SINS Committee Meeting

SUB-COMMITTEE ON THE STUDY OF SPORT IN CANADA OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

SOUS-COMITÉ SUR L'ÉTUDE DU SPORT AU CANADA DU COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, October 7, 1998

• 1611

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, before we begin with our first witness today—and we said we would start at 4.15 p.m.—I thought we would just have a brief summary of some business of the committee.

First of all, we were properly reconstituted yesterday by our parent, the heritage committee of the House of Commons. We're getting tremendous support from the chairman and the committee for the work we've done. I said our expectation was that we would have witnesses until the end of October and then we would work to go over our recommendations and come to some consensus, and that our report would be ready by the end of November. I hope there's some concurrence on that.

Actually, before I get into specifics, I'd like to introduce a new member to our committee, from the Reform Party of Canada, Mr. Inky Mark.

Welcome to the committee, Inky. We appreciate your being here.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Chair, thank you very much.

The Chairman: In the last session we appreciated the support we had from your colleagues, especially your finance critic, Mr. Solberg, and also your leader. Mr. Manning was very helpful when we had the challenge of meeting with some of our Canadian professional owners and they were trying to explain some of the challenges they had to meet. So you're following in great footsteps.

I also would like you to meet one of the most respected clerks of the committee system in the Parliament of Canada, Mr. Bernard Fournier. He's been around here for years now. I think the leader of the House of Commons felt this committee needed somebody with lots of experience and lots of discipline as we came down the home stretch, so they sent Mr. Fournier in here to make sure we stay on a steady track.

Welcome, and thank you for being here, Bernard.

I want to confirm a couple of things. First of all, did all members receive a copy of this confidential draft of the first part of our committee's work? We had them hand-delivered yesterday to your offices. I acknowledge that everybody received that in both official languages.

You also should have received a schedule of meetings between now and the end of the report. Did everybody receive that? If not, Mr. Fournier here will make sure you have it.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Between now and the end?

• 1615

The Chairman: Between now and the end of November, that sheet.

Bernard, I believe Madame Tremblay does not have that.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Cannis, did you receive the draft-only copy of our committee?

Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): No, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: It was delivered to your office yesterday by hand.

Mr. John Cannis: It's probably there now.

The Chairman: Okay, so we'll make sure Mr. Cannis has a copy. He's here representing the minister responsible for sport.

Mr. Coderre.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): I understand that perhaps because of a lack of communication when we changed clerks, Sports Quebec's appearance before our Committee was omitted. Has that omission been corrected and has the appearance of this group been confirmed?

[English]

The Clerk of the Committee: It's on for October 29.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: Perfect. Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Sports Québec is confirmed for October 29.

Just before we get to our first witness of the day—we have another minute—I feel that I owe the committee an apology. Madame Tremblay raised this issue in the heritage committee yesterday, and it has to do with the story that appeared in a few of our national newspapers over the last week.

When we returned to Parliament, I was approached by one of our journalists, who was very interested in the linkage of sport and the economy. He asked me to describe to him, generally speaking, what was happening with the committee and where we were going over the next two months. I told that particular journalist just what I explained here earlier; I said, “Here's the work planned for the next two months, and on we go.”

He then asked me if we'd had any thoughts, letters, or exchanges amongst ourselves or with others on the notion of how the committee might look at the whole realm of maintaining professional sports franchises in this country, especially the ones that are in trouble. I told that journalist that our researchers and some of the members had thrown around this idea—and I said it's purely a discussion, just the way I'm describing it here today—of a North American sports pact. I was trying to make the comparison to the Auto Pact or a motion picture pact, aerospace, or whatever. I threw some draft ideas at him, just to try to get his mind thinking in conceptual terms as to where we were going and some of the challenges we had to face with the tight fiscal framework.

I wasn't telling him this off the record. I never go off the record, because I can never remember when I'm on and when I'm off, so I've always taken the approach to always stay on the record. Well, lo and behold, this journalist, Jeffrey Simpson of the Globe and Mail, moved forward. I said I had no problem with him discussing the challenges, and that piece sparked a reaction that's been like a firestorm.

I personally believe that because every journalist said, “This is only a discussion; it's only a draft; it's nothing more than that”, it's caused some good, solid debate about the issue. People are asking what we're going to do about amateur sport, and we just tell them to stand by.

But I wanted to say to you, Madame Tremblay and all other members, this was a spontaneous thing and it wasn't a deliberate leak. In other words, if you look at this report, you will not find anywhere in the public domain any of our recommendations that we discussed in the previous five months. So I thought it was important to explain that to members.

Ladies and gentlemen, we now go to our first witness today, from the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport.

We welcome you here today, Mr. Lachance, and we invite you to begin your testimony. Thank you for coming.

Mr. Victor Lachance (Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

Members of the Committee, I want to thank you for giving us an opportunity to appear today. Because of the short notice, we were unable to provide you with the French version of our brief before today, and we apologize for that. I do hope, however, that you had a chance to look through the material we sent you initially. If you require any clarifications, we would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

• 1620

[English]

It's obvious that it's beyond the scope of this submission to describe all the complex ethical issues facing sport today. By saying that, I don't want to diminish in any way the magnitude and importance of ethics in sport, but I certainly feel that our role here today is to assist the committee in looking at how we should address the need for ethics in sport on a much broader scale—that is, a sport-wide scale—and to look at the federal government's role in that regard.

If we can be of any assistance to what I believe is the shared ultimate goal of having a healthy, productive, and thriving sport industry in Canada, from both an economic and a social perspective, that reflects, protects, and even promotes the values and ethics that Canadians want to see in sport, then we will feel our submission has been of value to you.

Canadians expect the institution of sport, as broad and diffuse as it may be, to adhere to high moral and ethical standards. Everything from the physical and moral development of youth to the presentation of our national character on the world stage is part of what makes sport a very powerful social, cultural, and economic force.

In fact I would suggest it's a public trust. It's a public trust upon which the federal government and sport organizations, amateur and professional, must exercise diligence and stewardship to ensure a positive, productive, and healthy sport environment for all Canadians—in particular the committee's consideration of the economic impact of sport.

If you don't have something people can trust in and want to put their kids in, then the whole thing crumbles. If you're going to invest in a corporation, you want to ensure that corporation is healthy and sound and trustworthy. Sport is no different.

The reality is that as hard as it is to acknowledge, economists will tell you that if a few sports disappear, if a few sport franchises go, whether they're amateur or professional, it simply isn't going to have much of an impact on the Canadian economy. But if the whole sport sector were to crumble, it would have a very significant impact, not just on the sport industry itself, but on broadcasting, manufacturing, tourism, sport facilities, and all the spinoffs that come from sport.

If we look specifically at the issue of professional sport—a topic that is now being discussed in the public domain—that still holds true. Purely on an economic basis, the justification for government support might be tenuous. Professional sport is concentrated in major markets in Canada, primarily Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal, as compared to amateur sport, which of course is across Canada, in almost every community.

But regardless of whether it's professional or amateur, the point is that if we approach it as sport, and if we see sport as not being fair, as not being safe, as not being drug-free, then the fact is it's something else. It isn't those things. You can't be half-fair, you can't be half-ethical, and you can't be half-safe. You either are or you aren't. If you aren't, then it erodes the public trust and the confidence that the public wants to have in sport, and therefore it erodes their support of it.

I'd be happy to move directly to our recommendations, because they capture how we see the linkage of ethics in sport, the economy of sport, and the value of sport to society.

The first of our recommendations focuses simply on what may seem an obvious matter, which is that federal government policy should regularly and explicitly speak of sport as being in the public interest and as needing to be pursued by fair and ethical means. While that may be obvious, it's important that senior officials of a government that represents the interests of Canadians regularly have that before the public and before members of the sport community, professional and amateur, so that we understand the context in which we approach sport.

• 1625

With respect to the funding of sport, we recommend that those responsible for administering federal funds should ensure that all organizations in receipt of those funds be subject to certain conditions.

An appropriate matter before you, as you've mentioned, Mr. Chairman, is the funding of professional sport. That holds true. The committee is going to want or perhaps be tempted to consider providing different or indirect assistance to professional sport. A number of government assistance plans are in place, and it may make sense to look at what the government can do for commercial sport. But if you consider doing so, conditions should be attached to that money. They may be economic in nature, but while you may want to think about other conditions, we would suggest that you attach conditions on ethics.

What do I mean by ethics? I mean some straightforward things that we've all come to expect from sport, at least amateur sport, such as drug testing. You want drug-free sport. You want sport that's free of harassment. You want sport that is safe.

These are not new or complex ideas. These are doable, and they've been done. They've been done for the good of sport, and if this committee feels that an economic contribution to the good of sport is justified, then we need to ensure that what we invest in is in fact giving us something back in terms of the good of sport.

We should also mention—and I don't think it's anything new—that professional sport has a trickle-down effect, not just on amateur sport, but on the values that Canadians share between each other.

Professional sport takes place in a very public domain. In fact they seek a public audience through the sale of tickets, the engagement of families and kids, and the broadcasting of professional sport. So there's fundamentally no difference, but professional sport, because of its pervasive presence in the mass media, does affect young people. We have research in that regard, and I'd be happy to address questions about the impact of our professional or amateur heroes on young people.

The other recommendation is that the federal government should continue to support and fund an independent agency responsible for promoting, monitoring, and evaluating ethics in sport. More particularly, the government should provide stable and sufficient funding for Canada's drug-free sport program, which is not today that apparent, or not as apparent as it may have been in the past.

We advocate the development of a national strategy, something that flows quite well from Sport Canada's business plan. Sport Canada is ideally suited to play a leadership role in this area. They are able to rely on the experience and successes of some of Canada's success stories in the area of dealing with drug-free sport or the promotion of ethics in sport through the Spirit of Sport program.

Also, the national strategy should consider looking at establishing an ethics legacy. The concept of a legacy in sport is not new. We build legacies for facilities and development systems. We build legacies in order to ensure the continued availability of athletes on the national stage. It's not new in the health sector. An ethics in sport legacy could ensure the necessary independence, stability, and sustainability of Canada's ethics in sport program.

That can be approached in innovative ways. The mechanics may not be as important today, but we could perhaps look at simple concepts such as being able to issue tax-preferred bonds or tax-exempt bonds that would be geared towards generating revenues that could fund these kinds of legacies. We might find that other sectors in society, financial sectors or others, would be pleased to partner with the government in establishing legacies in ways that can help our athletes but also help the underpinning of our sport system with respect to ethics in sport.

More particular to amateur sport is the need for the federal government to give some consideration to the extent to which amateur sport is covered in the media. Anything we could do in that regard would have an economic impact to the benefit of amateur sport and the spinoffs that would come from that.

It's difficult to compete, and there are many reasons for that, such as the competition between amateur and professional sport. But a policy allowing amateur sport to qualify as Canadian content—and if it already does in some way, then perhaps establishing minimum requirements of coverage in the broadcast media—would go a long way to establishing an audience and a market upon which to have amateur sport flourish.

