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]

Tuesday, April 21, 1998

• 0911

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.)): Welcome, Lois Kalchman and John Gardner. We appreciate you taking time out of your busy schedules to come before us.

As I mentioned earlier, we are studying the linkage of sport and job creation in this committee. We are looking at the whole realm of sport, not just our national winter sport, hockey, but the whole Olympic movement in this country, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, and the amount of infrastructure that is invested in sport facilities.

Your presence here this morning is very important because you both work in and represent, in terms of hard numbers, probably the largest hockey community in North America, the greater Toronto area, the “GTA”, as I guess it's called now.

Ms. Kalchman, as a mother of hockey players and as a journalist with the Toronto Star in the realm of minor hockey, you've done a great job for the community and the sport. Maybe you'd like to begin.

Ms. Lois Kalchman (Individual Presentation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ladies and gentlemen, as a parent and a volunteer, I have spent hours with our four children in the gym, on the field, at the pools, and of course in the arenas. Professionally, I have been writing on amateur hockey for more than 20 years for the Toronto Star, plus other publications, and thereby understand the inner machinations of the complex world of hockey.

I wrote Safety on Ice in 1979, which was later published in the United States as Safe Hockey. I served on the Ontario Hockey Council, on both the parent and player education committees, and the fair play commission. I'm an original member of the Committee for the Prevention of Spinal Cord Injuries due to Hockey, which has evolved into Think First, Canada, and I am a founding member of the Dr. Tom Pashby Sports Safety Fund.

Most people recognize that hockey is a subculture within Canada that embraces the very soul of our nation. We must also nurture it as a commodity that has a major impact on our economy. Keep hockey healthy and Canadians will continue to reap the benefits. In many locales, the arena is the heart of the community. Books have been written, plays staged, films and documentaries produced. People sat up in the middle of the night to watch Team Canada play at the winter Olympics in Nagano. That's how important this sport is to our country.

Amateur hockey is a serious business and I assume that's why we're here. If you haven't taken the time to read the story of the detectives stalking young players to confirm where they live, take a moment and glance at the headlines of a real-life drama to determine just how serious it is around Toronto and other places.

• 0915

I did supply you with this article. It was about hiring private detectives to see where the young players lived, and I thought that would indicate to you just how serious people are.

It is difficult for most parents to understand that to play hockey is a privilege in this country—it's private—and not a government-run right. Time and again, the courts have ruled that hockey is private, but whenever there's an outcry for whatever political reason, the first thing the parents do is telephone their members of Parliament or their MPPs, so you may as well jump on board and know what this is all about.

Without volunteers, every amateur sport in this country dies. Sheldon Lanchbery of the Canadian Hockey Association says there are 4.2 million people involved at the Canadian Hockey Association level.

Over half a million are registered with the sport governing body, and there are an equal amount outside the sport governing body. That does not include steadily growing adult recreational and industrial hockey. Ontario and Quebec are the biggest shareholders, with the former accounting for nearly 40% of all players and Quebec not too far behind.

Clearly the government cannot afford to take over hockey and pay all the dedicated volunteers.

There is a very big economic impact. Amateur hockey generates hundreds of millions of dollars that help to drive the Canadian economy. Individual teams of youngsters raise as much as $50,000 or $60,000 for overseas trips and tournaments, but it's a tough grind and will become more difficult with legalized gambling spreading throughout this country.

There has to be an incentive program to entice more corporations to give sponsorships and to allow the small businessmen or private citizens without the tax breaks of big companies to have tax relief for their donations.

As a parent chauffeuring our four children to their various activities, I clocked over a hundred miles a night. Think about that: gas for the cars; hockey equipment; ice rentals; tournaments; snacks; hotels; motels, and the whole hospitality and travel industry, just to start. Think about printing volumes of rules, regulations, and how-to pamphlets and booklets, and don't forget the coaching and training certifications. Think about fax machines, computers, telephones, and other business equipment. Think about jobs, because that's where it's at. We consume a lot. There are 2,500 minor hockey teams in this country.

Think about cost. Twenty years ago, for one calendar year, I actually recorded every dollar spent on our three sons playing hockey. The total was $1,550, just over $500 per player.

During that research, the books of hockey organizations within Metro were examined, and in consultation with an accountant, the result shown was that minor hockey was turning over $50 million—in 1977-78 dollars—in Toronto alone. Metropolitan Toronto Hockey League president, Mr. Gardner estimates that figure at somewhere around $240 million today.

The Metropolitan Toronto Hockey League had 483 teams registered last season, not counting the house leagues in its jurisdiction nor any other type of hockey such as major junior, junior or senior. It costs approximately $20,000 to run a top-level competitive minor hockey team at the top level of competition for one year, while a junior hockey team, below the major junior category, can run around $50,000 and up to $100,000. I was told yesterday that in western Canada there are some that spend up to a $1 million—and that's not major junior; that's below that.

With respect to major junior, while some argue major junior is not purely amateur, it is still the pinnacle of the pyramid of the Canadian system. The Ontario Hockey League, the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League, and the Western Hockey League comprise the Canadian hockey league overseeing that level of hockey.

The amount of money tied up in just this 53-team level alone is mind-boggling. St. Michael's Majors, Mississauga Ice Dogs, and Brampton Battalion—those are three clubs of which Mr. Mills is well aware—paid $1.5 million for a franchise in the Ontario Hockey League during the past two years, and I don't think you got a puck with that. To buy an expansion franchise in that same twenty-team league today would cost $2 million. It is estimated that the average annual budget per team is $900,000 a year in the OHL.

• 0920

In the fifteen-team Quebec league, the franchise fee is $850,000. They estimate that each has operating costs at $750,000 per year.

