most serious one being skyrocketing salaries.
What gets professional clubs into trouble is players' salaries.
In fact, on February 16, 1999—not so very long ago—in an address
to the Canadian Club in Toronto, Mr. Aubut, former president of
the Quebec Nordiques, said “The worst threat to professional
sports teams in Canada, and you all know it, is the meteoric
rise in players' salaries”.
That is what Mr. Aubut said and I think he is right.
1555
The other problem plaguing our professional sports is the
presence of the average spectator at games. In 1977 the
average cost of a hockey ticket was $7.89. In 1994 it had
jumped to $33.66. The increase in the consumer price index for
the same period was 245%, while the price of tickets jumped
430%.
I could go on for hours about the national league's problems.
Like my Bloc Quebecois colleagues, I think the government's
first priority should be to fund amateur sport. Our millionaires
in hockey and other professional sports are truly spoiled.
According to a Southam News poll, the government should watch
out because 71% of Canadians are not in favour of using tax
dollars to help professional teams.
If assistance is provided for hockey, what about other
professional sports, such as soccer, baseball, and football,
which all have the same money problems?
Once again, I beg this government to spend money on amateur
sport rather than professional sport.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the
member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles who just spoke that the motion he
was supposed to speak to reads as follows:
That...the House demand that the government place amateur
athletes at the heart of its concerns and make a commitment to
placing their interests before the interests of professional
sport.
The member spoke for 10 minutes and he used 85% of his time to
talk about professional sport.
He says he is very concerned about amateur sport and he wants
the government to give priority to amateur sport, which it
already does.
As a matter of fact, the $57 million spent yearly by
the Department of Canadian Heritage on sport in Canada goes
entirely to amateur sport. Professional sport gets nothing. I do
not know if he would like our priorities to be geared even more
towards amateur sport. I personally hope that, in the future, we
will be able to increase our support for amateur sport, but
amateur sport already gets 100% of our funding for sport, so
what more does the member want? How could we give amateur sport
greater priority?
How can the hon. member explain the fact that his party has
expressed its opposition to a recommendation—it is opposed to
several recommendations, but I am talking about one in
particular—regarding the creation of a department of sports and
youth? Since the member himself wants everything to be done to
help amateur sport, how can he explain the Bloc's position
against the creation of such a department?
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to tell
my hon. colleague on the other side, who will have a seat for
life since he hails from a Liberal area, in Ottawa.
If he believes so much in amateur sport, why does he not want
the Bloc Quebecois motion to be made votable?
1600
It is true that in my speech I dealt mostly with professional
sport, but I have always maintained that, before giving one
penny to professional sport, we should do everything in our
power to support amateur sport.
The chairman of the subcommittee who gave his name to the Mills
report has done a remarkable job. The section of the report
relating to amateur sport proposes many solutions to the
problems, including the creation of a sport department. But what
good would that do? We had a sport department when the
Conservatives were in office. Patronage was rampant, as it is
today. Friends were appointed to head the various federations.
Things would be the same as they were then.
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with one of my
colleagues.
It is a pleasure to take a few minutes this afternoon to talk
about the importance of supporting our athletes in Canada,
Canada's amateur athletes in particular.
I want to take a moment to brag about the Belleville Bulls who
this year were the champions of the Ontario Hockey League. They
had a tremendous showing in the Memorial Cup. I know, Mr.
Speaker, that they took out the team from your city of Kingston
very early.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member does not want to go
out of order in his remarks.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, I am just making a valid
point. The Belleville Bulls had a very successful year.
We see the success that amateur athletes bring not only to their
own team but to the economic activity and the spirit in their
community. It takes nothing away from the pride the other
amateur athletes in the riding of Prince Edward—Hastings and
across Canada bring to us.
I want to congratulate the member for Broadview—Greenwood and
his subcommittee for bringing to the attention of all Canadians
the importance of sport right across our country.
I want to take a few minutes to talk about how the Government of
Canada shows its strong support for amateur sport through a
number of important programs, particularly through the direct
funding provided to athletes under the athlete assistance
program.
This program has provided outstanding benefits to Canadian
athletes for many years. It clearly demonstrates that the
Government of Canada has placed athletes at the centre of the
support structure for amateur sport in Canada.
As a branch of the Government of Canada, Sport Canada supports
the achievement of high performance excellence by Canadian
athletes in international sport. By doing so it strengthens the
contribution sport makes to Canadian pride, to Canadian identity
and to our society in general.
One of the key components of this program is the provision of
direct financial support to Canada's international calibre
athletes. This support is provided through Sport Canada's
athlete assistance program. The program was initiated in 1976
and since that time has provided a focal point for the
government's support to amateur sport. The support contributes to
the accomplishments of our athletes who in turn become heroes and
role models for Canadian youth. It contributes to the
strengthening of national pride and unity.
The program has evolved over the past 23 years to a point where
now on an annual basis about 1,200 Canadian athletes, including
those in such games as the Paralympics are financially supported
through the program. These athletes represent Canada at
international competitions on an ongoing basis in over 50
different sports.
In 1998-99 the government through the athlete assistance program
provided over $7 million in direct financial support to these
athletes to assist in their living and training costs. As well
it provided over $1 million in tuition support to assist Canadian
athletes in completing their post-secondary education.
1605
The main goal of the program is to contribute to improved
Canadian performances at major international sporting events such
as the Olympic Games, the Commonwealth Games, the Pan American
Games, the Paralympic Games and World Championships. To this end
the assistance program identifies and supports athletes already
at or having the potential to be in the top 16 in the world.
Eligibility for program support is subject to the athletes'
availability to represent Canada in these major international
competitions and their participation in national team preparatory
and annual training programs.
In addition to providing direct financial support to Canada's
international calibre athletes, Sports Canada also provides
financial support to Athletes Can. This is a program of services
and leadership which benefits our current and retired national
team athletes and works with others in the sporting community to
ensure a fair, responsive support system for all athletes.
Athletes Can was provided with a contribution of $200,000 in
1998-99. Similar funding will be provided in 1999-2000.
All of this support contributes toward the creation of role
models and sports heroes for Canadian youth. Canadians can
recognize and feel the sense of pride in the accomplishments of
so many of our athletes. I could take the time to list a number
of them but I know other speakers will refer to them, whether
they be hockey players, track athletes, kayakers, paralympians,
all of our athletes.
These are just a few examples of how we support and recognize
the excellence of our amateur athletes in Canada. The government
places the interests of amateur athletes at the heart of our
concern.
[Translation]
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank
the minister for taking part in this debate on our opposition
motion. It is good to hear a minister talk about amateur and
professional sport.
The minister talks a lot about the money the federal government
gives athletes through Sport Canada, but I would like him to
put that in perspective, considering the fact that the money
given to athletes by Sport Canada accounts for 8.3% of its total
budget.
First, is the minister aware of the fact that this is not
enough? Second, our athletes—and I will not get into the
technicalities, but they have to be among the top eight in the
world—receive about $800 a month. Is he aware of the fact that
athletes are the poorest of the poor in our country?
I would like to hear what he has to say on another point. His
colleague, the member for Bourassa, made an announcement last
Friday, saying that the government would do the same for amateur
sport and mass sport and would transfer some of its lands and
parks to the provinces and municipalities so they would become
accessible to all those who want to engage in sporting
activities. This followed on the rumour that the federal government
wanted to give some land to the Montreal Expos. What does the
minister think of all that? Does he agree, yes or no?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for her comments but I think the hon. member needs to get her
facts straight. I believe if she looks at the contribution from
the budget she referred to, it is about twice what she referred
to. Fifteen per cent of the budget is used to support amateur
athletes and amateur sport along with a considerable amount of
indirect support for our athletes in Canada.
All of us in the House would like to have more money to spend in
a lot of places. What we need to do and what we try to do to the
best of our endeavours is make the best investment we possibly
can with the money. We are proud of our level of support to
amateur sport and recognize the importance of it for our
athletes.
1610
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, quite frankly I wish I had a little more than 10
minutes. To spend a year of parliamentary life on an issue and
to summarize it in 10 minutes will be a challenge. I will deal
with a couple of issues I feel passionately about in terms of my
commitment to their being implemented.
I have to say to the hon. member for Longueuil, I celebrate her
initiative in putting this debate on the floor of the House of
Commons. I salute again the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis who
I know is with us here in spirit. Her contribution throughout the
whole year and a half as we listened to hundreds of witnesses and
read hundreds of briefs will be around for a long time in this
Parliament of Canada.
My passionate interest in amateur sport stems from an
educational background during my formative years in high school.
I had the privilege and pleasure of going to a Catholic private
high school in Toronto, St. Michael's College School. The school
was run by the Basilian Fathers, an order of priests who believed
that the whole person could not be developed unless sport was an
integral part of their development. They believed that the key to
a young person developing academically, spiritually and obviously
physically was to make sure that sport was an integral part of
their program.
I had the privilege of knowing men like Father Henry Carr, CSB,
Father Mat Sheedy, CSB, Father Art Holmes, CSB, Father Brian
Higgins, CSB, Father Tom Mohan, CSB, Father Jim Enright, CSB,
Father Cecil Zinger, CSB, Father Norman Fitzpatrick, CSB, and lay
teachers Jack Fenn, Dan Prendergast and Mike Lavelle, men who
believed that coaching and working with young people was a
vocation. These men believed that there was a theology of
sport. In other words we were not there just to develop the body
but it was part of developing and maturing the soul as well. That
is something that has slipped today.
We heard witnesses. The Coaching Association of Canada told us
that hundreds of schools across Canada no longer had coaching
staff to look after their representative teams. It is almost
unbelievable in a country like Canada that there are high schools
without coaches.
We need to get back to pressing the nerve of Canadians that
developing the fabric of this community and country must have a
sport component attached to it.
A few years ago Cardinal George Flahiff, CSB wrote a paper on
the theology of sports. He gave a lecture in 1955 to a group of
coach educators. I only want to read two paragraphs from it but
it is very important:
The immediate or proximate end of sports, as well as of
gymnastics, physical education and similar activities, is not
hard to define; it is the training, development and strengthening
of the human body from both the static and dynamic points of view
(i.e., from the point of view of its physiological development
and from the point of view of its use in action). But there are
higher ends, too, towards which all sports must tend if they are
not to fall short of the function they are meant to fulfil as
truly human activities.
The body is not an end in itself; along with the soul, which
animates it, it makes up the unity that is a human person. The
soul has the higher function; it directs the body and, so to
speak, uses it for the purposes of the human person as a whole.
As a result, sports and all physical education can serve higher
and more remote ends than the one mentioned; for, the more
developed and better trained the body is, the more readily and
effectively can it be used to further the development, interior
as well as exterior, of the whole man. This is to suggest that
sports have a very real role to play in the perfecting of a human
person and, common with all human activities, they must have as
their ultimate aim to bring man closer to God.
1615
That was a quote from Cardinal George Flahiff, CSB, from this
paper in 1955.
I believe this is a part of the report that we are not focusing
on. When people ask me which recommendation in the report I am
most committed to, I tell them that it is the recommendation that
deals with the 1,300,000 young people under 16 who are living in
poverty and do not have access to organized sports. That is the
essence of the report.
We talk in the House about fiscal priorities. We have been
obsessed with the fiscal priorities here over the last eight to
ten years. We heard witnesses, doctors with qualifications, who
came to us from the section of Health Canada that deals with
physical fitness. Those doctors told us that if we could
mobilize, motivate and energize another 10% of Canadians to spend
half an hour a day on physical fitness, the treasury of Canada
could save approximately $5 billion a year just in health care.