There are other economic interventions the government could pursue, such as tax write-offs for corporate sponsorships or tax credits for participation in sport. Here I'm talking about parents who have to spend money just for their kids to join teams, to buy equipment, and so on. If there were tax credits for that sort of thing, that would dovetail well with the other incentives that would be in place to ensure that amateur sport is exposed and to create greater markets, which would attract a greater amount of corporate support for amateur sport.

• 1630

And as I mentioned, bonds with either preferred rates or tax-exempt status in a way that would directly link to the public's interest in participating in sport is an idea worth looking into. Bonds would be purchased on the basis of people's interest. It's a way for the government to know whether or not there is a public interest in a particular sport or in sport in general. If nobody cares, then you have the instrument by way to measure it, but you have the same instrument by way to respond if the interest is there. That's an innovative way of approaching that particular challenge.

Another recommendation is that we look more carefully and perhaps do some research into the ways government could enhance in-kind contributions in support of amateur sport. A lot of value in kind is offered from the corporate sector to sport. Sometimes it simply can't be used. Either it's a matter of timing or it can't be used because of the nature of the event, and the property that's offered doesn't necessarily match.

However, we know that value in kind exchange and bartering systems do exist in Canada. They represent something in the order of $70 million worth of business. The sport sector could benefit from that in ways that would allow a more timely exchange of in-kind contributions to amateur sport and perhaps a trading of them, and even perhaps ways of turning them into cash, still in accordance with tax requirements and so on.

On the other hand, you don't want a system such as that to work relatively unfettered, and if improvements could be made or tax reform could be brought forward to enhance that, we would strongly recommend that.

As we've mentioned, any federal government funding to professional sport should be tied to specific ethical criteria, but something else you should consider is that professional sport should give something back, especially if it's going to be in receipt of government funding.

We have in Canada the example of volleyball, and this was something generated by amateur sport. In volleyball in Canada, when an athlete makes the professional ranks, it triggers a development levy that is paid back to that sport in order for that money to feed the development system for up-and-coming athletes.

That is worthy of consideration for the entire professional sports sector, and not just for the sports that provide athletes to that specific sport, because athlete development doesn't occur in a vacuum. The facilities that are built, the services that are provided, and the business of coaching that is made available are not exclusive to any one sport. Those industries have to develop as well. In communities, the facilities that are developed don't cater to one single sport. There could be a way of having development levies fed back to individual sports, but also to feed the development system as a whole, and dare I say, programs such as ethics in sport.

I've tried to limit my comments in order to capture the global concepts of our recommendations, but these issues go right to the core of what sport is about. You'll note in our submission information to consider in that regard, perhaps best captured by Dubin at a time when there needed to be a very deep soul-searching about sport. Dubin really did a masterful job of capturing the fundamental spirit of sport and the fundamental role sport plays in society.

In that regard, therefore, it's complex enough that we would recommend that either this subcommittee be permanent in nature or a secretary of state be appointed in recognition of the impact sport has in Canada. This committee or perhaps some other instrument of government could do a review of ethics in sport.

It's been 10 years since the Dubin inquiry, or at least the incidents that led to it. To look at drug-free sport in terms of how insidious unethical behaviours can be in sport, if you look at what has happened in this area worldwide in 1998, there's good and bad news, but it speaks to the need to pause on a regular basis and review these issues.

• 1635

I would strongly recommend that the government consider that, because if you view sport as a table, if we progressively loosen, attack, or undermine the legs of the table, it doesn't matter what you put on it; it will not hold up. It will not hold up to the public and it will not hold up to what you're trying to achieve. Some of the fundamental principles that make up those legs are issues of ethics in sport, drug-free sport, fairness, respect, freedom from harassment, and safety. This is what sport is about; this is what Canadians expect.

We hope that our submission to you today and any questions I can answer on specific ethical issues or on the economic impact of those issues will be helpful to you in your deliberations.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lachance. We will go to questions right away. We will begin with the opposition and then we'll go to the government.

Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Lachance, for coming today to give us this presentation.

I certainly agree with you that there is a huge value in sports. I see it as a very important part of human development as we start out in life and grow through it, as we age from childhood to adulthood. What I want to ask you is, where are we in the global picture in terms of ethics? Are we leaders of ethics in this field of sports?

Mr. Victor Lachance: In some ways we are. The benefit we've had, Mr. Mark, is that in having to deal with one major ethical issue, that being drugs in sport, we've learned a lot. We've learned about solutions; we've learned what works. So in terms of key factors, such as having an independent system that is able to on one hand provide services to the sport community but on the other hand act in the public interest, we are leaders.

For example, we as an organization, the Centre for Ethics, were formed from a merger between the former Centre for Drug-Free Sport and an organization called Fair Play Canada. We became the Centre for Ethics at a time when you would not find a comparable organization in other countries. Since then, I'm pleased to say that countries such as Norway and the U.K. have started to move in that direction and in fact have adopted language such as “centres for ethics” and other things.

So in some way we are leaders, and that speaks to what makes sport in Canada somewhat unique. We are somewhat special in the way we approach sport. In that regard we may also be leaders.

Mr. Inky Mark: If I may ask a subsequent question, whose responsibility is it—I would assume it's probably collective—to monitor and make sure that fair play and ethics are carried out in the sports field?

Mr. Victor Lachance: There are two elements to that. First there's us, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, but the reality is that one little shop in Ottawa is not going to create an ethical sport system. What we do is provide the expertise, the means, and the knowledge to assist others to do that.

No one will dispute, for example, that coaches play a tremendously important role in that regard. We also know, based on research, however, that coaches can sometimes be part of the problem in terms of the values they might share with their athletes. So there are key intermediaries to breathe life and meaning into these programs.

At the end of the day, what succeeds is what we recommend as a “social change” approach, which you will see briefly described in the submission. It is the involvement of all parties in a common national strategy designed to influence behaviours and beliefs of young people and multiple targets, so that you institutionalize the change.

So on one hand you have a centre to be able to coordinate and make that happen, and on the other hand it's the extent to which we can have everyone adopt some responsibility in this area that will make it successful.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Mark.

Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Thank you for your presentation and the very well prepared brief you have tabled with the Committee. We will certainly have to go through it again to be sure we've read between the lines..

I would really appreciate knowing more about the role your organization plays all across Canada with respect to doping control. Could you clarify that for me?

Mr. Victor Lachance: In the wake of the Dubin Inquiry recommendations and the agreement reached by 28 separate parties, in which Canada played a leadership role by developing a global policy on drug free sport, our independent organization was entrusted with the responsibility of handling everything to do with doping control in Canada.

• 1640

In accordance with the Dubin Report recommendations, we set up an organization that acts independently of the sports industry, government, the public and athletes. It plays an important role as an organization serving the sport community, a role it fulfills by acting independently and in the public interest. Our activities include drug testing, education, prevention, research, and international relations, where the federal government plays the lead role. We play the lead role here in Canada.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: You say that you act completely independently of everyone. How are you funded?

Mr. Victor Lachance: Our funding comes from a variety of sources. Funding for the Ethics in Sport Program comes from government sources, the sale of our services, donations and private sector fundraising. We set up the Spirit of Sport Foundation to fund our education program. Government subsidies are primarily used for drug testing and doping control, and represent between 75 and 80% of the monies devoted to those activities. We realized it was very difficult to convince the private sector to provide financial support for doping control. No one is interested in a small amount of urine in a bottle. This is not a business activity that generates much enthusiasm or for which there is a large market. Also, at that level, we need a certain degree of independence, which clearly justifies the federal government's commitment in this area.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I read in a newspaper article towards the end of the summer that you had concluded a service contract of sorts with the INRS in Montreal...

Mr. Victor Lachance: That's correct.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: ...and that because of funding problems, Canada was on the verge of losing its IOC accreditation for doping control. People are saying that if a solution is not found for this urgent problem, Canada will be forced to have the testing done in the United States or another country. It will no longer be possible to do it here in Canada, and that will be the only place testing is done. Could you provide any clarification here?

Mr. Victor Lachance: The information you report is accurate, Ms. Tremblay. We are currently facing a very difficult situation in terms of funding the program, and especially funding the laboratory and providing the needed equipment for doping control.

However, I would like to say to Committee members that the doping control program is still alive and well, that it provides high quality service, that the principles that have guided the program from the outset still prevail, and that it continues to deserve the confidence both athletes and the public have placed in it. However, I cannot deny that it is currently jeopardized because of inadequate funding.

The closure of the Montreal laboratory would definitely hurt the Canadian doping control program. It would be an international embarrassment. And don't think we'd be saving money; I can assure you that the lab tests would cost us a lot more in the United States. In any case, it would cause legal problems, not to mention the economic impact on Canada. If we want to hold international level games here in Canada, it's important to have a lab in Montreal.

First of all, I want to point out that when we were facing financial problems, the government was the first—indeed, the only one—to get involved and try to resolve these problems. I particularly want to thank Mr. Norman Moyer from Canadian Heritage, as well as Sport Canada, for their efforts to that end.

If you don't mind, Ms. Tremblay, I would like to switch to English to express the image that comes to mind here.

[English]

I'd like to share with you an analogy on the subject of having to rush to solve particular problems with respect to things such as drug-free sport. What I find ironic is that we are now mastering solving problems that should never be there in the first place.

• 1645

The analogy I would use is that my child is playing on the railroad, and I dive and save my child from being hit by a train. People will rally around me and pat me on the back for a job well done and maybe even nominate me for being a hero, but not shortly thereafter I wouldn't be surprised if the Children's Aid Society tapped me on the shoulder and asked me, “What was your child doing playing on the railroad?”

We should have never been in the situation of having to make the kinds of dives and rescues that we had to make on a program that is a Canadian success story worldwide. It would cause tremendous embarrassment to fail to be able to respond to it.

While I have to tell you how pleased I am with the extent to which Sport Canada and people within Canadian Heritage care about this issue and respond to it, it's embarrassing and a shame that they have to respond in that way and do that kind of work in order just to be able to fill holes that should never have been there in the first place. I thank them for it, but I simply wish they didn't have to do it.

[Translation]

As far as the doping control program is concerned, a recently held meeting of federal government and Canadian Olympic Association representatives now gives us reason to be a little more hopeful. Everyone realizes how serious the problem is. Since the solutions are there, I am hopeful that we will be able to have more discussions, at least in the short term, and try to find solutions. I hope that will always be the case. The important thing is to ensure that we will always have an effective program that meets athletes' needs.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I have other questions, but I'll yield to the members opposite.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Madame Tremblay and Monsieur Lachance.

We are blessed and this committee is blessed that we have a minister responsible for sport in this country who cares passionately about this part of her portfolio. Of course I'm talking about Sheila Copps, and she is most supportive of our work. You have brought something to our attention here today that we will make sure is brought to her attention as well.

We are fortunate as well that we have Mr. Cannis here, who's her eyes and ears on this committee and is here for trouble-shooting on issues such as this. So your point today was duly noted.

Mr. Coderre.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Chairman, I like the question my friend opposite asked so much that I want to pursue her line of questioning.

It's all very well to thank officials and tell them how nice and great they are, but in the final analysis, we still don't have the money. How much money is needed to resolve the problem?

Mr. Victor Lachance: In order to have a doping control program similar to those of other organizations we regularly deal with in Australia, Great Britain, Norway, New Zealand, France and the Netherlands, we need $2.5 million a year. What is expensive, of course, is the testing. But it costs what it costs. I could compare it to an insurance policy. If you only have 85% of the premium, you're close, but basically you're not insured.

I am not suggesting that the doping control program is an insurance policy. I do want to emphasize, though, that it costs what it costs. The labs, the testing and the equipment are all standardized to a level that we have advocated internationally. We are unfortunately facing a situation where we are unable to comply with the standards that we ourselves recommended and that will soon be adopted by international sports governing bodies.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Then if I understand you correctly, Mr. Lachance, you need $2.5 million a year to operate this program.

Mr. Victor Lachance: Yes, for the doping control program.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Also, if you wish to remain independent, you can't ask the private sector for too much money, because it's important that you remain at arm's length. Since you want to ensure that sport is fair and ethical—you have been talking about ethics—I can't see allowing a pharmaceutical company to fund you.

Mr. Victor Lachance: Your point is well taken. We know through experience that the private sector is far more interested in our education programs—which is natural. We use them to promote very positive things: the values that embody sport and excellence in sport. These are concepts that sell, and even though we are having some success in this area. So, for the past few years, even though we have not been receiving government funding to develop our education programs, they are still very successful, thanks to our Spirit of Sport Foundation.

As for our doping control program, through the sale of our services to international federations, we are able to collect some $200,000 a year. On occasion we do provide assistance to other countries. Whenever we can help them develop doping control programs, it is profitable, but there are limits.

• 1650

Mr. Denis Coderre: At the present time, you are asking for $2.5 million. How much do you currently receive?

Mr. Victor Lachance: From the federal government?

Mr. Denis Coderre: Yes.

Mr. Victor Lachance: Well, that's a question that's very difficult to answer. We receive $1.9 million from the federal government, but that is to address the ethics issue. So, it's difficult for me to tell you the exact amount we receive from the federal government for the doping control program. What I can tell you is that given the current situation, we are devoting the $1.9 million to the doping control program.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Why don't you solicit funds from Health Canada? Why are you only relying on Canadian Heritage? You have labs and you are performing research and development. Why don't you also ask Health Canada or Industry Canada for help?

Mr. Victor Lachance: I agree with you completely. We have in fact done so from time to time. For example, Health Canada provided us with the funding for our education programs, particularly with respect to AIDS and the risks associated with needle use.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Talk to them only about doping control.

Mr. Victor Lachance: There was sort of a connection between education and doping control.

Mr. Denis Coderre: You're trying to find money to fund your labs. Let's be clear.

Mr. Victor Lachance: So far we haven't succeeded, but maybe we haven't made enough of an effort. Naturally, any assistance we could be given in that area would be very helpful.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Let's talk about perceptions. This is sort of what you were referring to earlier. You said that if the decision is made to provide funding to professional sport, more must be given to amateur sport. As far as I'm concerned, we can chew gum and walk at the same time. The professional and amateur sport communities could work in partnership, the condition being that professional sport would have to invest more in amateur sport.

We all know the problems associated with the current situation. It all began with Ben Johnson. There have also been problems in weight lifting, and recently, at the Tour de France. People immediately assume that the guy is taking something, because he's just too big. What is the current situation in Canada in both amateur and professional sport? For discussion purposes, let's talk about amateur sport. Are you satisfied with the results over the last 10 years, since the Ben Johnson incident? Do you really have a feeling that athletes are drug-free? To begin with, the federal government is not providing adequate funding to athletes in my view. The day an athlete wins a medal, he finds sponsors, but before that, he's living at the poverty line. So we are putting a lot of pressure on the athlete to move from the medal stage to professional sport. In order to get there, he may take the easy way out—in other words, drugs and then pills that conceal doping. I'd like you to briefly address that point. What is the current reality? Are we doing enough? Are athletes pretty well left to their own devices? Can we really assert that Canada is drug-free?

Mr. Victor Lachance: Yes, it really is drug-free.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Okay.

Mr. Victor Lachance: The program is working. It's important to recognize that the purpose of the program is to discover the cases where there is drug use. When we discover an offence, that shows that the program is working, but it also means that the athletes representing us throughout the world are up against a program that is among the best in the world. I would even be prepared to say it is the best in the world. For example, in terms of the number of tests performed outside of competition, we are number one in the world. The program works. That is what gives rise to both the challenge and the frustration. The problem is not that we don't know what the solutions are. We do.

Mr. Denis Coderre: The problem is funding.

Mr. Victor Lachance: Well, the problem is actually two-fold. First of all, we don't have the will or the courage to implement the solutions. Second, there's the funding issue.

Mr. Denis Coderre: So, there's also the problem of a lack of will.

Mr. Victor Lachance: Not in Canada. Well, there is if you make a connection between will and funding.

Mr. Denis Coderre: That's what you're telling me.

Mr. Victor Lachance: Pardon?

Mr. Denis Coderre: There is a leadership problem.

Mr. Victor Lachance: Well, shall we say a little more leadership...

[English]

Mr. Denis Coderre: Put your money where your mouth is.

[Translation]

Mr. Victor Lachance: Yes.

Mr. Denis Coderre: I understand.

• 1655

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Coderre. We will now move on to Mr. Provenzano.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): I was going to ask more questions about the level of investment in the centre—direct funding by the federal government—but I want to use my time on some other questions that relate to the concept of fairness and ethics.

I think everyone accepts what Dubin said in his report, that government investment in sport, justified as a matter of public interest, is only of value to society if sport is fair and ethical and reflects the values and ethics of our nation. That's carried through by the minister's task force.

We have situations where fairness and ethics are frustrated—certainly, when it applies to amateur athletes, in the field of figure skating. Just to focus on pairs competition and dance, I believe many people would agree that's where the concept of fair play, which extends to judging those competitions and the ethics of the judgment, is questionable. We hear great outrage during Olympics competitions.

Certainly the centre is interested in redressing those kinds of situations, but you don't hear anything coming from your agency. I'd love to be corrected. It seems to be a cause that is, between Olympics, non-existent.

My question is, why are we not continuing to make some great effort to prevent our athletes from having to undergo what figure skaters are subjected to in Olympic competition? And if we can't, if we apply the Dubin task force criteria for public investment, how do we justify funding to that level of competition, in that particular sport and anywhere else where there isn't fair play and ethics?

Mr. Victor Lachance: It's a tough question. I'd like to correct you, but I can't. You're right. Not much is done when it happens. It plays out in the media and people respond. I'm often encouraged by the way in which they respond, but that doesn't solve the problem.

The short answer is competing interests. There are just too many priorities pitted one against the other. I come back to my analogy: when we do that, we are pitting the legs of the table against the top of the table. Those who deliver sport essentially begrudge the kinds of resources that are needed to ensure that the legs are there to support it. And that happens not just in Canada; that's worldwide.

In fact that's a phenomenon Sport Canada has to deal with on a regular basis. And we're not alone. We can be representing the whole amateur sport community sometimes in terms of information we've gathered or interests they've expressed.

Take the issue of harassment in sport. There's a remarkable response on the part of the community. They really want to deal with this here in Canada, after the revelations of Sheldon Kennedy regarding sexual abuse in hockey.

But when you bring these issues forward, because of competing interests, because of the way sport is funded in Canada, it's blood on the floor. We have to pit that against supporting athletes. Well, who wants to take money out of the pockets of athletes in order to have sport ethical? But who wants athletes in a sport system that's not ethical? You can't win.

That's why we recommend things such as an ethics in sport legacy, which is independent, and if that's not available, then a separate stream of multi-departmental funding in the government that recognizes how it cuts across so that you can respond to these particular things.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Mr. Lachance, if I'm understanding you correctly, what you're saying is that competing interests can compromise fair play and ethics. You represent the centre that is supposed to champion fair play and ethics. How can competing interests of any kind thwart whatever efforts should be made by an agency such as yours to obtain redress so that when our athletes go to Olympic competition, they're not subjected to this?

• 1700

Mr. Victor Lachance: I agree with you. Actually the competing interests aren't ours. We agree with you. What we want to do is address those issues, and that's why we believe you need a centralized independent agency such as ours.

You're forcing me into the money issue, because essentially I'd have to say we can only do what we can with the resources we have. It's when we seek to find other sources of funding to address the issues you raise that we run up against competing interests. So we, like you, feel that competing interests are a tough thing to defend, but on the other hand, I have no simple answer for how to resolve competing interests such as helping athletes and keeping sport ethical.

No, you shouldn't have to necessarily wrestle with those questions. Ethics in sport is very complex. It's overwhelming at times. It can call on a substantial amount of resources in order to properly address. That's a challenge we face, because if we don't address it, then we do have a problem.

But if we look at this now in terms of economics—the industry of sport in Canada—where I would see hopeful and good news is that, not unlike what we did with drug-free sport, where we mastered the problem and were able to bring it to the rest of the world and sell some of it and help others, we can master the business of ethics in sport.

We've invested already. We've developed a micro-industry here in Canada that we can build on, because what we did with fair play and what we've done with drug-free sport in Canada is ahead, is leadership, compared to other countries. So if we want to capture a special role of leadership that not only is good for Canada but will help develop a shared language and common experiences in a way that does unify us and make us feel good about sport in Canada, then we have a win-win situation by developing the kind of national strategy we propose in the document—a national strategy we could share with the rest of the world.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Provenzano.

We now move on to Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate your presentation, Mr. Lachance.

On recommendation 8, of course one of the key points this subcommittee is grappling with is what we will recommend finally on any subsidy of professional sports franchises in this country. What's your view on whether or not that would have public support?

Mr. Victor Lachance: I think the absence of it would give you lack of public support; I suppose that's the way I would answer it. I can't guarantee that with this provision you'll get public support, but the funding of professional sport by itself, without some kind of recognition that professional sport does not exist in a vacuum, is not going to work.

Economists aren't going to support you, because most of them, at least to my understanding, say there's enough research out there to suggest that just on purely economic terms alone, professional sport is really the tail wagging the dog. Research from Stats Can—in particular I'm thinking of research that was done in 1998 on the vitality of the sports sector in Canada, so fairly recent stuff—suggests that professional sport right now in Canada represents about 5% of the $6 billion that is sport GDP. So professional sport is 5% and amateur sport would be the rest.

If we are looking to support 5% without some tie back to the rest, then I'm not sure we're addressing sports. Somehow we're doing something else. I think we're funding the entertainment industry.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: I see your point, but I'm not sure you answered my question. Is there public support, in your view, for subsidies to professional sport? Obviously most of the public supports government moneys to amateur sport, and I think many would support more funding, perhaps others not. Do you think the public supports subsidy to professional sport franchises?

The short answer would be...?

Mr. Victor Lachance: No.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: No? I don't understand your reluctance.