Here we are scratching our head over $60 million to look after
young kids who do not have access, when we have been told by the
best in the Government of Canada that if we mobilize Canadians to
become more physically fit we will save billions.
The report is not about professional athletes. It is not about
sucking up to millionaire hockey players. The essence of the
report, the 68 out of 69 recommendations, as we said when we
tabled it, are like a seamless piece of fabric.
The professional system in the country depends entirely on the
amateur development system. We cannot have a good professional
system if the amateur system is not sound. I am saying something
on top of that point. Forget their commitment. Only one in 250,000
young kids becomes a professional athlete. What we need is a
society where people have the dignity and the confidence to feel
that their potential has been fully developed.
I go back to my Basilian mentors: the Father David Bauers, the
Father Ted McLeans, the Henry Carrs, the Tom Mohans and the
Cardinal Flahiffs who have convinced me that one cannot develop a
whole person academically and spiritually unless sport is an
integral part of their life.
1620
I want to say to all members in the House that I salute my
colleague, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who after 90 days
tabled 53 of the 69 recommendations in a positive way.
I know the spirit of the Liberal Party and especially the vision
and spirit of the Prime Minister. I believe in the not too
distant future that every single recommendation in the report
will be implemented in some way, shape or form. I thank all
members who worked on the committee for their co-operation. We
will continue to move forward.
[Translation]
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first
of all, I wish to thank my colleague from Broadview—Greenwood.
I also wish to acknowledge the work he has done throughout the
entire subcommittee process. I feel that he has shown his
interest in, and his passion for, amateur sport and he deserves
praise for this. I share some of his points of view.
He has a lot to say about the recommendation on professional
sport. I would like to point out to him that this
recommendation, which the government has adopted, is going to
cost more than $500 million, contrary to the measures on amateur
sport, for which there is nothing.
There are some good recommendations on amateur sport, although
there could be plenty more, but there is nothing new on the
concrete measures to be undertaken shortly to help our
athletes involved in amateur sport in Quebec and in Canada.
I have done a fair amount of research recently and have had many
contacts with athletes and federations. I would like him to tell
us a bit about how we as parliamentarians can help these sports
federations and associations. There are a number of problems of
discrimination, as well as those relating to language, to French,
and to internal administration.
Sports Canada does not have control over these associations, yet
there is a lot of money at Sports Canada. How can
parliamentarians give a bit of help to these associations and
these athletes?
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Mr. Speaker, I have to humbly say
that we never advocated $500 million to the professional sports
realm. That was never part of the deal.
Our commitment to the developmental part of the amateur sport
fabric in the country, including the physical fitness component,
was somewhere in the neighbourhood of $60 million a year for the
next five years, which was $300 million.
We also put on the table some areas where we thought moneys
could be generated. Currently, all the lottery moneys in the
country, which the then Prime Minister Joe Clark gave away to the
provinces in 1979 in exchange for support for his leadership, or
a payoff for his leadership, are going directly to the provinces.
I believe there is an opportunity for getting together with the
premiers and saying that a portion of those moneys should come
back into the amateur sport fabric, especially those gaming
systems where they use the professional sports' logos. I see
great hope for that in the future. The Minister of Industry for
Canada has currently set up a system where all those things are
being explored.
As far as interfering with the operations of the amateur
federations on a day to day basis, I really do not think as
parliamentarians we should interfere with the way they operate
other than the fact that I think we should make sure that all of
the facilities and all the opportunities across the country are
there in both official languages.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to commend the member for his work on this committee
and for this report that he has put out.
I am also a very strong advocate for and supporter of amateur
sports. In fact, I have spent a good majority of my life
promoting it and coaching at different levels in high schools
throughout both the United States and Canada.
1625
There is one thing I need to be refreshed on, because the report
was rather lengthy. I cannot recall whether there were any
recommendations regarding the funding or the promoting of what I
used to refer to as good sport, in other words, getting good
qualified people who are going to run these various programs and
work with young people to make them understand that there is more
to this whole episode than just the sporting activity itself,
that it goes far beyond that. What recommendations are we
addressing regarding the qualifications of the providers?
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Mr. Speaker, we have a coaching
crisis in the country today. The Coaching Association of Canada
appeared in front of our committee and went into fine detail
about the lack of support for coaching and the need for more
certified coaches.
We have appealed to the Minister of Human Resources Development
Canada. One of our recommendations was to have the whole area of
coaching put into human resources development in the same way we
classify information technology people, the construction industry
or any other sector of the economy.
I believe that if the private sector through industry and
government work together to top up some support for properly
qualified coaches, we could quickly re-invigorate the coaching
system in Canada. It seems to me that the teaching realm no
longer has the same type of commitment to coaching that it had 25
and 30 years ago.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order
38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight
at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for
Halifax West, Public Service Pension Plan; the hon. member for
Winnipeg North Centre, Health.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have
the great pleasure of rising today to speak to the motion put
forward by our
colleague, the member for Longueuil.
To talk about sports is to take a look at society. At the
moment, I think that our societies are going through difficult
times and facing great change and I believe that sports are also
undergoing considerable upheaval.
Sport can at times reflect our society; therefore analyzing
sports is somewhat like trying to understand where our society
is headed.
Like events of today, sports sometimes take us to extremes,
which makes me think it is difficult to understand the tangents
and directions intended with certain decisions.
The debate today concerns the difference between amateur and
professional sports.
We have to look at the values held by the public and society in
general in order to give priority to sports or set it aside.
Naturally, there is a difference to be made between the two
types of sport.
Earlier I heard my colleague opposite speaking of the benefits
of amateur sport, and I think the remarks were excellent.
Throughout my youth I was involved in sports and competitions.
Sport becomes a passion and it is good for both physical and
mental well-being. It promotes a team spirit, a taste for
challenge, enjoyment of competition and the feeling of
belonging, sometimes to a region. When we represent our region,
it is interesting to do and very praiseworthy, but it is also
interesting for the people of an area, of a region or of a
country to identify with a sports team.
I sincerely believe that sport has many virtues on a human
level, but direction is important. I was speaking earlier about
identification with teams. We need only look at professional
sport, hockey teams such as the Montreal Canadiens, for example,
which is part of the Quebec culture, and I would even say
Canadian culture, because the Canadiens hockey team has made a
name for itself throughout North America.
1630
As I said earlier, changes and disruptions in our society lead
to certain inconsistencies. It is currently the case with sport,
and this in many respects. I am very interested in anything that
has to do with the growing gap between the rich and the poor.
Earlier I said that hockey could be an interesting reflection
of today's society, and I think it is absolutely true.
The report of the Subcommittee on the Study of Sport in Canada
includes some very fine suggestions for amateur sport, but the
government will take taxpayers' money to invest it in
professional sport.
I will not necessarily criticize this decision today, because I
did not sit on the committee. However, I am convinced that my
comments reflect the views of a large segment of the public,
which finds it regrettable that we would now be making such
decisions in our society. We are not alone. In the United
States they invest billions of dollars in sport stadiums, while
cutting funds for education and health care. I happen to believe
that education is absolutely critical for future generations.
These are aberrations in a society that claims it has to
tighten its belt. We are investing in sport teams that pay
incredible salaries to their employees. I will not mention any
figures, since everyone here is aware of the huge salaries paid
to professional athletes. I think everybody is familiar with
this issue.
Such a societal issue cannot be resolved in 10 minutes. Still, I
am concerned and I wonder where it will stop. If this trend
continues, and it is clear that it will, players' salaries will
keep going up. I cannot see a cap being put on players'
salaries because they are currently determined by the market.
When the market is totally left to its own devices, this can lead
to some aberrations. I think that professional sport is a prime
example of that.
Today, in spite of all the kind words of the member opposite
regarding amateur sport, we are still faced with a government
initiative in support of professional sport. Obviously, I did
not review all the direct consequences of promoting or not
promoting professional sport.
From an economic standpoint, we know that professional sport
creates jobs, but when we take a look outside the stadium and
see that our society is getting poorer and we are having to pay
already ridiculous salaries, I must admit that I am in a
quandary.
Earlier I mentioned education, as did the member opposite. I
think there can be a very direct link between sports and
education because very often we learn a sport at school. This
has benefits for the body and the mind. It is good for our
young people to be able to take part in sports at school, and
they should be encouraged to try to beat their own records.
Earlier in the debate some members mentioned that it was a
disgrace that a country such as ours lacked sports trainers.
This is also a worrisome phenomenon. I could mention other
worrisome phenomena, such as the invasion of Nintendo games. As
a young boy—and that was not so long ago, no more than 10
years—it was normal for me to be outside playing hockey. Today,
many young people routinely stay cooped up indoors playing
Nintendo.
To sum up, we could study all facets of amateur sport and their
benefits today, but I think that the initial debate is more
about the government's decision to invest less in amateur sport
and more in professional sports. There is food for thought
here, more than I can cover in 10 minutes. However, I am
pleased to have taken part in the debate.
1635
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I cannot let the assertion by the member that the
government has made a commitment to professional sport and not to
amateur sport stand. There are ongoing discussions with the
smaller market teams in Canada which are struggling, but no
decision has been taken. If the member would read the sport pact
section of the report he would see that it is all quid pro quo.
In other words, not 10 cents would be spent on the professional
side of things unless there was an equal or proportionate amount
for the amateur sport fabric in Canada.
When I say the amateur sport fabric I am not just talking about
hockey. We have over 550,000 registered soccer participants,
boys and girls, in this country. Even though hockey is our
national sport and even though we are going to work very hard to
figure out a way to keep the smaller market teams in Canada, make
no mistake about it, nothing will be done unless the amateur
fabric is also on the table.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, if the government took good
measures today, if it were in line with the Mills report and
if money went fairly and justly to amateur sport, I would be
delighted.
If this opposition day—which I do not like to call an opposition
day, but rather a debate day—influences the government opposite
so that it puts greater emphasis on amateur sport priorities, I
would be delighted and I would not feel that I have wasted my
time today.
[English]
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I have a
quick comment drawn from the hon. member of the government
benches who just spoke. He stated the quid pro quo, that there
would be equal funding for professional and amateur sport.
Although I am not an expert on this issue, I know a bit about
sports. It seems there is a bunch of sportsmen on the government
benches, but I think they are mostly jugglers. They are trying
to juggle truth and fiction.
Surely Canadians and parliamentarians would not spend a penny to
support professional athletes in this country. They already have
all of the tax deductions. They have all of the potential to
make a profit that any other business in Canada has. They
already have all of those breaks. Surely we would not spend one
penny, not one penny, to support professional sports in this
country.
[Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a
question to the member who has just spoken in order to find out
how he reconciles his party's position with what he wrote in the
report we are debating today, in part, the Mills report, as the
dissenting report, and I quote:
We recommend and encourage greater study of the issues of
subsidies to professional sport franchises with a mind to
ensuring their presence in Canada is balanced with the best
economic interests of all Canadians.
The report was signed by the House leader of his party and
critic, a member of the subcommittee.
How does he reconcile his remarks with those of the dissenting
report prepared by his party?
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I
think that the member for Ottawa—Vanier is a bit confused. He has
just put a question concerning a comment addressed to the member
for Lac-Saint-Jean.
1640
The member for Lac-Saint-Jean had time left to complete his
remarks and to finish his response. Subsequently, if the member
has intelligent questions to ask, he may do so. However, I invite him
to follow the debate, because he is not even following it.
The Deputy Speaker: This is the questions and comments period.
The member for South Shore asked a question that was directed
really toward the government, I believe, and not to the member for
Lac-Saint-Jean, who made his speech.
Some hon. members: It was not up to him to answer.
The Deputy Speaker: Afterward, the hon. member for
Lac-Saint-Jean did not rise, so I recognized the hon.
parliamentary secretary.
It is now the turn of the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean. If he
wishes to respond, he has 30 seconds to do so during the period
for questions and comments.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I am unable to answer the
question from the member opposite because it was directed at the
member behind me, who is from a different party. It is directed
at him, and I have nothing to say.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
take part in today's debate, and to congratulate my colleague,
the member for Longueuil, on her initiative for this opposition
day.
I also congratulate the member for Rimouski—Mitis for her work on
the subcommittee, where she contributed a number of rather
interesting clarifications on the study of sport in Canada.
My colleague's motion reads as follows:
That, since the government ignored most of the recommendations
by the Sub-Committee on the Study of Sport in Canada, a
Sub-Committee of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, the
House demand that the government place amateur athletes at the
heart of its concerns and make a commitment to placing their
interests before the interests of professional sport.
I think that the most pressing problem of this government's
present policy on sport is the priorities and the mandate
adopted by the Department of Canadian Heritage with respect to
sport. The priority is to promote national unity, which is a
propaganda mandate. We are strongly opposed to using sport to
promote national unity.
The sole objective of amateur sport in Canada should be to
promote excellence, and not to use athletes to serve a political
ideology.
While the Minister of Industry will be following up on the
mandate given him by the Prime Minister to save professional
hockey in Canada, and calling a meeting in mid-June at which the
provinces and the municipalities concerned will have to help
fund sports millionaires, this same Liberal government is
dismissing out of hand any additional funding for amateur sport.
I would like to point out that a few weeks ago I tabled a
petition in the House signed by over 1,000 people in my riding
deploring the fact that this government wants to subsidize
sports millionaires.
It is clear once again that the federal government is choosing
the rich over the poor. The federal government is in urgent
need of re-examining its priorities.
In November 1998 the Subcommittee on the Study of Sport in
Canada submitted its report to the government. Most of the
report's recommendations dealt with the increased support that
ought to be given to amateur sport, but recommendation No. 36
proposed that the government invest millions of dollars in
professional sport.
This is what all members of the public are opposed to.
When asked, everyone in Canada, and everyone in Quebec calls for
no more investing millions of dollars in professional sport,
for no more support to be given to what are termed the
millionaires of sport.
1645
If this government had any gumption it would understand that
if there is any money to invest it could go into amateur sport,
to the athletes who are often from poor backgrounds, whose
parents have had to do without things that would have
contributed to their well-being in order to support their
children and encourage their top performance.
On April 28, 1999, while the Minister of Canadian Heritage was
out of the country, her parliamentary secretary tabled the
government response on her behalf. This government said no to any
additional funding for amateur sport; yes to activities that will
enhance the visibility of the federal government, such as the
holding of a symposium on sport to be chaired by the Prime
Minister; and probably yes to professional sport.
The Bloc Quebecois has always said that the subcommittee on
sport was nothing but an excuse to support professional sports.
Once again, the facts seem to bear this out.
There is considerable consternation in the world of amateur
sport at this time. To quote Lane MacAdam, President of the
Canada Games Council, as reported in the Globe and Mail of April
29, 1999:
This is a black day for amateur sport. It would appear that the
government has chosen hockey millionaires over the 1.3 million
poor children who have no access to sports. Amateur sport has
been cheated.
The head of Athletics Canada, John Thresher, said this in the
Globe and Mail the same day:
Compared to other G-7 countries, our athletes are second class
citizens.
Here is what Jean-Luc Brassard had to say, as reported by Pierre
Bourgault in the May 1, 1999 issue of the Journal de Montréal:
Since they took office in 1993, Liberals have done everything
except support the development of Canadian amateur sport. They
have made it a political issue more than ever before. Members
will certainly remember that the heritage minister asked the
Canadian Olympic Association to delay the announcement that
Quebec City had lost its bid to host the 2010 Winter Games.
They have reduced their financial support for amateur sport by
more than 35%. The envelope went from $76 million to $57
million, including the recent addition of $50 million over 5
years announced by the heritage minister in 1998. The
predictable result is that, since 1993, 22 national sports
associations no longer receive funding from Heritage Canada.
I hope all those watching understood what I just said. Since
1993, 22 national sports associations have stopped receiving any
funding from Heritage Canada.
Finally, the Liberals rejected the recommendations made in the
report of the Sub-committee on the Study of Sport in Canada,
accepting only those that will not cost anything, that will
ensure government visibility, or that will allow the funding of
professional sport.
I would have a lot more to say about such an important issue,
but I will conclude by responding to the member for Bourassa,
who does not seem to understand the concrete proposals made by
the Bloc Quebecois to support our athletes.
1650
Our recommendations are: to provide adequate funding for the
INRS-Santé laboratory in Pointe-Claire, which remains without a
contract for the current year and which may not even get all the
money pledged for 1998-99; to fund the upgrading of its
facilities, at a cost of some $500,000; to fund all sport
associations; to review the criteria used to deliver certificates
to amateur athletes to promote excellence in Quebec and Canada;
and, finally, to exclude politics from sport.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the more I read on the issue, the more I am surprised by the
silence of some Liberal Party members. They may well crow and say
they invest a lot of money and work for amateur sport, but when
we examine the figures, we see quite the opposite.
I ask the member if she finds it normal that since Liberals were
elected in 1993, that is six years ago, money invested in
amateur sport has dropped from $76 million to $57 million.
Moreover, our dollar is worth less today than in 1993 and there
is a huge difference in the amounts invested, almost $20 million
between 1993 and 1999.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage may well want to spend $10
million a year of what she says is new money for five years, but
we will still be under the amount spent in 1993. Everyone in
this House claims that amateur sport is important and says we have to
invest in that area.
In fact, the opposite is happening. These budgets were slashed.
I know that some Liberal members agree with me, namely the
chairman of the subcommittee which studied the issue and tabled
a report. I know very well that the chairman who tabled this
report shares my opinion, but in actual fact nothing is being
done.
The member for Bourassa boasts about working a lot for amateur
sport. I believe he is actually working much more for
professional sport. Does the member find it normal that between
words and reality there is a discrepancy of more than $20
million?
Mrs. Pauline Picard: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon.
colleague from Berthier—Montcalm for his question.
No, it is not normal. The cuts to amateur sport mean that the 22
national organizations I mentioned earlier are subject to a new
funding framework. They are doomed to oblivion because their
funding was abolished.
This is why we maintain that the federal government has once
again chosen to help the rich instead of the poor. This is also
why the government must rethink its priorities where amateur
sport is concerned. It should encourage and support our amateur
athletes.
I want to give another example. When the issue of propaganda
was addressed earlier, it was said that out of the $1.3 million
allocated to arenas, $900,000 was handed to the Corel Centre
and the Molson Centre to ensure high visibility for the maple
leaf. This is very upsetting to us.
We have athletes living in poverty and getting very low wages,
while the government chooses to subsidize sports millionaires.
These people earn $3 million to $4 million every year, while our
athletes, who truly need to be supported and from whom we expect
excellence, only get between $189 and $800 a month.
1655
This is unacceptable and we are firmly opposed to sport being
used to promote Canadian unity, national unity. The only goal of
amateur sport in Canada should be to promote excellence and not
to display flags to promote national unity.
[English]
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be sharing my time with the hon. member for
Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey.
It is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak to this motion.
I want to congratulate the mover of the motion. Allow me to
inform the House of the hard work that the Subcommittee on the
Study of Sport in Canada has done and to say that I was honoured
to be a member of that committee. I also want to talk about the
government's continued commitment to sport in Canada.
This afternoon I would like to emphasize the value of sport in
Canadian society and to look at the government's role in sport,
all that we must do as we approach the 21st century and all that
we have done.
The Subcommittee on the Study of Sport in Canada put the
interests of Canadian culture and health on the discussion table.
It was interesting to deal with policy that affects both health
and culture. I do not think there is any other issue that
connects health issues with cultural issues.
Sport is culture and sport promotes healthy lives. Sport is the
point at which the game and fitness merge. It is where health,
through increased fitness, meets tradition. We as Canadians have
a long tradition of sport.
That is why I consider this subcommittee and its mandate to be
so important. We investigated the potential scope of and
rationale for federal involvement in the promotion of amateur
sport in Canada and we determined that we must give amateur sport
a push.
I have a true appreciation for amateur sport. I think that is a
result of being from a maritime province. In my home province of
Prince Edward Island sporting events provide a place where we can
get together socially, catch up on the latest news, tell stories
and see friends.
For example, the first thing many families do when they relocate
is to seek out a sports club. They join these clubs because they
already know and like the activity and want to socialize with
others who share common values. Sport encourages social
interaction. It also increases a healthy society, both mentally
and physically.
Sport involvement is vital in improving the chances of youth at
risk. These young people are not only at risk because of a
passive health risk posed by an inactive lifestyle, but the
lifestyle also drives them toward actively destructive or
self-destructive activities such as substance abuse, anxiety,
depression and violence.
Sport and physical activity offer an inherent sense of direction
as well as a safe and constructive outlet for youth energy. In
addition, the regular physical activity which sport provides
naturally makes young people physically, mentally and emotionally
healthier. Ask a friend whose son or daughter is involved in
amateur sport and more often than not they will tell us that
their child does not smoke, does well in school, is motivated, is
energetic and is going to or has already enrolled in some form of
post-secondary education.
It is interesting how physical activity is less prevalent today
than it was 30 or 40 years ago. It is obvious that as our
society becomes more technological we as a nation are becoming
more inactive. I have often wondered where our inactivity comes
from. One possible explanation is that when Canada was formed as
a nation people had to be active in order to function in their
daily lives.
Up until the post-war period people relied much more on manual
labour to make a living. Technology has now made it possible for
us to choose to lead less active lives. Street hockey has been
replaced by video games. The Internet is making us more insular.
Television is becoming a leisure activity, taking a huge chunk
out of our recreation time, from 17 to 19 hours a week for
children between the ages of 2 and 17. Ironically, much of it is
spent watching sports events.
As we approach the 21st century and information technology, the
Internet and computers become more common, the tendency of people
to be inactive will increase. We will be able to shop from home,
talk to our friends and play recreational games over phone lines.
It all points to a more insular and less active society.
Frankly, this scares me.
This sort of inactivity is deadly. Inactivity is a primary
factor for cardiac disease, affecting one in five Canadians.
Often an inactive adult was an inactive child and that is why we
as a committee recognized the need for continued support for
amateur sport and for children.
Obesity is also a result of inactivity, which in turn increases
the likelihood of stroke, hypertension and diabetes.
1700
These diseases cost the Canadian health system millions of
dollars each year. It has also been proven that girls who
participate in physical activity will be less susceptible to
osteoporosis as adults. According to the Canadian Olympic
Association, Canadian children are 40% less active than their
parents were at the same age. A survey of grade two students
found that one in four children cannot touch their toes.
As I mentioned earlier, sport is one avenue of achieving a
physically and mentally healthy population. Promoting physical
activity is an investment that increases the well-being of
Canadians while reducing health care costs. As the chairman of
the committee just said a few minutes ago, according to the
committee's report reducing the number of inactive Canadians by
just 10% would result in an additional saving of $5 billion in
health care costs. There are very clear benefits to increasing
the number of Canadians actively involved in physical activities.
How do we increase the number of active Canadians? We must
guarantee that sport and fitness are accessible to all Canadians.
I have spoken on my occasions in my constituency on the value of
sport and fitness and what it means to be active. I often refer
to Canada as having a system of amateur sport that is truly
accessible, a system where anyone can play as long as he or she
has the interest and the talent.