Mr. Victor Lachance: The answer is no, but my reluctance is because I think they can. I think pro sport can be part of Canadian heritage.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: It is.

• 1705

Mr. Victor Lachance: I don't think it is if it's entertainment.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Well, that's an interesting comment, but I would submit to you that professional sport has been a pretty important part of our cultural heritage.

Anyway, I have my answer. Thank you.

Be that as it may—and you may well be right, given the input I've had, but that doesn't mean this committee can't make that recommendation—why would we, though, tie any potential subsidy to some sort of commitment from the pro teams to give money to amateur sport? Why wouldn't government just simply do that directly—increase funding to amateur sport—and take that amount off whatever it was considering in total for the professional subsidy? Why have the indirect approach you're recommending in number 8?

Mr. Victor Lachance: Well, in part to answer your first question, I think it would garner greater public support if the public saw that government support of professional sport is tied to more than just bailouts and lining the pockets of owners—if instead it saw that professional sport is in fact part of the broader sport spectrum, that sport is part of heritage, and that giving something back is part of the sport way. It's a recognition that the development system doesn't exist in a vacuum.

But as for greater assistance to amateur sport, clearly we're not opposed to that. What we've wrestled with to some degree is that the pendulum of government involvement in sport has tended to swing back and forth from encouraging broad participation and promoting social and national objectives to focusing on winning, medals, high performance, pro sport, and so on, and there's always been a lot of tension between the two. My view is it doesn't have to be that way.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: I quite agree. Having had some considerable experience in teaching sport, I believe it should be both. They shouldn't be mutually exclusive.

Mr. Victor Lachance: Agreed.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Of course you're aware that the pro teams in Canada, I think every single one, make fairly significant contributions to sport in the form of cash, staff time, and so on. I guess it's your view that they should do more and have specific targets to meet. Is that what I hear you leading to?

Mr. Victor Lachance: What I was arguing is that the justification for government funding of professional sport should be consistent with the justification for amateur sport. That is, if you fund professional sports, then they should have a drug-testing program, they should have safety education programs, they should have in place policies and programs for harassment in sport, and that sort of thing, because it's sport. It's not entertainment at that point; it's sport.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Right, I agree.

Your recommendation 5 is the establishment of an ethics in sport legacy. Can you elaborate? What do you mean exactly by that?

Mr. Victor Lachance: Well, it would be a resolution to Mr. Provenzano's point, which is how do you address all these ethical issues and how do you keep doing it? How do you do it in a way that's independent and you're not beholden to vested interests? If an independent agency is not independent, then it can't arguably do ethical audits and state what it believes to be in the public interest.

In sport, the concept of a legacy, an endowment fund, a trust fund.... The government could play a role in setting that up, in exploring it, in talking about it and challenging the private sector, in challenging perhaps specific sectors within the private sector, in establishing that in a way that helps to fund the system.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. O'Brien.

Now, colleagues, I am in your hands. We're running a little bit behind, but this issue of ethics in sport is so important. Do we have the permission of the committee to just have a few more questions with Mr. Lachance? Okay.

The government has had 20 minutes here, so I think we'd better give time to the opposition, and then we'll go back, okay?

So can we take more time? Is that okay with you, Mr. Lachance?

Mr. Victor Lachance: I would apologize to all those I'm interfering with.

The Chairman: I hope that doesn't offend our next set of witnesses, but this is a very important issue, and we must deal with it.

Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My question is about ethics. Even though professionals only amount to 5%, as you indicated, they have a huge impact on the ethics and behaviour patterns of amateurs. So my question is, have you done a lot of work with professionals? If so, I'm sure at times there's a huge variance in ethical behaviour between one group and another group. How do we shrink it?

• 1710

Mr. Victor Lachance: No, we have not done much work with professional sport, in part because we've been focusing on amateur sport. So to some degree that's driven by us, but quite frankly, we haven't been called either, and when we have offered, we have not necessarily been well received.

It's the nature of our business, you have to understand, that if there's an issue out there, we will speak on it. That's natural. That's our role. The media come to us for our views about ethics in sport. When we speak on these issues, it's also been our experience that the response we then get from professional sport is pretty frosty. And we have correspondence to demonstrate, pretty much saying, “We're not interested in doing any business with an organization like yours that's going to say something publicly about us.” I can understand that. That may be a price we have to pay.

It doesn't have to be that way. Once we have a broader approach, a national strategy, and an open debate about what we want in sport, professional sport can play a powerful and positive role. But to date our involvement with professional sport has been on an ad hoc basis, when they request our services. We've always been pleased and will continue to be pleased to provide them anytime to anyone.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: You referred to entertainment earlier. I'd like you to explain what you mean. In your brief, you say that use of performance-enhancing drugs may be acceptable in the business of entertainment, but not sport. Does that mean McGuire is an entertainer?

Mr. Victor Lachance: That is precisely the problem that the McGuire affair brought to light. Why was there no reaction in the US, as one might have expected? In Canada, everyone reacted as though it was a crime.

In the sport community, we tend to confuse sport and entertainment. Some activities are primarily thought of as entertainment. When we're talking about entertainment, as opposed to sport, our values are not the same. Let's take the example of the guy who painted this picture of the Fathers of Confederation. Do we wonder whether he took drugs while painting that picture? Does that concern us? Perhaps not. Do we wonder whether the musicians are on drugs when we witness an incredible performance? Perhaps not. I don't know. We judge them on the basis of other criteria. When entertainment is involved, it may be that people's expectations are not the same.

The problem in the sport industry—particularly professional sport—is that they are in the business of selling sport. Our position in that respect is that if you're in the business of selling sport, you have an obligation to protect the integrity of sport, because you are selling something to the public that is, in its eyes, much more than an entertainment product. Sport is an integral part of our culture, our nation and our values. If you use that to sell entertainment, you must protect the integrity of sport. That is what is currently lacking in the professional sport industry.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Cannis.

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

Welcome, Victor, to our committee. It's good to see you again.

I'm just going to open, Mr. Chairman, with one or two short comments and two questions.

The Chairman: Mr. Cannis, I have to interrupt you. I have no problem with short comments, but I want to say that I'm going to—

Mr. John Cannis: Cut me off.

The Chairman: I'm not going to cut anybody off, but I want to remind you and Mr. Coderre, because I know he has a short question, that we should be sensitive to the schedule. We have other witnesses waiting.

Mr. John Cannis: Okay.

Let me just start off by saying how pleased I was that you tied in sports and youth. Today, even in the province of Ontario—and I'm not going to comment on who's right and who's wrong—I've talked to so many youth who are very discouraged and upset that in their school programs, the sports activities have literally come to a halt. We're short-sighted in not seeing that we have to get the athletes started at a young age so they can eventually work up the system. And then hearing the news yesterday that one of our Olympic athletes, Mr. Ives, has moved to the States was very depressing.

Nevertheless, you talked about the Canadian success story with the CCES. Can you tell us a little bit more? Is it international in scope? How do the relationships that the centre has with other organizations outside Canada unfold in terms of exchange of technology, training, and how some of the funds are derived?

• 1715

Also, is the ethics in sport and fair play concept being embraced? Is it being promoted internationally? Is there cooperation among the international partners? Can you talk a little about the IOC relationship with the CCES as well?

I guess I'll cut it right there, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Fair enough.

Mr. John Cannis: My list goes down the drain.

Mr. Victor Lachance: In terms of drug-free sport, where we have carved out quite a niche internationally, there's a lot of cooperation, as I mentioned, primarily through government-to-government agreements with countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Norway, the U.K., Sweden, the Netherlands, the Caribbean and some other countries. Also, our centre has been working increasingly with the United States.

We respond to requests from various countries about the programs we have, quite often our educational programs, in particular the Spirit of Sport program, which is really a way of marketing very positive ideas. We know it works with kids, to imbue them with certain values and attitudes that we know, based on research, can actually immunize them against drugs in sport. That stuff is great news, and other countries are interested and do work with us in that area.

In terms of ethics in sport, it's more that we're carving out an international interest in this area. That's where we tend to play a bit of a leadership role. There's definitely an understanding of the need for ethics. Ethics is busting out in all sectors around the world. It's becoming a common currency in order to feel comfortable doing business with anybody, and sport is no different.

So there is an interest in the sorts of things we are doing, which is demonstrated by other countries relying on us for information, our web site and how many hits we get per day, and those kinds of indications.

With respect to the IOC, the IOC has Olympic movement values, which capture the sort of thing that ethics is all about. There is a movement with the IOC towards a renaissance of those values, and that's good news.

In the area of drug-free sport, historically there had been a little less encouraging relationships, but there too there's a piece of good news. The IOC has recently announced its intention—and we believe them in this instance—to put into place a worldwide drug-free sport program. It's going to take a bit of time to put together and sell through the Olympic family, but they're prepared to fund it; that's the important thing. And they've established principles that we believe are the right principles—principles of independence; protecting the rights of athletes; ensuring that you have ethics, education, and prevention programs; and ensuring that you have legal rigour and appropriate policies.

Mr. John Cannis: [Inaudible—Editor] supported financially by the IOC?

Mr. Victor Lachance: That's a possibility for two reasons. One, I think there's going to be some market expansion and we're going to be able to capitalize on that market. I would say that's about two years down the road. And two, in the short term, we're going to be able to simply offer our services in helping to develop this program and network with other agencies.

The problem here, though, consists of two things. One—and we agree with this first one—the need right now is for those countries that have nothing. We're going to be playing a role in assisting those countries, and to some degree that will not be for free, so there will be some recuperation there.

But here's the danger I fear, and I will share it with you today, maybe for the first time on the record. I fear—and I hope I will be proven wrong—that if the IOC finds a way to put the necessary revenues and raises them through a variety of partnerships and sponsorships and so on, that may cause others to move away from the business and to withdraw their money. That would be a serious mistake. The solution to this business is to have everybody in it together. If we're trading one against the other, that is harmful.

Worldwide right now, drug-free sport is about a $20 million business, and the IOC proposal might quadruple that, or at the very least maybe triple it. That would be roughly the right amount of money in order to get the job done worldwide. We're doing our part, and we need to continue to do our part. We don't need to back down. The advantage is that what we're doing here can now get done worldwide. If we don't back down here, we help them achieve it worldwide. Then we get the worldwide level playing field.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Coderre, do you have a short question before we go to our next witnesses?

• 1720

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: Yes. It seems to me the enemy is not professional sport, Mr. Lachance. If we want to attain our primary goal, which is the athlete's quality of life and the preservation of sport per se, we will have to recognize once and for all that professional sport is not only entertainment—indeed, it is first and foremost sport.

For example, when the NBA's Michael Jordan goes into the schools to educate the kids or when we use our stars to talk about drug-free sport, that is evidence of the extraordinary contribution that professional sport can make.

If we recommend that the federal government inject funds into professional sport, there will have to be two essential conditions: first of all, there will have to be links with your organization, so that we can really talk about ethics in sport and drug-free sport; secondly, we will have to ensure that professional sport invests in amateur sport. It may not be politically correct to say so, but an amateur athlete aspires to become a professional athlete. We have to recognize that professional sport represents the pinnacle within the sport community and that it sets an example. If you want to get involved and do something about this, both in hockey and football—indeed, at every level—you must understand that professional sport is part and parcel of the sport community and that the Canadian government has a role to play there in order that you may be more effective. I would be interested in hearing your comments.