Increasingly this is not the case. Our system looks more like
it did when class distinction determined if one was involved in
sports. Some families have children registered in sports
organizations. Some families do not. Some teams have
sponsorship. Some teams do not. The government understands the
benefit of increased participation.
Accessibility is key to increasing the participation of
Canadians in physical activities. Our committee recognized this
and recommended that an incentive for individuals to donate to
not for profit sports organizations was needed. We suggested
that eligibility for charitable tax deductions be given to
provincial sports organizations. Imagine if we could give a
donation to a sport club and receive a tax receipt. This would
make it an awful lot easier to donate money. The donator would
be happy. The government would be happy. Most important, the
sport club would be happy.
Special tax treatment allowing provincial non-profit
organizations to issue tax receipts is a clever idea. The
government has decided that this proposal will be put into
existing government efforts through a joint government-voluntary
sector round table process.
When the committee looked at all the issues facing Canada as a
whole we found that certain segments of society were
underrepresented and we recommended that something be done. In
January 1998 the Minister of Canadian Heritage announced a
program called the new funding for sport. This program would
inject $10 million per year for three different initiatives.
One initiative set targets to ensure that underrepresented
groups have fair access to opportunities to participate in sport.
A system of accountability has been developed that will track
funding to ensure that opportunities for underrepresented groups
are increased. These groups include aboriginals, women and
athletes with disabilities.
The government has responded so that the playing field will be
level, so that the values which result from involvement in sport
are offered to everyone, not just the financially secure, and so
that all teams young and old have a chance to thrive.
Another part of guaranteeing this is making sure that coaches
and volunteers are looked after, that sponsors are given
incentives so they can fund local amateur sports, and that we
formally acknowledge the importance of amateur sport as a
positive influence in the community and the country.
The Government of Canada will continue its policy and funding
support of sport in Canada. For example, Sport Canada has been
awarded an additional $10 million per year for new funding for
sport programs as outlined in a red book commitment.
Our commitment to sport is demonstrated through our annual
contributions through Sport Canada. It has been said many times
today that over $57.8 million in total are allocated for Sport
Canada contribution programs, $26 million of which are
contributed to national amateur sports organizations.
As we suggested in our committee work, national coaching
institutes are very much a part of Sports Canada's ongoing
interest. A portion of the $2 million in annual support to the
Coaching Association of Canada goes toward national coaching
institutes across Canada. This is not enough but it is what is
there today and much more is needed. In 1999-2000 the government
will spend an additional $3.5 million specifically targeted for
coaching support as part of the new funding for sport
initiatives.
In the area of coaching support our objective is to provide
increased support to high performances coaching and to create new
full time positions for high performance coaches in order to
enhance international athlete development and improve athlete
development programs.
Like coaching, the government is also committed to creating
competitive venues for amateur athletes. Canada's amateur sport
is celebrated when the Canada Games convene.
The Canada Games with its motto “Unity Through Sport” has been
a mainstay of the Canadian amateur sport system since its
inception in Quebec City in 1967.
1705
Since that time successive federal, provincial and municipal
governments working together with the corporate sector have
supported the Canada Games. The government is a partner in this
undertaking and currently provides approximately $4 million
annually in contributions for team travel and for each host city
for capital development and operations.
I represent an Atlantic constituency that has a great deal of
amateur sports clubs and events within it. My home province of
Prince Edward Island has its own culture and its own values. A
lot of what we as Islanders do socially has to do with sport,
amateur sport. Whether it is junior hockey, sailing, golf,
whatever it is, sport in P.E.I. is a form of social interaction.
I understand the value of sport—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry but the
hon. member's time has expired.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question will be a short one.
The hon. member seems to have really followed the debate, read
the report, and followed everything that was said when the
subcommittee on sport examined the question.
I would like his comment on what Sports Québec said eight years
ago at the time of the last study.
What it said was as follows:
Only rarely are national associations able to deliver services
properly in French, whether providing documentation or
delivering programs. Moreover, the development of national
training centres in cities offering little if any services in
French also constitutes a demotivating factor for a number of
francophones in the field.
Since then we have had many examples of this, including Nagano
where everything was in English. French appears not to be used,
or banished from amateur sport even at fairly high levels.
Since the hon. member has experience and appears to be abreast
of the issues, I would like to ask him whether he finds it
acceptable that everything, or practically everything, is in
English, and that all francophone amateur sports people and all
the people working in amateur sport are at a disadvantage
compared to the anglophones.
[English]
Mr. George Proud: Mr. Speaker, Canada is a bilingual
country. Anyone can have the sport of choice in the language of
choice.
On the international scene English is the international
language. We did make recommendations that all these sporting
events be made bilingual.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal
member made reference to the fact that only a small proportion of
Canadians can touch their toes. I just want to point out to him
that if God wanted us to touch our toes, He would have put them
where our knees are. Then I would be able to do that too.
Seriously, though, my question has to do with federal support of
amateur sports. The greatest contribution the federal government
can make toward amateur sports is to enable families to have
enough money left in their pockets to look after the needs of
their families.
The way it is right now we are taxed to death at every turn.
Governments at all three levels spend 50% of our earnings. After
we pay for our rent, our transportation, our clothing, our food
and our utilities, there is no money left.
There are many families, and I have spoken to some, who would
like to have their youngsters enrolled in some amateur sports but
they cannot afford the money. It costs quite a bit to enrol them
and to pay for their share of the rental of the facility and so
on. Why do we not just simply give families a tax break, leave
more money in their pockets so that they can do that, and let
them participate?
The idea of taxing everybody to death and then trying to pick
out some groups to give grants to is insane.
1710
Mr. George Proud: Mr. Speaker, many of the recommendations in
our report deal with tax breaks to individual families. We all
know how Reform views amateur sport funding as a waste of money.
We just have to look at the May 1998 edition of the waste report
produced by Reform member for St. Albert in which he listed all
the examples the Reform Party considered to be wasteful
government spending. He included the $9,720 grant that our
government provided to a particular athlete in 1996.
Yes, I believe there has to be more tax breaks for people to get
their children involved in amateur sport. We put that in our
report. I think we will see it come to fruition in the days to
come.
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to comment on
the government's response to the recommendations of the
subcommittee. I am pleased that the government has taken action
on over 75% of them.
The hon. member's question implies that athletes are not
currently at the heart of the concerns of the government. Nothing
could be further from the truth. I am pleased to be able to
speak about the government's commitments to athletes in our new
funding both to the athletes directly and to the systems which
support them.
I would also like to speak about a commitment the government
made to athletes during the last election campaign. We promised
an additional $10 million per year for five years. We have kept
that promise.
On January 22, 1998, the Minister of Canadian Heritage announced
the new funding for sports: $10 million per year starting in the
1998-99 fiscal year for five years. At that time the minister
said that when one of our athletes succeeds on the world stage
all Canadians from every walk of life and every corner of our
nation shares in that victory.
That is what this announcement is all about. Indeed that is
what Canada is all about. This announcement was about providing
additional support to athletes in three areas: training,
competition opportunities for athletes, support for coaches of
athletes and direct assistance to athletes.
At the same time the new initiatives would enhance the
government's efforts related to access and equity for
traditionally underrepresented groups including women, athletes
with a disability and aboriginal people.
Seeing Canadian athletes represent Canada on the world stage
provides Canadians with a strong sense of national pride.
Canada's high performance athletes are excellent role models for
all Canadians, particularly our youth. Their achievements instil
pride and inspire youth to pursue excellence in sports and other
endeavours. Our athletes also serve as international
ambassadors, reflecting Canadian values in the world at large.
Sports provide Canadian youth with important opportunities for
personal development as well employment skills through
specialized training and experiences. With the new funding for
sports the federal government's budget for sports is about $60
million per year. Of that $8.8 million go directly to athletes,
$35.4 million to sports organizations and programs, and $15.5
million to games hostings. The athletes are at the centre of our
expenditures whether directly or indirectly.
I will give a few more details about the new funding for sports
and how it is being used to directly benefit Canada's high
performance athletes. In the area of athlete support, the
purpose of these new funds is to support more high performance
athletes who are in the developmental stage. This support is
important for young developing athletes because of full time
training on a year round basis which is necessary for athletes to
be competitive at the international level.
Before the new funding for sports the number of athletes
receiving assistance was quite frankly insufficient to ensure
continued development. We needed to provide additional support
to developing athletes and we have done that. In addition, we
wanted to support more female athletes and to provide more
support for athletes with disabilities.
1715
Our objective with the new funding for sports in this area is to
provide direct financial support for living and training expenses
and tuition support for an additional 300 high performance
athletes each year. We are providing additional assistance to an
increased number of senior level national team athletes and an
increased number of junior and developing athletes and an
increased number of athletes with a disability.
An hon. member: Good.
Mr. Murray Calder: I agree with the hon. member behind
me, it is good.
The second area of the new funding is coaching. Access to
qualified coaches is a key ingredient for athletic success. In
the area of coaching support, our objective is to provide
increased support to high performance coaching and to create new
full time positions for high performance coaches in order to
enhance international athlete development and to improve athlete
development programs.
An increased number of qualified and full time coaches is widely
recognized as essential to Canadian athletes achieving their
potential in international competition. Also critical to
achieving this objective is the creation of stable employment
positions, including adequate compensation and professional
development opportunities.
Through the new funding initiative we will increase the number
of federally funded high performance coaches; increase the number
of coaches working with athletes with disabilities; supplement
existing salaries and honoraria for current high performance
coaches; support professional development and training
opportunities for coaches; provide apprenticeship and mentoring
initiatives to increase the number of women in career track
coaching positions; provide coaching development opportunities
for aboriginal coaches. Our overall objective is to double the
number of high performance coaches currently funded by the
Government of Canada over the five year period of the new funding
for sports.
The third area of investment with the new funding for sports
relates to increasing access to high performance training and
competition opportunities. Access to top calibre international
competition is necessary for our athletes to achieve their
objectives in the international competitions, including world
championships, the Olympics and Paralympic Games. It is not
enough to simply train without testing skills and abilities
against world level competition. Our objective with this new
funding is to provide high performance athletes with increased
access to world class training programs and services and to high
calibre competitions in order to improve results at world
championships and the Olympics and Paralympic Games.
Specifically the new funding has provided more opportunities for
high quality training, improved the training environment through
the provision of enhanced services for athletes, and provided
more opportunities for athletes to compete at international
events. In addition, the funding has been made available to
develop programming for aboriginal athletes who have demonstrated
a high performance potential.
In the short term the new initiatives to be undertaken for
athletes through the new funding for sports should result in
enhanced performance by athletes at the Olympics and Paralympic
Games in 2000 and 2002 and at other world championships. In the
long term they will also provide much needed support to develop
top level high performance coaches and nurture the development of
the next tier of athletes.
We are very proud of our commitment to high performance athletes
through our ongoing financial support and in particular the new
funding for sports. We are proud of the many young Canadians who
compete for Canada on the international stage.
1720
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I agree
that sports and amateur sports in particular is very important.
It is a very essential part of our society and something which
certainly builds character in our young people.
There is one thing I would like some clarification on by the
hon. member. He spoke quite a bit about investment in high
performance athletes, high performance coaching, high performance
training and so forth, about the top level. While that is
important, sometimes there is tremendous pressure for our young
people to always be on top. People have gotten past the stage
where they can enjoy sports, have fun, relax and build character
that way. Sometimes there is so much pressure on young people to
always be at the top, to be at a high level and of top quality.
It creates more stress and concern for them than if they could
just enjoy the sport.
The member talked about the funding that has been provided and
the investment being made in our young people. What form of
funding or investment is available for families? Perhaps the
children are in one parent families and they cannot afford the
latest high quality equipment that would make them look
professional. They would like to just go out, have fun and be
encouraged in sports in that way. What is the government doing
in that regard?