Mr. Victor Lachance: I fully agree with you, and we are at your disposal.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Lachance, we thank you for coming here today and we especially thank you for your very specific recommendations. Many of your recommendations have actually been included in our discussion paper, so that's a very good sign as we head down the home stretch of this committee's work. We thank you for coming.

[Translation]

Mr. Victor Lachance: It was a pleasure, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for giving me an opportunity to appear today.

[English]

The Chairman: We will now move right away to our next witnesses. From Canadian Special Olympics Incorporated, we have with us Mr. Jim Jordan, the president; and Ms. Deborah Bright, the national program director.

We welcome you and apologize to you for being a few minutes behind. We'll go immediately to your testimony. Thank you.

Mr. Jim Jordan (President, Canadian Special Olympics Inc.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We're pleased to be invited to address the group today.

Like you, we find the whole business of ethics in sport a fascinating one, so we didn't mind going over time. I'm a little bit worried about our airplane being at 7 o'clock, but apart from that, we found that session very fascinating, as all of you did.

We're here today representing Canadian Special Olympics, which is the national sport governing body for athletes with a mental disability. We're here as advocates for that population. While we don't have lengthy recommendations, we have come with one purpose: to impress upon the minds of the members of this subcommittee the importance of the inclusion of athletes with a mental disability in the Canadian sport culture that is supported by the federal government. That is our sole purpose for being here, and we're very grateful that we were included and given the opportunity to speak to you today.

I'm sure all the submissions you've received have talked about the fundamental value of sport, both in the lives of the individuals who participate and in the life of our Canadian society. Everything that is said in that context applies doubly to our athlete population.

Sport is the fundamental vehicle we use in our population for the development of their sense of personal worth and for their social integration into the wider life of Canadian society. We use sport to tap the capacities of mentally handicapped individuals who might otherwise never get an opportunity to demonstrate capacity and achievement.

• 1725

We use sport to build the confidence of individuals with a mental handicap so that the skills they learn in the pool or on the track or on the floor hockey floor can be transferred to other aspects of their life, where they can be applied to their social integration. We have research to show that these sports programs are effective in achieving those ends.

We use sport for the wider purpose of human development, so in many ways the Special Olympics ideal and what we're trying to do through sport is really the fundamental purpose that sport has for the entire population, not just the portion of our society that is mentally handicapped.

It's very important for the members of the committee and for the members of any Government of Canada to know that it's an important subject and the population is an important part of our population. Scarcely a family in Canada isn't affected directly or indirectly by the phenomenon of mental handicap, as parents, brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, grandparents, or simply as the neighbour of the mentally handicapped Down's syndrome child who lives down the street.

This is an important issue for our culture and it's an important issue for sport. We're extremely pleased that over the last several months, and particularly over the last two years, we have made great strides working together with Sport Canada to ensure that the programs we're offering for mentally handicapped children and adults really become an accepted part of the Canadian sport culture.

It's some of those specific programs—and not just what they're doing for our individuals, but their wider impact on our society, including the economic impact of those programs—that I'd like Deborah Bright to address at this moment.

Deborah.

Ms. Deborah Bright (National Program Director, Canadian Special Olympics Inc.): Thank you.

Most notably, whether we talk about amateur or professional sport, it is in and of itself an industry, one that not only puts money into an economy but provides jobs, and provides individuals with an opportunity to earn their livelihood.

As one small example of how our organization contributes to the economy, we had the National Summer Games in Sudbury, Ontario this past July, and we have been told by the city that the administration, planning, and execution of those games contributed $2 million to that local economy.

Through the continual federal government support of amateur sport at all levels, there is an opportunity to partner with corporations and ensure that this continual economic contribution can exist. We firmly believe that the role of the federal government is as a partner in the support of amateur sport.

Since its inception, Canadian Special Olympics as an organization has strongly gone to the corporate community, service organizations, and individual donors to ensure that today, 90% of our operational budget, both at the federal level and through all of our 12 chapters, is supported by the corporate community and individual donors.

We look to the federal government as a partner and as an important financial provider. In addition to the economic support the federal government can provide, and to reiterate and reinforce Jim's comments, the more important thing the federal government can offer athletes with a mental disability is the recognition that they are athletes in their own right.

April 21, 1997 was a tremendous banner day for our national team. It was the first time athletes with a mental disability were recognized in the House of Commons. We had 25 athletes and approximately 10 coaches from across this wonderful country of ours, and they were so duly recognized by the Speaker of the House as well as the Honourable Sheila Copps.

This has done more for athletes with a mental disability than you, as committee members, may realize. It has also helped our sponsors recognize the importance they have had for the last 30-odd years in ensuring that those individuals have a spot on the playing field. In addition, it has recognized them in their community papers, by their friends, by their families, by their colleagues.

• 1730

That is a tremendously important tool that you and the federal government have: to provide the leadership and the vision to ensure that sport, period, is provided to all Canadians.

Jim.

Mr. Jim Jordan: For our population, sport is part of their social development in a way that's much more dramatic and much more critical than it might be for able-bodied athletes, and it's a very important part of the health of our population, which without our programs we know would be much more sedentary than the general population. That is the basic reason this program was developed in the first place.

Back in the 1950s and 1960s, Dr. Hayden, a Toronto researcher, noted that mentally handicapped people seemed to have more problems with obesity and lack of motor development. He discovered that it wasn't because they were mentally handicapped, but because of their poor lifestyle and the inactive lifestyles they were leading. So it was really fitness and good health that lay at the bottom of this program, and it was only as the program developed, of course, that the magic of marrying sport to this population started to reveal such dramatic results.

We want to emphasize to the committee how very important sport is for this segment of our population. We want to emphasize secondly that by including athletes with a mental disability in the federal sport environment, the government sends to all Canadians a message that's very important and that the government should try to send every day of its existence—a message about the value residing in each individual citizen.

It was very important, as Deborah noted, that Canadians across the country saw our athletes honoured in the House of Commons, and it's important for them to see their government spreading a mantle of care over a population that is very easily marginalized and victimized. Again, to reiterate, that's why we're so pleased with our inclusion by Sport Canada—not as a primary provider of our funding, since we're not heavily reliant on government funding, but because Sport Canada has included rather than excluded our athletes from full participation in the Canadian amateur sport scene.

We come before the committee to reiterate the value of that for an important segment of the Canadian population and to encourage you to ensure that this happy state of affairs continues, and we thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Jordan.

Thank you, Ms. Bright.

Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to thank both of you for coming before the subcommittee. Having spent most of my life working with mentally handicapped children, I certain applaud the work and effort that your organization has done on their behalf so that they become recognized as Canadian citizens, beyond their disability.

Having done this for 30 years and developed a lot of skills as an industry, my question is, is this sport specialty exportable to other countries of the world?

Mr. Jim Jordan: Yes, it's very exportable.

We're proud of the fact that the basic idea for Special Olympics sport programs for mentally handicapped people was developed by a Canadian researcher. Typical of many things in our country, he couldn't find sufficient backing for it, so he took his idea to the Kennedy Foundation, and they thought it was a wonderful idea. Special Olympics really was developed by the Kennedy Foundation in the United States, and the first games were held in Chicago in 1968. They were run by our Canadian Dr. Frank Hayden, who's back now as a special consultant to our organization in Toronto.

The program has now been exported to 180 countries in the world, and Canada will send a team next summer to Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina, to the World Games, where there will be 8,000 athletes from something like 160 countries. So it has caught on like wildfire all over the world.

The Chairman: Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Good afternoon and thank you for your presentation.

Can you tell me whether your services are easily accessible in the regions?

• 1735

[English]

Ms. Deborah Bright: Very much so, actually. We have 12 chapter offices in each of the provinces, and then beyond that, with tremendous volunteer support, there is typically a Special Olympics program within each major city or town, and some of them in very small parts of our provinces and the two territories. So it's very easily accessible by individuals, experienced through school, an association of community living, or a connection with a specific sport organization.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: As I understand it, the Special Olympics are for people with a mental handicap, but are they also intended for people with physical handicaps? Are we talking about the same games or are they two separate things?

[English]

Ms. Deborah Bright: It's a separate entity actually. Athletes with a mental disability may have associated physical disabilities, but the primary responsibility for our organization is sport for athletes with a mental disability.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Did your athletes go to the Nagano Games?

[English]

Ms. Deborah Bright: Athletes with a mental disability were in the games in Nagano. There were two athletes from the province of Manitoba. These athletes also compete—

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Pardon me for interrupting. Did they take part in the regular games or in the special games?

[English]

Ms. Deborah Bright: The Nagano games were the Paralympic Games, but athletes with a mental disability competed there, yes.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: When we met the Canadian chairman of the Paralympic Games, he told us that the fact the games were taking place after the regular games was causing a lot of problems. If we really want to bring them into the mainstream, why do we continue to discriminate by holding these games after the real games? Was it necessary for there to be an interval of one week between the two games?

[English]

Mr. Jim Jordan: We're talking really about two sets of games. Special Olympics holds its own competitions, both at the provincial level in Canada nationally, and then of course internationally. There's also an organization called the Paralympics, which is not our organization.

The Paralympic Games, which are held in conjunction with the Olympics, have a component for athletes with a mental disability. All the athletes who represent Canada in that category are trained by Special Olympics, but they go to the games under different auspices. Why the games and athletes with a mental disability aren't fully integrated into the Olympics is a political question beyond our ken at the moment, but you are right ultimately that as many opportunities as possible for full integration is a goal we should all strive for.

I would like to address the issue, though, that we have segregated opportunities. It's because the core of the Special Olympics sport program is to ensure that athletes of all ability levels get to compete at different levels of competition. Therefore it's critical from a Special Olympics point of view that when we take a team to the World Games of Special Olympics, different ability levels are represented on our team. In other words, it's not necessarily the most accomplished athletes who get to go. Some are accomplished and some are not so accomplished.

The Olympic Games are under a different philosophy, and so are the Paralympics. Athletes must meet a qualifying standard. We don't think that's wrong; it's just different from what Special Olympics does on a day-to-day basis.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: There's something I don't understand. When and where are the Special Olympics held? And what are the Paralympic Games? Is that a third category of Olympics?

[English]

Ms. Deborah Bright: That is correct.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: They have those games in different cities. They come from all over and they have their own competition.

Ms. Deborah Bright: It is a separate entity. There will be World Games for athletes with a mental disability—Special Olympics World Games—in 1999 in Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina. We just had our own National Games in Sudbury, Ontario. So they run on a four-year cycle, separate in time and location from either the Olympics or the Paralympics.

• 1740

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Mr. Coderre.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Thank you very much. I think the beauty of the Special Olympics, is that they provide a golden opportunity to open people's hearts and minds through sport. It is very clear that if we bring them into the mainstream, people with disabilities may really have the sense that they are full-fledged citizens. That is what can happen through sport.