Mr. Murray Calder: Mr. Speaker, in my own community I
have been a Kinsmen dealing with service clubs for 25 years. We
have worked with minor sports in our area. I agree with what the
member is saying, that sports is to have fun but there are also
role models in sports. That is what we see the government
committing money to right now, the role models on the
international stage whom we try to emulate in the small sports we
have fun with.
The member asked what is available for families. There are a
number of initiatives the government is working on right now in
terms of single wage earner families and so on. There are tax
issues where we are working for low income Canadians. These all
fit into giving Canadians extra money so they can spend that
money where they see fit. If it happens to be sports, then that
is what they do.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
earlier today I put a question on budgets to my colleague
from Drummond. I will put the same question to an hon. member
of the government party, to see if he thinks the situation is
normal.
During the years of drastic cuts, the budget for amateur sports
was reduced to less than $50 million a year, while the
government gave more than $20 million to the infamous Canada
Information Office and about twice the budget of amateur sports
to propaganda, including the million flags project of the
Minister of Canadian Heritage.
During the same period, funds given to amateur sports were
dangerously reduced. Even with the funds that the Minister of
Canadian Heritage calls new, the budget for amateur sports
remains at about $57 million when, in 1993, before the Liberals
came to power, it was $76 million.
The government member says that the government is very proud of
our amateur athletes and our coaches when they win medals, but
the amounts invested and the cuts made since the Liberals came
to power do not necessarily reflect that pride. Could we not say
that there is a contradiction between what the Liberals say and
what they do?
[English]
Mr. Murray Calder: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across
the way talks about contradiction. Let us go back six years to
1993 and look at where the finances of the country were at that
time. We were running a $42.5 billion deficit. We had close to
$600 billion of accumulated public debt. Our government came in
and got the financial house of the government back in order. He
is right. Cuts were made to amateur sports. Cuts were made to
everything to get the government's books back in line. We have
done that.
1725
We also promised in the 1997 election that when we started
generating surpluses we would start putting the money back in in
a strategic fashion. That is exactly what we are doing right
now. We are living up to that commitment.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de
Fuca.
I appreciate the opportunity to respond to this motion which I
support. It has a lot of good things in it. I will also comment
on the Mills report on sport in terms of the positive things and
of course some negative things that have come out of that.
I caution all committees, or whomever will be responsible for
putting these kinds of things together, that we be careful with
regard to creating another federal department. It brings in
another bureaucracy which we have a tough time funding now. We
are bureaucracy crazy. Everything is run by bureaucracies. I
would really be cautious with this idea of setting up a separate
federal department.
Instead of suggesting a study be done on the feasibility of
legalized betting on sport, I would suggest we forget the study.
The Liberal government seems to be study crazy. It has more
studies for this and that and committees looking at this and
that, studies on seniors and sexuality and all these idiotic
committees. Another one is legalized betting on sport. Legalized
betting is not what sport is all about. Forget the committee.
Just scrap that whole idea.
I have spent many years of my life educating and coaching our
youth. I recognize the vital role that participation in
organized sports can play in the upbringing of Canadian children.
I had many years of experience in coaching both as a professional
coach in the United States and as a volunteer coach in Canada. I
have seen firsthand over and over again the very positive
contribution of participation in sport by our youth.
There can be little doubt in anybody's mind that this is a good
idea. To promote sport is an excellent means of preventing crime
by our young people. It is an excellent way to provide
opportunities for those who have the talent to excel in their
abilities. One thing in the last member's message I kept hearing
over and over again was high quality this, high quality that,
high quality here and high quality there.
I always have felt that one major thing in any sporting
department or purpose was to provide the opportunity for persons
such as those in grade 1 and grade 6 who had the desire to
participate but because of where they lived or commitments
required by their parents for the high cost of equipping them to
play hockey or to buy a baseball glove it would be totally
unaffordable. Over and over again I have seen in my years of
experience that these kinds of things are not available to
everybody as they ought to be.
I get concerned about seeing $800 million put into a program
where $100 million of it will be for infrastructure without any
qualifications of what that really means.
What we need is the ability for our young people to have the
opportunity to participate and be part of a program that teaches
life skills other than the high quality of skill of a particular
sport. The program needs to teach good citizenship and good
health. It needs to teach a number of things that will have long
term benefits for them particularly when they get to an age where
they can participate in activities in their communities as an
adult.
1730
I was always a firm believer that team competitive sports such
as hockey, football, basketball and so on were very good.
However, along with them we need support for sport that will
provide skills to individuals so that when they become adults and
part of a family they can participate in other sports that are
not competitive.
Having been in the United States and having coached
professionally, there are some real advantages to having a
program in place that will provide the avenue to work with young
people and provide some high quality coaches that will train and
teach them the best way to deal with particular programs.
Unfortunately when I was in the United States the philosophy of
playing to win and having fun turned out to be winning is not
everything; it is the only thing. When that kind of attitude
begins to exist problems start to develop.
I have seen young people in amateur sports who had participated
in a competition and won a division or zone competition. After
their team had participated and worked together to win a
particular title and had fun doing it, they advanced to the next
level of competition.
It is at that point throughout the country where there seems to
be an attitude that it has to be really competitive. They pick
all-stars from other teams within the division instead of using
the same dozen or twenty young people who managed to make this
accomplishment. There is an attitude that exists in Canada that
we need the all-stars from the other teams. Consequently the
young people who helped the team to get to where it was were
heartbroken and were staying at home while the better players
went on to higher competition.
Those are the things that are disheartening, the very basic type
of ideas. Unfortunately the report fails to get to the heart of
the matter of what affects young people. What do we expect of
our athletes and sport people when they are in schools? I cannot
help but think about that terrible tragedy in Littleton,
Colorado, where two people stated that the targets for their
activities would be jocks, athletes.
I remember some very stringent rules in some of the schools I
worked in. Not only did we do our best to encourage others to
participate in whatever sport we were in, but for those people
who were not inclined or did not have the desire to go into
sport, the athletes in turn would show great respect for their
desire to go into music, drama or whatever it was. They had a
mutual respect for one another.
Because of an attitude that began down in the United States that
the captain of the football team, a macho sort of athlete, is the
king-pin of the school, they tend to tread on the other people
who have other things in their hearts.
We do not address those things in our sporting areas. One of
the problems is when we start throwing money without good ideas
into a project. Money is not the answer to sports. Availability
is, making it possible for all to participate. That can be
handled best at the local level in our communities and not by a
magic bureaucratic department creation, not by a government that
will look after everybody's best interest.
1735
We spent a lot of our time during my years in amateur and
volunteer coaching in Canada selling chocolate bars, selling
light bulbs and selling magazines. We did everything we could to
raise funds to buy a few bats or a dozen baseballs or to buy
T-shirts or caps so the young people would look like a uniformed
group.
We are missing the boat when we forget about the spirit of sport
at that age of young people and start concentrating on pouring
money in so everyone can excel at great lengths. That
acceleration will happen in spite of what goes on. We always felt
that if we looked after everybody the great ones would come out
of the crop, but not because of tons of money being spent to see
it happen and a concentration at that level.
I encourage the committee to continue to look at this report. I
would like it to involve even more people who could come up with
some ideas to enhance sport and to provide an opportunity for
young people. Sport is a very important part of our lives for
the development of citizenship, good health and a sense of
belonging. Let us not ruin it by creating big bureaucracies
which are no solution.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened very carefully to what the member had to say. He is
right. We should never be in a situation where high performance
sport is the only objective of the system, the only objective of
our young people. I think of sport as having to do with far more
than simply training the body. It has to do with training the
mind and many of the points made by the member.
I do not know if the member has looked at that part of the
government's sports program which deals with the Canada Games. I
use the Canada Games as simply one example. The federal
government commits $60 million to sports. We are missing a great
deal if we forget the volunteer activity which the member
describes and the activity and roles of the provinces and the
schools. This is not the be all and end all of sports in Canada.
A part of the budget goes toward supporting the Canada Games. My
understanding is that 45,000 young people between the ages of 18
and 22 or 23 have participated in the Canada Games in the last
few decades. Hundreds and hundreds of thousands of young people
have tried out for the Canada Games.
I have attended two or three of them and they are far more than
sports events. They are festivals at which students from all
over the country, young athletes of different standards, come
together and participate. For some of these athletes it is the
peak of their sporting career and often the peak of their career
as young Canadians.
The Canada Games which come out of federal funding is part of a
pyramid. I was chair of the Ontario Summer Games which is for
younger athletes. We had in our community 2,000 to 3,000 young
people, younger than those in the Canada Games. Tens of
thousands tried out for the Ontario Summer Games. I am sure the
same applies in Alberta, British Columbia, Quebec and other
provinces across the country. Those games were funded in part by
the provincial governments and lead toward the Canada Games, the
national festival of sports.
Has the member been to any Canada Games? Is he familiar with
the sort of festival of sport it is for young people, not simply
for high performance athletes?
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I understand what the
member is stating.
Back in 1983 in my area I had the pleasure of serving on the
committee which was putting on the Alberta provincial summer
games. Two years later we had the Alberta provincial winter
games.
A tremendous amount of work and effort went into providing
opportunity for young people. There were great celebrations. It
was phenomenal.
1740
All the trials and competitions prior to qualifying to come to
the provincial festival were every bit as big in the minds and
hearts of the young people who were trying at the lower level.
The province and the communities made certain that young people
were shown some appreciation for their efforts, whatever they
could be.
To go from a provincial level to a national level can only be a
dream for a lot of young people. I reiterate the need for
maximum participation before getting to those levels, or the more
people involved the better the whole system will be. I do not
want to see tons of money targeted for one area without making
absolutely certain that we cover as much as possible.
I am certainly proud of the Canadian amateur games. I cheer for
our athletes as loudly as anybody. It gives me a good feeling
when one of them achieves. If we are to talk about amateur
sport, let us not narrow the scope. Let us keep it broad and
available to Canadian children everywhere.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank my colleague from Wild Rose for letting me share
his time with him. I also congratulate the member for Longueuil
for her fine intervention today.
This is a very important motion. As an Olympicophile and one
who had a long time dream of participating in some form but had
no chance whatsoever of doing so, it is a great pleasure to speak
to the motion.
From Donavoan Bailey to Norris Bowden, Greg Joy, Sue Holloway,
Debbie Van Kiekebelt, Kathleen Heddle and so many more, the
Canadian Olympic amateur athletes and indeed professional and
other athletes who have worn the Canadian flag so proudly on
their shoulders have done us proud for many decades. They have
embodied the finest elements of being Canadian and in many
instances have shown us what it is like to be the best of being
human.
The motion goes to the heart of something that is very important
and very dear to Canadians: sport, particularly amateur sport. We
have seen much excellence and heroism among our Olympic athletes.
We have also seen them as superb role models for not only the
young but also the old. I would argue that the cherished dream
of Baron Pierre de Coubertin lives on in the hearts of many
athletes in the country today.
Many Canadian athletes, particularly those who have competed in
the Olympics, have succeeded not as a direct result of what we
have managed to do for them in an organizational capacity but
what they have managed to do for themselves. Many amateur
athletes have lived lives of poverty, indeed below the welfare
level, in order to compete in a sport that they love and do
Canada proud.
The root of this debate is how we can improve the situation for
our amateur athletes. I would argue there are things we can do.
We can make sure that money gets directly to the athletes. The
money should not be invested in a bloated bureaucracy.
We invest a sizeable amount of money. It is understandably
limited because there are so many priorities. More of the money
rather than going into bureaucracy must be focused directly on
the athletes who need it most, on the hard edge of sport in
Canada; not on the organizational capacity but into the pockets
of the athletes to enable them to eat, travel and survive.
Therefore I would argue that we need to downsize the bureaucracy
in many amateur athletic sports and focus the funding on
successful sports. We currently fund over 70 sports in the
country, which I would argue is too many.
We have to make choices. We need to decide which sports are more
important for Canada's identity and fund those selectively.
1745
This is not to say that we should ignore the other ones, but
there are ways of getting funding for them. For example, when a
particular sport becomes very successful, then a percentage of
those funds can be poured into general revenues for sports that
do not make much money. Successful sports, such as track and
field, rowing and sports that generate funds, can be used to pour
into sports that are less attractive from a funding perspective.
We can also try to develop some innovative private-public
partnerships. We have talked about tax incentives for investment
from the private sector. We should consider using an adopt an
athlete or adopt a sport for the private sector. The quid pro
quo is that the particular advertising group can get money from
advertising at the specific sports venues and generate something
for them in that way. Those are the things that can be done.
I also want to draw to the attention of the House something the
Canadian Olympic Association has been doing to address a very
important problem and one that is largely going undiagnosed and
unrecognized in our society; that is the inactivity among our
youth.
If we are going to have an important and profound impact on the
health of Canadians, in particular among the youth, we need to
make sure that the youth get into healthy practices. One of the
healthiest things they can do is engage in a sport. Sports are
good for our health. The earlier we begin engaging in regular
physical activity, the easier it will be to keep up with that
physical activity when we are older.
In other words, starting early will give youths good habits that
will enable them to carry on with healthy sports habits later in
life. This will give us a health dividend. We know that regular
activity and exercise is healthy for us. It lowers the risk of
cardiovascular problems, other health problems and increases
longevity.
The Canadian Olympic Association has tried to push forward an
innovative program of using Canadian Olympic athletes as
ambassadors for sport, using them as role models to push sport
among youth, not necessarily at a high level but at the
grassroots.
If the federal government chooses to take a leadership role with
the provinces and is willing to approach the ministries of
education to work with the Canadian Olympic Association, I think
that would be a fantastic partnership. We would be able to use
these Canadian heroes, who have competed nationally and
internationally for us, as ambassadors for sport and to really
have an aggressive campaign to convince our youth that competing
in sports early on is very important.
We not only must convince the youth, but we must convince their
parents. I have had many parents come into offices that I have
worked in as a physician asking that their child be excused from
physical education. It is very unfortunate that in many of those
cases the request was not for good medical grounds, but because
the child did not want to participate for various reasons. Sport
can be made an integral part of people's lives and it is
important that it be started early.
I also want to address the aspect of professional sports. Much
has been said recently about whether we should or should not fund
professional sports to keep them in the country. In a word, the
answer, in my view, is absolutely not. How can we justify giving
money to professional sports where people are making millions of
dollars a year, when we have people on the street who might be
making $17,000 or $20,000 a year? How can we justify taking
their hard earned tax dollars to pay for professional sporting
groups to stay in the country? We cannot and we should not.
The problem of professional sports in the country and why they
are leaving is an indicator of a much larger problem that is
affecting Canadians from coast to coast. It is taxes.
Taxes are driving Canadians, Canadian companies and the best of
what we have south of the border because the tax structure is so
skewed. A family of two makes at least 44% more in the United
States than they do here.
1750
Similarly, the professional teams in the country are unable to
compete with those teams south of the border because their taxes
are high. The province of Ontario has an 10% entertainment tax
on tickets for these sports. In the case of the Corel Centre in
Ottawa, its property taxes have gone from $1.1 million to a
proposed $7 million in less than seven years. That is
ridiculous. We also have the only publicly funded and publicly
owned highway.
What we need to do is lower taxes not just for professional
sports but for Canadians from coast to coast. I am glad the
problem was brought up by the professional sporting groups. It
shows that not only are they labouring under high tax rates but
so is the rest of Canada. They are also having a problem because
the Canadian dollar is so low.
The reason the Canadian dollar is so low is because the
government has put its tail between its legs and lowered the
Canadian dollar to increase productivity rather than trying to
deal with the elements of productivity such as taxes, education
and rules and regulations, amongst others. It does not address
that. It just lowers the value of the Canadian dollar to make
our exports more competitive. In the process, however, it
damages and hurts many Canadian companies that have to deal in
U.S. dollars.
When it comes to sports, Canadian athletes show some of the
finest examples of what it is to be Canadian. In the words of
Lord Alfred Tennyson, in his poem Ulysses, he said:
To strive, to seek, to find and not to yield.
This is the motto of many Canadian athletes. I think sports are
something that Canadians are all proud to participate in, to
honour and to uphold.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my friend in the Reform Party, the member for
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, made some good points with respect to
amateur sports. He also indicated that professional sports
franchises should not receive any more tax breaks, but that he
supports tax breaks for everybody.
There are a couple of points I want to make. The municipal
governments in the country, for example, Ottawa, benefits
directly as a community from the Ottawa Senators through jobs,
other taxes, revenues and fees. It also charges the Ottawa
Senators about $4.2 million in property taxes, which is now
burdening the Ottawa Senators and is pressuring them to move out
of the country.
With respect to these municipal property taxes, which are
extremely high, does the member think that all of Canada,
including Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca constituents and those in
Saskatchewan and Manitoba that have no pro hockey teams, should
be asked to subsidize the municipality of Ottawa which is a
charging these pro teams exorbitant taxes and is driving them out
of the country?
Does he support the current tax situation for professional
hockey teams? Let us look at a company that buys a big box in an
arena for about $120,000. The taxpayers now support that box
purchased by a business to the tune of $27,000 to $30,000 on the
$120,000 through lost tax expenditures. Does he support this
continued multimillion dollar support of pro franchises?
Does he agree with his Reform colleague, the member for
Kootenay—Columbia, who said this morning that he supports the
tax breaks given to the wealthy hockey players? There are 650
NHL hockey players, averaging $1.8 million a year in salaries,
who have just been given a Liberal tax break in this budget of
about $14,000 each on average. Does he agree with that?
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the
whip of the NDP. He has a load of questions and I will do my
best to answer as many of them as possible.
In response to his last question, which was the most obvious, I
most definitely do not agree. I have absolutely no interest
whatsoever in supporting tax breaks for people who are making
millions of dollars. However, what we do support are across the
board tax breaks for everybody. That is the issue here.
I am glad my colleague brought up this issue. The problem which
professional sporting groups are faced with, not only here in
Ontario but across the country, is the fact that taxes are too
high.
1755
The Ottawa Senators and the Corel Centre pay taxes which exceed
the revenues of their ticket sales. They have a 10% selective
entertainment tax. Why is the provincial government doing that?
It is only hurting the ability of these teams to stay in the
country.
We have a fetish of engaging in taxes, whether we are talking
about municipal, provincial or federal. The federal government
has been offloading its tax burden to lower levels of government.
All we ask is that the federal government lower taxes across the
country. We have seen the success of this being done in other
parts of the world. We could look at Britain, we could look at
northern Europe and we could look at the experience in Alberta,
where the taxes are much lower and the economy is booming. That
is what we need to do federally.
I thank my colleague for pursuing this initiative because it
will be productive. Maybe some day the government will listen to
us.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is not quite a
question, but a comment.
I would not want to encourage local discord between the city of
Ottawa and the city of Kanata. I say to my colleague from
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre that it is the city of Kanata which
receives the property tax. That is why in the recent outburst of
enthusiasm the mayor of the city of Ottawa made sure that people
were corrected. He was actually chastising them for distancing
themselves from the Kanata Senators. Let us make sure we have
the facts straight on the issue.
Mr. Keith Martin: Mr. Speaker, I look forward to my hon.
friend from the government pursuing with his caucus opportunities
to lower taxes, not only for professional sports but, more
important, for Canadians from coast to coast.
I look forward to him working with our side, the whole
opposition, to make that a reality.
[Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully
throughout the day to the comments from all sides. At some
points, it was very interesting and relevant, and at others, I
must unfortunately admit that it was less so. This is the way
things work.
I would take this opportunity to correct certain comments and
errors of fact made during the debate.
I am happy to be able to speak to this motion on behalf of my
colleague, the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
I am delighted to reaffirm, as this motion indicates, that
amateur sport is at the heart of the concerns of the Government
of Canada. The government made a commitment to record its
concerns and those of its amateur athletes on its list of
priorities and it fully intends to honour this commitment.
I am happy to be able to say, contrary to what has been repeated
so far, that the government will act on more than 75% of the
recommendations of the parliamentary subcommittee on sport in
Canada. It is most encouraging to see committee work being given
such enthusiastic support by the government.
I never tire of discussing the reasons Canadians from coast to
coast are proud of their country. Amateur sport is one of the
reasons we are proud to be Canadians.
We feel nothing but pride when we think of the Olympic and
Paralympic Games in Nagano, of the Commonwealth Games in Kuala
Lumpur, of the Arctic Winter Games in Yellowknife and of the
Pan-American Games to be held very soon in Winnipeg.
There is also the young 13 year old, Alexandre Despatie, who won
the gold medal in diving in Kuala Lumpur last year. He is the
youngest gold medal winner at the Commonwealth Games.
Regardless of our preferences—skiing, skating, sailing or
whatnot—in any sport we can name, there are Canadian champions.
Canada has always gathered a team of exceptional athletes,
regardless of the size of the competition or the place it is
held.
1800
These committed and dedicated athletes have everything they need
to compete against the best athletes in the world. They proudly
walk in the stadium and wave our flag high, as do athletes from
all over the world incidentally, before the Bloc accuses our
athletes of excessive national pride as it has, unfortunately,
been doing all day by accusing everybody of trying to politicize
the debate. How absurd.
When these athletes enter the stadium, we are walking with them,
step by step, the Government of Canada included.
I know we should not always be criticizing, but I would like to
take this opportunity to talk about the member for Lac-Saint-Jean,
who did resist the temptation to politicize the debate. In my
view, he has managed to pull away from the prattle offered to
him. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for others.
Let us get back to the subject. They can also take part
in exciting and unique competitions, like the Olympics or the
Paralympics, the Pan-Am Games or the Francophonie Games that will
be held here in the national capital region in 2001.
Every time we see our athletes compete we feel a sense of
pride. In Canada we have very talented athletes who work hard
to succeed. They have often proved it.
However, talent cannot bloom and flourish in a vacuum.
It has to be developed, fed, supervised and encouraged until it
reaches the highest level of perfection possible. This is how
champions are born, and champions reflect well on Canada. They
are a source of motivation for all Canadians. They need our
support.
Sport Canada makes available to athletes a number of tools to
fully develop their talent and skills, including direct
financial assistance through the athletes assistance program in
the form of benefits and living and training allowances;
support to 38 national sports organizations to set up a high
performance program; support to 11 multi-sport/multi-service
organizations such as the Coaching Association of Canada, the
Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, the Canadian Association
for the Advancement of Women and Sport and Physical Activities;
support to the hosting of high performance games, selected
international sports events, and world championships held in
Canada.
The Canada Games are a key element of the government's direct
assistance to athletes.
Since their inception in Quebec in 1967 these games have been
one of the cornerstones of the Canadian amateur sports system.
Recognizing the importance of this great sports event in Canada
we will continue to support it financially and politically.
The Government of Canada offers another kind of support to
Canadian athletes by providing them with further assistance in
investing in development, competition and training.
We have set up a national network of sports centres across
Canada. These allow our high-performance athletes to aim for and
reach excellence in an ethical and honest way, in a harassment
free environment.