However, I would like you to address more practical matters, such as infrastructure. I think everyone agrees they have to be encouraged. I would like to talk about our attitude towards the people who take part in these games. Would you say that the current infrastructure is adequate across Canada or in certain provinces? Is the system working? Is a young athlete who wants to develop his potential in a given sport able to access everything he needs, or is he discriminated against to a certain extent because of his disability?

[English]

Mr. Jim Jordan: At the moment, by and large those opportunities are available. It's important for the members to realize that Special Olympics doesn't just put on competition. The fundamental instrument of program delivery is a sport club in a local neighbourhood, and there are thousands and thousands of Special Olympic sport clubs across Canada, nowhere more numerous than in Ontario, and I know the member will be pleased to know that our program in Quebec is growing by leaps and bounds.

So for the most part, there is access for most of our athletes. Like every organization, we have to fight for ice time, gym time, and pool time, but part of our work with Sport Canada is to try to raise the level of competence of our volunteer coaches so that when our athletes do get into their hands, they are in good hands and they have the opportunity to advance to whatever level their skill will take them.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: We held the Torch Run in my riding last weekend. It was to raise money. Policemen in my riding took part in the run to raise funds for the Special Olympics. Unfortunately, someone had a heart attack. We lost a policeman, but we were able to raise some money. This is a cause we feel very strongly about.

Is the participation rate going up? The figure of twenty thousand athletes in Canada has been mentioned. Are there more and more athletes taking part in your programs? My colleague was saying that he has been working with people who have mental disabilities for some thirty years now. Couldn't sport be considered to be an integral part of education or even therapy? Don't you think sport opens up new possibilities for young athletes by allowing them to improve their situation? I would like you to address those two points.

[English]

Mr. Jim Jordan: Let me speak to you as a parent of a daughter with a mental handicap. She's now 12 years old, and up until this year, she's been well integrated into community sports. She didn't need Special Olympics. She's coming into her teens now, and the social gaps are beginning to widen and the intellectual gaps becoming more apparent between her and her non-handicapped peers. So my wife has taken her out for the first time to enrol her in Special Olympics in our local community.

Is the program growing? Yes, it's growing, because many parents like me are finding this is a very important dimension of the human development of the children, not just from the aspect of sport, but because as human beings, they're finding some solidarity with their peers.

The program is growing rapidly in Canada. I can tell you that since I've been involved for the last decade in Special Olympics, enrolments have doubled from 10,000 to 20,000 athletes, and they continue to grow at a very rapid rate. As I mentioned before, with the good health we see emerging in Quebec, there's tremendous potential to see wonderful growth in this movement. But by and large, it's growing across the country.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Thank you.

• 1745

The Chairman: Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have a brief comment.

I had a bit of experience with Special Olympics in my home city of London, Ontario, and it's interesting having you just after the ethics discussion, because I found that the athletes in Special Olympics lived up to the ideals we would like to think sports is all about better than any other athletes I've ever seen or worked with. So I was very impressed, and it would be nice if we could transmit that to all people in sports at all levels.

I simply have one question for you. How much money does the federal government contribute to our national Special Olympics team when it goes away to a major competition?

Ms. Deborah Bright: Its contribution this year is $185,000.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Okay. Well, I have another question out of that. An answer leads to a question.

That doesn't strike me as a lot of money, as a Canadian, and yet I didn't sense any frustration on your part that you are inadequately funded. Why doesn't the federal government fund Special Olympics to a more significant level?

Ms. Deborah Bright: We are very pleased with the contribution of the federal government through Sport Canada. They are at the level of our national sponsors. Their money this year will go directly to support a new initiative, and that is our national team program. We always believe they can become leaders, and through their vision and their financial support, we have a new program that can help strengthen our programs across this country.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Is it a one-to-one formula? Does the government match private funding?

Mr. Jim Jordan: No.

First of all, Deborah mentioned earlier that it's been our tradition since inception that we would fund ourselves primarily. Are we adequately funded? We never think so, and we're constantly looking for new sources of revenue. We were never very well funded by the federal government until recently, when we developed a new relationship with Sport Canada, which, as you can tell, we're pleased with.

When we went to Sport Canada, we said, “The important contribution we can get from Sport Canada is not primarily financial. We would like the government to fund our programs to the same level as one of our major corporate sponsors.” A major corporate sponsor—and we have 10 of them—funds the national body to the level of $150,000 a year. So we asked Sport Canada to take that as a benchmark, which they've done, and they asked us to apply that $150,000 in the three areas of coaching development, national team development, and our National Games.

The important aspect of our connection with Sport Canada is that wider social issue: to be accepted as a part of the sport community in Canada. That was our primary objective. It was never funding, because we know that's going to vary depending on the means of the government, and we don't want to become dependent on government funding. But we do want the government to participate.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: I appreciate that.

Speaking very personally, if the time ever comes when you think you need more federal funding, I hope you'll come back here and I hope you'll find a very receptive audience. As far as I'm concerned, we should have no hesitation in funding an athlete who's in Special Olympics at the same level, quite frankly, as we do the regular Olympics. They are equally Canadian citizens, equally deserving of tax money for their endeavours, and they are making an equally valuable contribution. So don't hesitate to come back.

Mr. Jim Jordan: We'll go home and work on a proposal.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: Thanks, Mr. O'Brien.

Do you have a short question before we...?

Mr. John Cannis: Actually my colleague, Mr. O'Brien, asked the question I wanted to ask about dollars and cents from the federal government, but let me just make this comment then.

It was a privilege to have you here on the Hill. The impact it had throughout the communities to be able to showcase and share with you some of those smiles and achievements I'm sure is a prelude of better and bigger things to come from our government and our representatives as well. We're very proud to have you here, as Mr. O'Brien said.

I just have one quick question. Does the Kennedy Foundation support international representation, such as Canadian, or are they mainly focused on addressing the needs of the American segment?

• 1750

Mr. Jim Jordan: The Kennedy Foundation no longer directly funds Special Olympics. It was the catalyst to begin the movement in the United States. Special Olympics then became a separate corporate entity called Special Olympics International, and very much like Canadian Special Olympics, it goes out and finds its own source of funding, primarily in the corporate community. So I know there is no more direct funding for Special Olympics from the Kennedy Foundation.

Mr. John Cannis: Although the perception internationally is that the Kennedy Foundation—and I say this with the greatest of respect—is indeed spearheading such a tremendous initiative, in all fairness to everyone out there, it should be known that there's corporate money, government money, and not necessarily the Kennedy Foundation.

Mr. Jim Jordan: Not any more.

The Chairman: Speaking on that specific point, Mr. Jordan, you mentioned that there are 10 Canadian corporations.

Mr. Jim Jordan: Yes.

The Chairman: Do you have the names of those corporations?

Mr. Jim Jordan: Yes.

The Chairman: Could you just tell us who they are?

Mr. Jim Jordan: Yes. I hope I don't forget any.

The Chairman: Well, take your time. Even if we can get most of them.... Who are they?

Mr. Jim Jordan: Coca-Cola Canada; Business Depot, a wonderful corporate partner; Sprint Canada; Mackenzie Financial; Royal Bank of Canada.

We have three what we call media partners. Grey Advertising does all our advertising and public relations work for us gratis, well in excess of $150,000; Maclean's magazine gives us roughly $200,000 a year in national advertising space; and The Sports Network is one of our greatest and oldest partners.

The Chairman: Is that TSN?

Mr. Jim Jordan: TSN, right.

There's also the Foster Foundation. Red Foster, the great Canadian businessman and entrepreneur, really founded Special Olympics in Canada, and his foundation continues to support us. And of course Toyota Canada is a terrific partner and has been for going on seven years now. The Canadian Progress Clubs across Canada also support us through their foundation.

Those are our corporate partners.

The Chairman: I felt it was important to colleagues that we take a minute there to recognize those corporate leaders who are—

Mr. Jim Jordan: Can I name one more?

The Chairman: Absolutely. We don't mind giving corporations such as this national coverage whenever we can.

Mr. Jim Jordan: There's another very important one, and in fact I'm here today due to their good graces, and that's the Air Miles Loyalty Group. Air Miles gives us 375,000 travel miles a year to use across the country for our different programs, so they're a very important partner.

The Chairman: On behalf of the committee, I thank you for coming today. You've been very helpful in our deliberations.

Mr. Jim Jordan: Thank you.

The Chairman: Colleagues, our last witness group today is from the Canadian Association for the Advancement of Women and Sport and Physical Activity. I can see from our clerk, Mr. Fournier, that we're just about right back on schedule.

Welcome, ladies.

Ms. McGregor, perhaps I could ask you to introduce your colleagues and then you could begin.

Ms. Marg McGregor (Executive Director, Canadian Association for the Advancement of Women and Sport and Physical Activity): You bet. Thanks very much. It's a pleasure to be here today.

I have brought along some of my esteemed colleagues to join me in today's presentation and to respond to some of your questions. Tina Walter is a board member with the Canadian Association for the Advancement of Women and Sport and Physical Activity; Karin Lofstrom is operations manager with CAAWS; and Carolyn Hudson is a volunteer with CAAWS, with particular expertise in the area of coaching.

[Translation]

The Canadian Association for the Advancement of Women and Sport and Physical Activity was established in 1981.

[English]

Essentially we are in business to help encourage girls and women to get off the sidelines and off the bleachers and actually onto the fields and the rinks, into the pools and the locker rooms and the boardrooms of this country. Through our activities we pave the way for more girls and women to play. Our goal is that women and girls be full participants in sport, as athletes, as coaches, as officials, and as volunteer leaders and professional leaders in sport.

• 1755

Certainly there is much to celebrate in the 1990s. “We've come a long way, baby”, as they say. To give you a bit of a historical perspective, way back when, at the first ancient Olympic Games, if a woman were found in the stands, she was tossed off a cliff. So it was not a good thing to be at the ancient Olympic Games. Several hundred years later, when the modern Olympic Games were founded in 1896 by Baron De Coubertin, he said that in fact women did have an important role to play in sport, and that role was to applaud the performances of men. So you can see that's progress from being thrown off a cliff, but still a long way to go to full equity.

Now it's the 1990s, and I'm sure you were delighted by the performances of our women athletes at the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games. We have some outstanding Canadian women athletes who are outstanding role models for the youth of Canada. So there certainly is much to celebrate.

In terms of CAAWS's approach to change, I want to emphasize that we work in a positive way, focusing on solutions, and we have a very strong and positive partnership with Sport Canada. From our association's perspective, we're all in this together. Women are not victims and men are not pigs. We're working together to build a sport system where girls and women get to enjoy the full benefits of sport and physical activity. As I'm sure you know from previous presenters and witnesses, there's nothing quite like sport. Every girl and woman deserves to have that in her life, because it can change your life forever.

I want to quickly demonstrate the linkage between women and sport and the economy, because that's a particular area of interest to your subcommittee. The more that girls and women play sport and physical activity, the better it is for the economy. Certainly sporting goods industries are well aware of this fact. Recently there's been a real emphasis on creating products for women and on making more opportunities for women, in order to tap into that business potential.