We now find national sport centres from coast to coast, as I
said earlier, more specifically in Victoria, Vancouver, Calgary,
Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal and in the Atlantic region.
Canada is also making its mark on the international sport level.
I am pleased to point out that Canada will host the next world
conference on women and sport in 2002. This conference will be
an opportunity to discuss one of our most important priorities
for the advancement of sport in Canada.
Consistent with the commitment made by the Prime Minister in the
red book, the Government of Canada has increased funding for
high level sport by $50 million over the next five years. In
this regard, I think we should rectify the statements made by
the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm.
He said the government reduced by about $20 to $30 million, I
believe, its contribution to amateur sport, starting in 1993.
What we must not forget to say, if we want to inform people
properly, is that in that year the budget provided for an
expenditure of $26 million in connection with the Commonwealth
Games in Victoria. This is not a recurring expenditure.
1805
It is true there was a reduction in the annual operating budget
and in funding for sport, as there was in most government
agencies and departments. These members should present real
numbers to people instead of trying to invent, as they did
earlier today. The reduction in question was in the order of $7
million, and not around $30 million as they seemed to suggest
earlier.
All these measures taken by the Canadian government result from
discussions with the sport community in this country and from a
national roundtable with athletes, coaches and national sport
organizations.
The result of these measures is the following.
Canada now provides financial assistance for living expenses and
training to an additional 300 high level athletes so they can
train to compete at the international level. This
number includes 100 handicapped athletes and brings the total
number of subsidized athletes to more than 1,200.
We also
provide funding for 100 full time high level coaching positions
and have improved opportunities for coaches to attend
professional development programs. Moreover, those funds allow
high level athletes to have better access to quality training
and to compete in an increased number of
international sporting events.
I want to mention the fact that this investment in our athletes
and coaches also includes important measures in support of
women, native and handicapped athletes.
As sport is every Canadian's business, we also encourage the
private sector to do its part so that amateur sport can flourish
in Canada.
As a matter of fact, at the national conference on sport and the
business sector held last December, co-chaired by the Minister
of Finance and the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the
participants came to the same conclusion as the Sub-Committee on
the Study of Sport in Canada: it is essential to strengthen the
relationship between sport and the business sector.
I want to take this opportunity to thank the chairman of the
subcommittee, the member for Broadview—Greenwood, as well as all
other members of the subcommittee for their thorough study of
this issue, which helped to identify various measures that can be
taken to support Canadian athletes. The subcommittee encouraged
Canadians to focus more on the impact of sport on our economy,
our culture, our national identity, our health, and rightly so.
It also highlighted the need for the Canadian government to
support amateur sport.
In its report the subcommittee insisted on the benefits of
sport to our health and to young people at risk, as well as on
the crucial role that sport must play in the development of
native communities in Canada. I am proud to say once again that
the government will follow up on 53 of the 69 recommendations
contained in the subcommittee report, or 75%.
Some of these recommendations can already be implemented. For
example, the authors of the report expressed concern about the
fact that women, handicapped and native athletes are
marginalized. This is the kind of concern that influenced the
development of the sport funding and accountability framework in
1995. We are presently looking at ways to strengthen the
accountability system so as to promote increased participation
by Canadian athletes from underrepresented groups.
At the latest meeting of the national centres co-ordinating
committee there were discussions about minimum requirements
with regard to women, handicapped athletes, athletes who do not
have access to the centres, as well as official languages. These
requirements will be included in the accountability agreements
with the centres.
On the issue of official languages, since the question was
raised a few times, I would like to mention two very important
points. In 1997 Sport Canada established, as a prerequisite for
any contribution to national sport organizations, an
accountability contract to be phased in between 1998 and 2001
which states the official languages requirements for national
sport organizations. It requires, for example, an active offer
of services in the preferred language of the applicant,
including telephone services, the publication in both languages
of all official and technical documents, policies and
procedures, such as selection and appeal procedures, and the
provision of bilingual services at all national and
international events.
1810
On that same point, I would also like to mention the Canada
Games agreement which includes a complete section on official
languages, covering all obligations of the host society in the
area of official languages before, during and after the games.
It mentions all the policy obligations and more. The 1997 Canada
Games, held in Brandon, were recognized by the Commissioner of
Official Languages for the excellent services provided in both
official languages during the games. I thought is was important
to mention this.
We must recognize that there are difficulties and problems, but
there is also a will to correct them, to become better.
Thanks to Sport Canada, we will take a number of steps in
response to the recommendations in the report. For example, we
will continue to fund the Aboriginal Sport Circle as we have
done since 1995.
We will also continue to work with our provincial and
territorial counterparts to put in place a funding environment
for the North American Indigenous Games. We will try to
establish governmental partnerships in this regard.
Sport Canada will examine the issue and make recommendations on
the basis of the legislation governing the Canadian government's
commitment to sports.
We will again look at the Fitness and Amateur Sport Act to
determine its appropriateness for the next century.
I would like to add that the government's responsibility to
favour, promote and further sport in Canada is provided by the
legislation constituting the Department of Canadian Heritage.
Very soon we will start planning a millennium conference on
sport to be held during the first quarter of 2001.
Such an important symposium will necessitate the creation of
partnerships with provincial and territorial governments,
amateur sport organizations, athletes, coaches, the media and,
naturally, the Canadian government.
Hopefully participants will be able to determine the evolution
of sport in the next century, the influence it can have on
society and the changes it can bring about.
These are examples of measures the government intends to take to
promote amateur sport and implement the report of the
subcommittee on sport.
However, even before tabling the report we clearly indicated
that sport was at the top of our priority list.
This government has clearly shown, when it comes to supporting
athletes and trainers, that it does the best where it is
important to act. I remind my colleagues of the $10 million a
year increase made to the sport budget for the next five years.
As soon as we succeeded in eliminating the deficit that was one
of the first envelopes that was increased.
Members will be happy to learn also that at the same time we
promised to increase the Canada Council's budget, and that was
done.
Consequently, it is not true that we have ignored most of the
recommendations in the subcommittee report, as certain members
across the way are saying, because we have acted on 75% of them.
The government's decision to act on three-quarters of the
subcommittee's recommendations is consistent with the efforts it
has made until now to ensure that amateur sport plays an
important part in Canada.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have
many questions for the parliamentary secretary, who is praising
the minister's response and is proudly saying that the
government will support 53 of the 69 recommendations.
I would like him to remind us how much the recommendations
the minister agreed to implement will cost compared to the
recommendation on professional sport. I would like him to tell
us about it.
I would also like him to tell us what he knows about sport
federations and associations. There are obvious and dangerous
problems for athletes; discrimination and language problems, as
well as coaching problems. Sport Canada has no training or
incentive program to encourage coaches to speak French so that
our athletes could at least understand what their coaches were
saying.
1815
What does the government intend to do in that regard? As far as
the minister is concerned, in any case, it will be nothing at
all. I would like to hear what the parliamentary secretary has
to say about that. He says that all is fine and dandy in amateur
sports and that the government believes in it, so much so that
22 sport federations no longer receive subsidies from the
government. How can he explain that?
For my last question, it seems that the federal government is
considering giving the Montreal Expos a piece of land in
downtown Montreal for the sum of $1.
How can the parliamentary secretary justify this? Would he
consider giving a similar piece of land or the same kind of help
to amateur sport that would indeed be interested in such a large
piece of land for such a modest sum? Is this conceivable for the
parliamentary secretary?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to
one of the comments I made earlier following the speech of
another member. I was mentioning that most of his speech dealt
with professional sport, while the Bloc's resolution deals with
the importance of placing the interests of amateur sport before
the interests of professional sport.
I might point out to the member for Longueuil that this is
precisely what I have done in my presentation. I have placed the
interests of amateur sport well before those of professional
sport, because Sports Canada looks after amateur sport.
I wish to remind the member of what I said earlier about
funding. The whole envelope of Sports Canada is used for amateur
sport. I hope that the member will acknowledge that. Sports
Canada does not support professional sport and I do hope the
member recognizes that.
As for the coaching program, I found the suggestion made by the
member for Longueuil interesting. She suggests we include an
official language aspect in training programs or training
support programs for coaches. I will remember that suggestion.
It will be not only my duty but also my pleasure to pass it on
to the minister and other people involved in Sports Canada and,
if need be, improve the training program. We remain open to such
suggestions, as we have been in the past.
I will leave the professional sport issue to others, in this
case the Minister of Industry, since his department is
responsible for professional sport.
I must underline, as others have done today, that no decision
has really been taken on the issue of support for professional
sport.
I must admit that the debate will certainly be vigorous,
depending on what is recommended, because public opinion is
quite divided on the issue. Up to now everyone has an opinion,
even those voters who have called me. People may not all have
the same opinion, but everyone has one. So the debate promises
to be interesting and I would be remiss if I did not leave it to
those who should be dealing with it.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member for
Ottawa—Vanier talk about amateur sport. He spoke about amateur
sport throughout most of his dissertation.
The only conclusion one can draw from this is that here we have
another Liberal example of words rather than action. We hear
nothing but words from the government opposite when it comes to
supporting a number of very key sectors in the economy.
When it comes to the farmers of Saskatchewan who are undergoing
the worst agricultural period economically since the Depression,
the government talks about helping them, but it does not help
them financially. It is all words and no action.
We hear around the country about all the problems with health
care. When $6 billion is cut back every year for five years,
some $30 billion, and most of that from health care in terms of
its responsibility, that is an action I think Canadians can
relate to very well. It has taken a very bad action.
Today in the House we are talking about amateur sport and the
lack of support by the government, the lack of action in response
to the Mills report on amateur sport in Canada.
1820
The member for Ottawa—Vanier referred to the Kanata Senators.
All of a sudden they are the Kanata Senators when it is a tax
issue. The Ottawa region charges the Ottawa Senators $4.2
million in property taxes and Montreal charges the Montreal
Canadiens $11.2 million a year in property taxes. The $11.2
million is more than what all of the 21 U.S. based hockey teams
pay collectively in property taxes. Even with the exchange rate
it is more. We have a very serious municipal tax problem.
The member for Ottawa—Vanier has disowned the Ottawa Senators
and has called them the Kanata Senators. Can he elaborate on the
support the taxpayers of this country and the Liberal government
are giving professional sports franchises now? Would he tell us
how much it has cost us to give each of the 650 pro hockey
players in this country a $14,000 to $15,000 a year tax cut in
this year's budget? How much is that costing taxpayers?
How much is it costing taxpayers to subsidize the purchase of
seasons tickets for all these pro sports franchises? For example,
a sports box in the arena for the Ottawa Senators may cost
$100,000 to $120,000. We are providing for the business that
buys a box a tax subsidy of between $23,000 and $30,000 a year
depending on the price of the box. In addition to the seasons
tickets bought by businesses, how much are we subsidizing wealthy
franchise owners, wealthy hockey players and players of other
sports such as basketball players through the actions of the
Liberal government?
Does he support the rollback of these exorbitant property taxes
by the municipalities which benefit directly? Ottawa receives the
benefits of tourism, jobs and all the economic activity that
happens as a result of the Ottawa Senators being here. I like
the Ottawa Senators. It is one of my favourite teams and I think
it should do very well, but should all the taxpayers in this
country continue to subsidize the municipalities that benefit
from the property tax revenues?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I will try in the short
time left to respond to some of the hon. member's comments.
I would be curious to know if the member voted for or against
budgets where the deductibility of some of the expenses he
referred to, be they boxes or tickets and so forth, was reduced
by this government. I am saddened to hear him say that he voted
against that. If he were consistent then he would have supported
these measures in the budgets we have introduced. On that basis
alone, his question and his reaction to that are rather
inconsistent.
On the matter of the Kanata Senators, I did mention that it was
a quote from the mayor of Ottawa over which I am presumably
getting into deep doo-doo right now. In defence of the mayor of
Ottawa who said that, it was in jest in front of a crowd of about
1,000 people and was presented that way. Incidentally I thought
it was a rather good way of instituting a debate.
Indeed, some comments have been made as to how far we go down
that road and we are not going to go alone. The local
municipalities, the players, the teams and so forth would have to
be part of the package, if ever there were a package, but that is
neither nor there. I wanted to make sure my friend, the mayor of
the city of Ottawa would still be speaking with me.
On the matter of amateur sports, I have to remark on recent
years. I am not from western Canada but the member is. I hope he
appreciates the money the taxpayers of the country put into the
Commonwealth Games in Victoria and the Olympic Games in Calgary
and the money they are putting into the Pan Am Games in Manitoba
coming up this summer and the myriad other events, international
competitions and so forth. That is part and parcel of the
contribution of Sports Canada to amateur athletes.
Yes, we do concrete things. I have highlighted three of them in
the member's part of the country and we are happy that they were
all successful. We wish the best of luck to the Pan Am Games in
Manitoba.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate. As a trained
recreation specialist who worked at the municipal level for 15
years, I am happy to see that the mover of the motion is a woman,
namely the member for Longueuil. Too often in the past when open
line shows dealt with sports it was mostly men who were
interested in the topic.
1825
I am happy that it is a woman who
introduced the motion. The member for Drummond, with whom I sit
on the Standing Committee on Health, also took part in the
debate. I ask the following question: Why should we be involved
in sports and physical activities? In my view, first and foremost
for health reasons.
The provinces, the municipalities and also the federal
government have a role to play in amateur sports. Decisions to
compete in the Olympic Games or other international games are
made at the federal level.
It is too bad for Quebecers, because we would like to decide for
ourselves, but in the present situation the federal government
does it.
Is the present federal Liberal government really looking after
our athletes? When we look at numbers we have to say no it is
not. It made many cuts and I have countless examples.
Two weeks ago I attended the Canadian handball championship at
Laval University. There were women's teams and men's teams.
There were also community teams. Quebecers are particularly good
at this sport. I spent part of the weekend there. I was supposed
to be there only one day, but I went back the next day
because of the high level of competition. The performances
were outstanding.
I talked to the athletes and coaches. They told me how the
competition had been funded. Guess how much money the federal
government put into those Canadian championships. Not a penny.
The Quebec government, through various departments and health
and education programs, and with help from the Université Laval,
some Bloc members and a bit of publicity, finally managed to
hold this Canadian handball competition. It is an absolute
disgrace.
We could also talk about a third of the sports organizations, 22
out of 60, that cannot perform at the international level
because of a lack of funding.
One of the recommendations of the subcommittee on amateur sport
was that at least $100,000 a year be allocated to every
association.
What would that mean? It would mean an office, one regular
employee, a knowledgeable professional in that sport who would
be able to advise coaches and support volunteers. The proposal
was turned down. It would have cost $2.2 million.
The hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier, who told us that everything is
fine, should take a look at this problem. When we have a third
of all sports associations doomed to closing down because the
federal government has decided to drop its support and the hon.
member tells us that everything is fine, is this not
extraordinary?
I do not have much time left—
Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
If the hon. member wants to put words in my mouth, he could at
least quote me correctly. I have never said that everything is
fine and I challenge him to find the passage in Hansard where I
have said so.
The Deputy Speaker: This is obviously a point of debate. I know
we have different views about the things that are said in this
House, but this is not a point of order.
Mr. Antoine Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I understand why the member for
Ottawa—Vanier would be annoyed when such things are said to him.
With a third of the associations threatened, he has every reason
to react.
In closing, I will read the text of the motion brought forward
by the member for Longueuil. It reads as follows:
That, since the government ignored most of the recommendations
by the Sub-Committee on the Study of Sport in Canada, a
Sub-Committee of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, the
House demand that the government place amateur athletes at the
heart of its concerns and make a commitment to placing their
interests before the interests of professional sport.
1830
I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to make this motion
votable.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to
make this motion votable?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6.30 p.m., it is my duty to inform
the House that proceedings on the motion have expired.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
PUBLIC SERVICE PENSION PLAN
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberal government's grab of the pension surplus was not only
offensive but pathetic and embarrassing. The pension belongs to
Canadian forces troops, public sector workers, the RCMP and
others.
The Liberal government decided that cooking its own books was
important enough to loot its employees' pension funds. This fund
belongs to the members of the plan. Any surplus should be used
for the benefit of the members and others affiliated with the
plan such as retirees and widows.
Some 670,000 members of the pension plan are affected. The
allocation of any surplus should address the contributions of
those over half million Canadians.
Under the employees' pension benefits act a principle was
established that surpluses do not belong to anyone and that
allocation of surpluses need to be approved by a two-thirds
majority of the plan members.
One legitimate reason exists. What reason exists to
differentiate between a noble action and the simple cash grab we
have seen by the Liberal government? What reason would the
government have for not using the surplus to improve the benefits
accruing to the members of the plan who created that surplus?
It seems to me as if the Liberal government has made a political
decision to set a precedent for pension plan comptrollers to take
the money and run. The government tried to use cheap political
game playing to make it look as if the outcry against this near
larceny was from a small fringe of one union. That cheap
political trick was nonsense.
An advertisement placed in the Ottawa Citizen against this
cash grab was signed by many, including Canadian Military College
Faculty Association, Council of Graphic Artists, Canadian
Merchant Service Guild, and the list goes on and on.
However the government wants to grab the money, put it in its
coffers and say that it has wrestled down the debt, but it will
have done so on the backs of those who need the plan, those who
have contributed and worked hard. It will be done in the same
way the EI fund was grabbed and taken away from those who are
unemployed.
We realize over 670,000 members of the plan are affected. The
allocation of the surplus needs to address the contribution of
these members who have contributed to the plan.
We often hear the government say that the taxpayer owns this
money and that it is the taxpayer it must protect. The people
who contributed to the plan are also taxpayers. We must look at
their benefits and their rights. This is a democratic principle.
People should have the right to say what they feel should be done
with the surpluses in their pension plans.
Who are we affecting with the legislation? We are affecting the
Canadian military, the people who are fighting over in Kosovo.
While they are away fighting the government is back here grabbing
the surplus from their pension funds.
We are also affecting the RCMP, the people we entrust to keep
law and order, to put their lives on the line fighting crime, and
to do all kinds of things to protect society. While they are
protecting society, who is protecting their pension fund? It is
certainly not the government.
A grave injustice has been done. I am pleased to provide the
government with this opportunity to apologize, to set the record
straight and to ensure that every cent of funds dedicated to this
plan is left in the pension fund or put to direct use to improve
the benefits of the plan in a way that is acceptable to the
plan's contributors.
Mr. Tony Ianno (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the
Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member for Halifax West completely
misses the point when he compares our commitment, as he did
earlier in his question to the minister, to NATO and our
willingness to provide government employees with pension plans
that are more in line with the realities of today.
I totally disagree with him when he says the government was
bombarding the pension plan of our armed forces. That is quite a
little play on words. We know the NDP is very strong in terms of
its rhetoric. On the contrary, Bill C-78 sweeps the cobwebs out
of plans that were designed more than 30 years ago and needed to
be updated and improved.
I also have enormous difficulty understanding why the member
persists in saying that the pension plan surpluses belong to
members of the Canadian forces, the public service and the RCMP.
The President of the Treasury Board has stated in the House on
several occasions that government employees did not have to
assume any financial risks associated with funding these plans.
1835
Canadian taxpayers have taken all the risks. Canadians have
funded all the deficits. Clearly and simply they deserve to
enjoy the surplus that now exists.
If the member takes the trouble to read the bill carefully, he
will see the proposals being introduced and passed in Bill C-78
and Bill C-71 will provide government employees with more
benefits than they had before.
The hon. member for Halifax West should also keep himself better
informed about everything the government is doing to improve the
lot of Canadians, especially members of the RCMP, the Canadian
forces and the public service.
I stress that the bill enhances and protects the benefits the
public service, the RCMP and Canadian forces employees and
pensioners receive and that the benefits as defined in their
plans will continue to be theirs and guaranteed by the
government.
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I want to pursue an issue I raised in the House
regarding the reuse of disposable medical devices. This matter
came to light in February of this year as the result of some
excellent investigative work by a reporter with the Winnipeg
Free Press.
It was revealed that disposable medical devices were being
reused in hospitals in Winnipeg and elsewhere across Canada. Let
us be clear. We are talking about medical devices licensed for
single use only. We are talking about repeated use of catheters
and other devices contrary to manufacturer warnings and despite
the real possibility of disease transmission.
It should also be noted that since the time I raised this matter
in the House a report has been released by Winnipeg
microbiologist Dr. Michelle Alfa confirming there is a danger
that surgical devices reused against the advice of manufacturers
might transmit infections between patients or break down inside
the body.
What has the federal government's response been? The Minister
of Health said he would consider calling a meeting of provincial
health ministers in order to develop, possibly, a national policy
on this issue. Does that not just blow us away? We are at a
loss for words in terms of that response.
Here we have a problem of national proportions, a practice that
is certainly risky and potentially lethal, and a matter that
falls directly under the jurisdiction of the health protection
branch. Where is the federal government? In essence nowhere.
Even the spokesperson of the manufacturers of medical devices
said surely Health Canada has some role as a protector of the
public health of Canada.
It is a clear-cut case of federal government negligence and
dereliction of duty, reinforced by the fact that the government
has sat on a report for five years which warned of widespread
concerns about the risk of reusing disposable medical devices.
For five years the government has known that reused disposable
devices like catheters and tubes going into the stomach and
intestines can cause the transmission of disease and even
breakdown in the patient's body. To make matters even worse, for
three years the government has had the benefit of a comprehensive
set of guidelines done by the Canadian Health Care Association
and provided to all health care facilities regarding the reuse of
single use medical devices, and still nothing.
Other countries have taken action. France and Sweden forbid the
use of disposable medical devices. In the rest of Europe
equipment must be certified. Any kind of reused equipment must
be clearly certified indicating it continues to meet standards.
Why not in Canada? Why has the government forsaken health
protection? Why does it not act on a study that is five years
old? Why does it not put in use the recommendations of the
Canadian Health Care Association?
Doctors want national policies. Manufacturers want action.
Patients clearly want to see the government uphold its
responsibilities under the Health Protection Act. Why does the
government not act and act now?
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to respond further to the hon. member for Winnipeg
North Centre concerning the reuse of single use medical devices
by hospitals.
The practice of resterilizing and reusing devices labelled by
the manufacturer of single use devices has been common in Canada
for some time.
Since 1994 there have been a number of major conferences on the
issue. At none of these conferences were serious fears expressed
about the hazards of the practice.
1840
[Translation]
Since 1991 the Quebec minister of health has published three
guidelines in this regard: first, to endorse the practice, then
to annul the first notice and, finally, to again amend it in
order to permit reuse under certain conditions. All of this
points to confusion regarding the dangers of this practice.
In 1994 and 1996 Health Canada provided funding and support for
research to the Canadian Health Care Association for the
development of two policy documents on reuse, which were largely
accepted by Canadian hospitals and published in the United
States by the Association for the Advancement of Medical
Instrumentation.
Delivery of health care and the types and the use made of drugs
and medical devices in hospitals are provincial and territorial
matters.
[English]
Health Canada has demonstrated leadership in developing national
guidelines on reuse. The department is willing to work with the
provinces, the territories and the advisory committee on health
services to continue that work.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is now
deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.41 p.m.)