Nike came up with this ad campaign, and it's really clever. It demonstrates the impact that sport can have on women's lives, and I'm just going to take a moment to read it to you. It goes:

If you let me play
I will like myself more
I will have more self-confidence
I will suffer less depression
I will be 60% less likely to get breast cancer.

If you let me play
I will be more likely to leave a man who beats me
I will be less likely to get pregnant before I want to
I will learn what it means to be strong
If you let me play sports.

That to me is a really compelling demonstration of the value of physical activity and sport to girls' and women's lives. We know for a fact that women who are active do have less incidence of osteoporosis, heart attack, adult-onset diabetes, and breast cancer. The list goes on and on, but more important are the psycho-social benefits to girls' and women's lives of being active. They become strong, powerful, and confident in their own skins and that can change everything in their lives.

Clearly the economic impact and benefit to Canada of a healthy population is really quite strong, and there have been a number of studies. The Canadian Fitness and Lifestyle Research Institute indicated that if Canadians were active, the savings in heart disease alone would be in the range of $775 million a year. That's quite a compelling statistic indicating the value of sport.

Our question then becomes, how can we encourage more girls and women to get active, and how can organizations such as ours, which is non-governmental, work in partnership with the government to create that kind of leverage and synergy and build on the momentum we already have going? We have come up with 11 recommendations that in our belief would help to keep the momentum rolling and help to get more girls and women in the game.

I'll dive right into the recommendations.

Number one, it's very important

[Translation]

that the government of Canada continue its funding of amateur sport over the long term

[English]

and that the Government of Canada use the infusion of $50 million in new funding into the sport system to specifically benefit under-represented groups in Canada, in order to create more opportunities for girls and women, for athletes with a disability, and for aboriginal athletes.

• 1800

We were quite delighted that through red book funding, an additional $50 million was committed to sport, and we believe very strongly that it's important to earmark a certain percentage of those funds to service under-represented groups. It's also important that we have some mechanism in place at the end of the day to know, of that $50 million in new funding, how much did go to support programs such as the Special Olympics or programs for Canadians who are blind or programs to support women.

We would also encourage the government to ensure that funding incentives are provided to organizations that do deliver equitable services, and that there be some kind of sanction or penalty to those organizations that do not. This would recognize organizations that are making an attempt to reach out to under-represented groups and deliver programs that service their needs.

The Government of Canada is also a major funder of national sport centres across Canada. It's becoming a more important tool in the delivery of high-performance sport in Canada. We recommend that the government, through their moral suasion and through their funding, encourage that there be significant representation of women on national sport centre boards of directors and in positions of senior management. When women are at the table, their voices are heard and their particular concerns get raised, and they might not necessarily be raised if they aren't at the table.

We would also encourage the government to ensure that national sport centres deliver programs that service the unique needs of women and other under-represented groups, such as athletes with a disability or aboriginal athletes.

We would also encourage the Government of Canada to ensure that an increasing number of apprenticeship and employment opportunities become available for women coaches through the national sport centres. To get more girls to stay in sport, certainly it's important to have more women as coaches, and this is an opportunity through the national sport centres to ensure that more women get into coaching and stay in coaching.

We were quite pleased to see that the Canadian government was awarded the right to host the 2002 World Conference on Women and Sport. That will be held in the Ottawa-Hull area in May 2002. This certainly offers us a unique opportunity to develop some kind of legacy for women and sport in this country. We would encourage the Government of Canada, specifically Sport Canada, to work with other government departments, especially those concerned with women's health, violence against women, and human rights, to ensure that there is some kind of financial legacy after the 2002 conference in Canada.

Our recommendation 7 speaks to the important role model effect that Canadian Olympic and Paralympic athletes can have on the youth of Canada. When my daughters watched the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games and saw the fabulous Canadian women athletes, their eyes just widened, and they imagined themselves one day representing Canada.

There's a huge financial burden on the families of Olympic and Paralympic athletes, and we would encourage the government to look at some form of taxation relief measures for families of high-performance athletes to ensure they can stay in the game.

We are also recognizing that sport in this country is becoming less accessible. Sport programs in schools are being closed, so we're really moving to a user-pay basis for sport, and that concerns us. Sport is unaffordable to many Canadian homes, particularly single-parent families. Given the value of physical activity, we would like the government to consider some form of taxation relief measures that would assist single-parent families to deduct recreation fees or to ensure that their children stay in the game and aren't out of the game as a result of user-pay fees.

Personal safety is another issue, and you heard Victor Lachance talk about this earlier today. The issue of harassment and abuse in sport is one that concerns CAAWS, and we worked in strong partnership with Sport Canada earlier this year and launched a harassment and abuse campaign. In talking to girls and women about why they aren't involved in sport, many have cited the fact that they have experienced some kind of harassment or abuse in sport. It's critical that we make sport a safe place for everyone.

• 1805

So we would encourage the Government of Canada to build on the initiative to eradicate harassment and abuse, which began in January 1997, and to continue to support activities that make sport a safer and more welcoming place for girls, women, and all participants.

Infrastructure is another thing I'd like to talk about, and it was alluded to earlier today. Access to ice time, pool time, soccer fields, and field hockey fields is a real issue in Canada. As women's participation has exploded in sports such as women's ice hockey, it has created a real jam. There simply is no more room at the inn. The rinks are filled up and all the subsidized ice time has been allocated, largely to boys' and men's hockey.

So we would encourage the Government of Canada, in partnership with other levels of government and the private sector, to look into some infrastructure capital campaign that would see the construction of additional rinks and pools in this country in order that there be opportunities for more Canadians to participate.

Our final recommendation is in the area of equipment development. For many years, girls and women have had to play using their brothers' hand-me-down equipment or male equipment. It's only recently that equipment has been developed that specifically fits a woman's physiology and is tailored to a woman's needs. We see this as a really important and positive thing. It's a safety issue that women should have access to equipment that is tailor-made to their unique physiology.

What is happening is that the expense associated with this equipment.... I'll give you the example of women's hockey skates: it sometimes costs double or triple what it costs to buy men's hockey skates. So we find that women are using the men's skates in the smaller sizes as opposed to actually purchasing the women's equipment. So again, we would encourage the Government of Canada to look into some program of offering incentives or tax breaks for Canadian manufacturers that develop, market, and export female-friendly equipment, so that when a girl goes to buy skates, she can buy girls' skates.

In conclusion, I'd like to thank you for your interest and attention today. Sport certainly makes a big difference to our economy, to our health, and to our youth. And the more women play, the more everybody wins.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms. McGregor. We'll go right to questions.

Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to thank you for coming before the subcommittee. Very little of what you've said we would disagree with. We certainly all support your initiatives.

I have a few short questions. One, I'd like to hear your position on mixed-gender sports. Second, do you have a number-specific objective for women in sports in this country? Also, what's your organization's linkage to the global scene?

Ms. Marg McGregor: In answer to your first question about our position on mixed sports, certainly they work in a number of instances. There's no universal right or wrong. A lot of it is dependent upon the particular activity, the age of the athletes, the quality and calibre of the coaching, and the safety factors involved.

There has been research to indicate that when boys and girls are playing in a gymnasium together, the boys will get more attention from the coach. They will dominate the play and the girls will pull back and sit by the fence. So clearly that's not a good example or a positive kind of scenario to have. However, with effective coaching, there are ways around that.

By and large we would hope that girls and women would have opportunities to play on their own girls' and women's teams and that they would have a high level of competition and a high level of coaching within a girls' or women's team. That experience is probably the best for them. Ultimately it's up to the particular athlete to make those choices around what is best for them.

I believe the second question was about our goal in terms of participation. Well, roughly 52% of the Canadian population are women, and we would really like to see every Canadian girl and woman active in some capacity—not necessarily as a high-performance athlete or involved in sport; it could be simply 20 minutes of walking every day. That really is what we're shooting for, and we want to knock down the barriers that are presenting themselves and keeping women from full participation.

• 1810

The third part—

Mr. Inky Mark: Your linkage to the world, the global scene, in terms of advocating for women in sports.

Ms. Marg McGregor: Right, yes. Canada is in fact quite a world leader. Minister Copps, through Heritage Canada and Sue Neill, and specifically through Sport Canada, is co-chair of a group called Women Sport International. So we recognize that we are blessed in this country with the underlying principle that the Government of Canada values equity, so we have been able to accomplish much more than most countries worldwide.

We're out of the starting blocks and halfway down that track. We're not at the finish line in Canada, but we're blazing towards it.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you.

The Chairman: Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Does your association have affiliates in the provinces? What is the procedure for becoming a member of your association?

[English]

Ms. Marg McGregor: We work in partnership with provincial governments and provincial sport organizations across the country, so we have a network of people—men and women—across the country who share our concern. Our organization is a tiny little shop, so we don't have a regional affiliate of CAAWS in each province, but we certainly work hard to get people who are in positions of leadership onside and working to advance our cause.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Do you have any contact with the Muslin community, where women engage in sport but completely separately from men, or with the Muslim women's sports organization?

[English]

Ms. Marg McGregor: That's an excellent question. In our work at international conferences, we have made contacts with the Muslim women and sport associations. I just returned from the Commonwealth Games, which of course were in a Muslim country, and had meetings with a number of women and sport advocates in Malaysia. We recognize that they need to do sport differently and that that needs to be accommodated within their culture.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Now, how is your association funded?

Ms. Marg McGregor: We receive subsidies from the government of Canada, more specifically Sport Canada and Health Canada. There are also membership fees, marketing and fundraising activities.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Do women become members of your association on an individual basis or as members of a team? This is the first time I've ever heard of your association.

[English]

Ms. Marg McGregor: We are not a membership-based organization.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: You are not?

Ms. Marg McGregor: We have what we call a network, and anyone who is interested in the issue of getting more girls and women in the game simply gets added to our mailing list and gets into our network. But it is not a membership organization. We really work in partnership with all the other organizations in the sport system to help them understand how they can make their programs appealing to girls and women. We are a small shop, and we don't want this issue to be our issue; we want it to be the sport system's issue.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Do you know whether Olympic organizers have decided whether in the next Olympic games, specific disciplines will only be recognized if women also compete? Has it been decided that the Olympic games will no longer feature sports that are reserved for male athletes? Will it now be necessary for both women and men to compete?

[English]

Ms. Marg McGregor: The International Olympic Committee is working towards upping the number of events available for women. They are at this point a far cry away from that fifty-fifty, but they're moving towards that.

And they don't insist upon a parallel event. For example, women's softball is in the Olympics now, but men's softball isn't; women's synchronized swimming is in the Olympics, but men's isn't; men's ski jumping is in the Olympics, but women's isn't. So they don't insist upon parallel activities, and that approach makes sense. Women and men don't want the same things. Women may not want to box; men may want to. Women may wish to do synchronized swimming. So that's a positive approach.

• 1815

They have set a series of quotas and targets whereby by the year 2010, they want 10% of women in leadership positions, and they'll escalate it over time such that within about 50 or 60 years, they'll be at a fifty-fifty participation rate.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Madame Tremblay.

Monsieur Coderre.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: Not only do I support all your aspirations, but I, too, am of the generation that is benefiting from the struggles of its elders. As far as I'm concerned, there should be no debate about equality and access; those things should be a given. But there are still some people who act as though they were living in the stone age. There are still some major problems. The committee's purpose is to find out what the situation is like in the field. You have made recommendations with respect to accessibility, and we will have to spare no effort to attain that goal, but there are things I'm really concerned about. There is the whole issue of sexual harassment and problems of that nature.

What is the situation in Canada currently? Do you know of any horror stories? Is this a major problem or do you believe there is a solution to the problem, since it is a far less taboo subject now and we can talk about it much more openly? Tell me about what is happening in Canada nowadays in terms of young girls and women being confronted with this problem.

[English]

Ms. Marg McGregor: With respect to harassment and abuse, there have been a handful of studies to get a measure on the quantity—how many participants in sport are experiencing some form of harassment or abuse. All of these studies are small in sample size. None of them would stand the scrutiny of a university doctorate in terms of their scientific reliability or validity.

All that to say, the studies indicate that between 40% and 50% of people participating in sport, men and women, are experiencing some form of harassment. That's not to say that's to the extreme end of the Sheldon Kennedy abuse, but that is being screamed at by their coach or being made to run laps until they vomit or whatever the case may be.

That's a real concern to us in the sport community. That's too high. Basically one out of two people are not experiencing an esteeming environment; they're leaving sport feeling badly about their experience. That's simply not good enough.

As a community, we came together last January and recognized that it isn't just hockey's issue; it is an issue owned by the community. It's a common problem, and we need to work together for a common solution.

So we have developed resource materials and a campaign called Speak Out, and certainly more people are speaking out. We are beginning to educate parents and athletes about what is appropriate, we're educating coaches so that they'll know what appropriate boundaries are, and we're getting a complaint mechanism in place so that there is a safe place for people to come forward and have a fair hearing that respects the rights of the complainant and the person who may be accused of harassment.

Certainly the issue is out of the closet and is being addressed, but it will take ongoing attention over the next few years to drop that percentage down.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: By talking about it, we already have the beginning of a solution. We have to get away from the beaten track. Now peoples' awareness has been raised.

[English]

Ms. Marg McGregor: Right.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: How do you perceive the Canadian government's leadership as regards the cause of women's advancement in sport, in every respect? I must say I have a bit of a problem with your talking about infrastructure. You know that 50% of the population is female. I think we should be fighting much harder on access than on facilities, because in any case, even for young boys, facilities are currently inadequate. It's a serious problem.

So, how do you perceive the Canadian government's leadership as regards the cause of women's advancement in sport? Are you satisfied with it? Do you think we should be going much further? Do you feel we are just putting a plaster on a wooden leg, as we say back home? Are we just giving you a little money to assuage our conscience or do you really have the impression that we are doing whatever is needed to solve the question?

• 1820

[English]

Ms. Marg McGregor: It's important to recognize that Minister Copps and Sport Canada have been quite supportive of the issue. In 1986 Sport Canada approved a women and sport policy. My sense is that it's now time to ratchet up the intensity and take it to the next step.

Sport Canada is a major sponsor of national sport organizations in Canada. They can have a huge influence over the practices of each sport organization. That speaks to one of my recommendations: we would really encourage Sport Canada to take a firm approach to recognizing organizations that have worked hard to get athletes with a disability and women included in their programs, and that those organizations that have chosen to do nothing are sanctioned for that. To date that has not happened in a big way.

That is one way the government could step up to the table and narrow that gap between saying it's important and actually demonstrating, by cutting the cheque, that it is important. Sport organizations respond to that language quite effectively.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: I would like to ask the last question. There is no doubt that the silver medal won by the women's hockey team did a lot for the cause of women. I would like you to tell me about what is going on in other sports. There's nothing wrong with hockey, but there are other sports as well. In what other sports is the cause of women moving ahead most quickly at the present time?

[English]

Ms. Marg McGregor: There is a direct linkage between how we perform at the Olympic Games and the interest in the country, just because of the worldwide television audience that comes with the Olympic Games. Our rowing team is a fabulous example. Our rowing women and men did superbly at the last Olympic Games, and the participation went way up.

Speed skating is another example. My little daughter watched Catriona Lemay-Doan and then she got a Tamagotchi and she named her Tamagotchi Catriona. Little kids make a connection between those heroes. We don't have enough heroes in Canada, and our athletes can certainly play that role.

Swimming is another example. At the Commonwealth Games, our Joanne Malar was outstanding in her performance, but also as a role model. She was team captain, and she took the younger athletes under her wing.

So there's a direct correlation between the sports where we do well and the interest of young kids in the country who imagine themselves as the next Catriona Lemay-Doan.

The Chairman: Just to let colleagues and witnesses know, we have about four and a half minutes left before we will adjourn.

Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: I'll try to be brief.

We have lots of heroes in Canada; I just don't think we recognize them enough as heroes, be it in sport or other fields.

Madame Tremblay may have asked this, and if so, I apologize, but I didn't catch the answer. Is your organization all volunteers? Do you have any full-time staff? And where are your headquarters?

Ms. Marg McGregor: We are headquartered at the Canadian Sport and Fitness Administration Centre, along with some 40 other national sport organizations. We are predominantly volunteer-driven. We have two full-time paid staff and a few contractors, and a real army of volunteers, men and women who are committed to getting more girls and women in sport.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Thank you.

You mentioned the expense of women's equipment. I played a bit of hockey. Why would a woman's skate cost two to three times more than a man's skate to build?

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: It's for playing hockey, I think, not ordinary skates for girls.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: I understood you to say hockey skates for women are twice or three times the cost of men's, and I don't understand why it would be.

Ms. Marg McGregor: It's just like a haircut for women costs more.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Ms. Marg McGregor: It's based on the number being produced. There are loads of men's skates, so the girls will now buy junior boys' skates.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Oh, I understand. It's a function of demand. It's not that it's constructed—

Ms. Marg McGregor: No, it's not the construction.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Okay, I misunderstood. Thank you for that clarification.

One of my background characteristics is in municipal government. I think it's great that you're here; I really do. We need some national vision on this. But a lot of the implementation of better fairness for women and girls in sports has to come at the local level. That means your city council needs to make sure ice time is more fairly distributed, not just for girls' figure skating—that's great—but for girls' ice hockey.

• 1825

By the way, Mr. Chairman, if I can digress, Mr. Lachance drew a distinction between entertainment and sport that I didn't quite understand or agree with. Sport is in part entertainment, and the most entertaining hockey I've seen in a long time is the women's national hockey team. It may not have been in the purest sense the best hockey, but it's sure the most entertaining to me, anyway. It's good hockey too.

I have a question and perhaps a suggestion. Has your organization ever made a presentation to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, asking for action by city councils and town councils across this country? I guess I'll stop there. Has that ever been tried by your group?

Ms. Marg McGregor: Not yet, and that's an excellent suggestion. We have worked with the Canadian Parks and Recreation Association quite closely, but not—

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Thank you. If I can say, I really think you have to put the heat on people running for city council in London, Ontario and greater Toronto and Montreal and so on to make dang sure that the girls are going to get a fair percentage of ice time.

I think that really does it, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Cannis, you have about a minute and a half.

Mr. John Cannis: I was supposed to speak recently at the conference in Athens with Sue Neill, but I'm sure she did a wonderful job. Scheduling didn't permit. I'm also very happy that we're having the 2002 session here.

It's my impression that the organization works primarily as an information resource centre, if I've put it correctly. I was very moved when I met Karen Nystrom several years ago. When we spoke in my office, she told me that all the girls did their training and everything at their own expense. They had no support at that time.

Of course now we know they are getting support. But look what it took—world championships, etc.—to finally get governments and municipal representatives to wake up and say, “Hey, we have to support this team.” And they were part of that team we were so proud of in the Olympics.

You don't go out and support organizations such as women's hockey, for example, in terms of funding, I presume. Can you clarify that for me?

Ms. Marg McGregor: That's a good example. We do not fund organizations. Our budget wouldn't permit it. We're a really tiny shop. But we have worked quite closely with the Canadian Hockey Association in the last year to help their senior management understand what changes need to be made in hockey, because they weren't necessarily aware of what it takes to make an equitable organization. They don't have that expertise.

Mr. John Cannis: So you would guide them by saying, “Okay, you have a sport that is recognized. Here's how you go about securing support from the government.”

Ms. Marg McGregor: Right, securing support and delivering programs that are equitable, yes.

Mr. John Cannis: I'll close with this, Mr. Chairman.

One common denominator that I noted throughout all the presenters here today—and you emphasized it as well, and I thank you for that—is the financial burden on the family and the recommendation that governments should look at some tax relief incentives.

Maybe this is an appropriate time for this, seeing as there are pre-budget consultations. As a parent of three, I know what it costs for me to have my daughter and my two boys participate in sports, which keeps them out of the plazas and in the indoor arena during the winter or on the pitch during the summer. But I think we'd be more motivated if we knew there were some incentive to encourage them.

Thank you for that comment.

Ms. Marg McGregor: There certainly are some worldwide examples. In the U.K., for instance, they had a program going where people who were on unemployment insurance were given some incentives to participate in a physical activity program. So through a tax relief, they're making a linkage to the social value of being active.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Could you send us any information around what you just talked about?

The Chairman: Yes, on that specific point, the experience of unemployment.

Ms. Marg McGregor: I'd be happy to.

The Chairman: Mr. Mark, you had a 30-second comment?

Mr. Inky Mark: I have a very short question.

We talked about sex discrimination today, and I'd like to know in what part of our society that is occurring the most. Is it pre-school, within the school system, outside in the amateur sports field, or post-amateur? Do you have studies to show where all this is happening, in terms of equal access and all the problems that are faced by women?

• 1830

Ms. Marg McGregor: What our stats do show us is that there's a pretty equitable participation of girls and boys in sport up until about the age of 12, 13, or 14, and then there's a huge drop at that point.

The Chairman: Ms. McGregor, thank you very much, and I thank all of your colleagues for coming today and giving us testimony. It will help us immensely in our deliberations. Thank you for coming.

Colleagues, just before we adjourn, I would like to remind you of two things. On October 21, here in this room, we'll have the Coaching Association of Canada and the National Hockey League Players' Association. I would encourage you to read some of those things in the first draft to make sure our recommendations are consistent.

Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Chairman, the schedule indicates you're sitting next week. That's during the break. Is that going to be cancelled?

The Chairman: No, October 21.

Mr. Inky Mark: It says October 14.

The Chairman: That's an old schedule. October 21 is our next meeting.

Mr. Inky Mark: Is that in conflict with the projected tour or whatever is happening in the full committee, the other committee?

The Chairman: No, there are no conflicts.

Mr. Inky Mark: Okay. Thank you.

The Chairman: This meeting is adjourned.