A new franchise in the Western Hockey League is expected to bring a price tag of $1 million. It's $750,000 at this moment, but the commissioner has told me it will be $1 million the next time. Currently, a WHL, Western Hockey League team averages expenses of $1.2 million per season.

If you were to buy an existing club, the rule of thumb is each of the major junior teams would be worth double the cost of a new franchise.

These are the latest figures. During the 1997-98 season, a record high of 5,712,284 fans watched major junior hockey. Admittedly, four of the teams are in the U.S.A., but their money is in Canada. We have to treasure that. We have to nurture it.

Let's take a look at women's hockey. In 1980, the Ontario Women's Hockey Association had 107 teams registered. Presently—this is 18 years later—it is ten times the size, with 1,080 teams playing during this past season. Today, women on the Canadian Olympic team have agents managing their endorsements.

Private industry does not do things out of the goodness of its heart. It has to fit its bottom line. Parmalat Canada—Beatrice Foods—the world's largest dairy, is investing $500,000 in women's hockey over the next five years. They are the first corporation to put an appreciable amount of money into one team. Everyone in hockey sat up and took notice. Their commitment is for the development of girls' hockey in elementary and high schools, plus sponsorships for five tournaments. They are also giving $25,000 to a senior AAA team in Ontario for the next five years.

Women want more equity when it comes to renting prime-time ice. In Minnesota, it has been legislated that female hockey gets the same amount of prime-time ice as men's hockey. There are close to 30,000 women who play hockey in Canada, and some feel they are considered just an addendum to male hockey. Ideally, there would be a parallel structure. Realistically, the female council should be protected and enhanced as needed in the situation it's in now. That may mean helping them financially to some degree.

Now we come to hockey politics. The mere thought of private detectives lurking in front of players' homes in one of the richest communities in our country seems outrageous to those outside the sport. In hockey, no one disciplined the group of people who did it. That was Oakville, and it seemed that nobody cared.

I envision a corps of federally funded ombudspersons set up across the country. The terms of reference could be designated to all sport, but at this moment we are talking just about hockey.

Hockey administrators are overworked, particularly in mid-season, when they are needed the most. The phone calls I get are from frustrated, angry people who say their calls are not returned or letters go unanswered. Granted, some parents have their own agendas, but they are often flushed out. Others suggest there is discrimination, and in some cases we can't really argue with them. What most cannot understand is who makes the rules and how come they think they own this child.

Hockey has no arm's-length people who understand the rules but are not involved somewhere in the system. There is a hierarchy for appeals, but it's very expensive—hundreds of dollars at each level. The final appeal to the Canadian Hockey Association is usually done only on a technicality; otherwise the final decision is at branch level.

In the Metropolitan Toronto Hockey League, a coach has the right to release a boy without question, but not vice versa. If the player wants a release, he must prove in the minds of an appeals committee composed entirely of hockey people that he has been aggrieved.

The Ontario Minor Hockey Association serves close to 100,000 youngsters. By their rules, there's very limited freedom of movement and parents feel they are being discriminated against. Some have gone to court to seek injunctions. In Ontario, an eight- or nine-year-old child actually needs a waiver to leave his community to go next door to play on another team.

• 0925

While the Ontario Hockey Federation, the branch of the Canadian Hockey League in Ontario, is in the process of loosening these strings, there are still knots in the system. Children have been denied waivers and have not been able to play because of the old guard, who are not flexible. Those are some of the reasons the hockey community needs an objective ombudsperson, which you could help supply. Remember, we have to nurture this sport.

As for development, there have been a multitude of studies conducted over the past 18 years with countless recommendations on how to improve hockey. I was going to bring some of these reports with me but they were so heavy I couldn't carry them. The documents all call for more practices and fewer games to improve the skills of our players, yet little has been done.

While huge corporations are premier sponsors of Canadian hockey, the lion's share doesn't always reach the grassroots. Big companies prefer the high-performance national teams, where the media focus gives the most exposure. There's always a throwaway to the kids, but it's never enough. Only the Esso Medals of Achievement for each team have reached all the grassroots across this country.

We have to give the small businessman or affluent parent on the team an equal opportunity. Hockey leagues and associations are non-profit organizations, but for some reason there are no tax receipts given for these donations. Have you thought about tax deductions for all donations or a tax credit for the dedicated volunteer?

Coaches, referees, and linesmen must go to the national coaching certification programs or national referees certification program, while trainers attend first aid classes, but for some reason there are no tax-deductible receipts either.

A level one or level two referee clinic only costs between $35 and $50, but a tax receipt would be a way of respecting these people who teach our children and spend time with them. It's small but appreciated.

There's another aspect here. Some of the lines for research grants are drying up. Spinal cord injuries were a problem in the 1980s. That seems to have eased or settled down these past couple of years.

However, we are becoming more aware of concussions in hockey. The New York Rangers' Pat LaFontaine, the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim's Paul Kariya, the Toronto Maple Leafs' Nick Kypreos, and the Lindros brothers, Brett and Eric—he's the captain of the Philadelphia Flyers—have all been victims of concussions.

On Coach's Corner, Don Cherry tossed out the theory that it's the visors that are causing a problem. Do you believe him? We won't know so long as there's no money to research these problems. We need to put aside money for medical research to examine the prevention, cause, and perhaps the solution to limiting the number of all injuries, and, more specifically, catastrophic injuries of the sport.

In 1981, for the fifth time in 13 months, a spinal cord injury in hockey resulted in a young man becoming quadriplegic. Everyone was frightened.

Some have been to court and have been awarded millions of dollars. There are people who suggest there should be a cap on how much the courts can award or at least a no-fault insurance clause included in our sport. This isn't limited to hockey. You have to look at soccer, rugby, and football.

Dr. Charles Tator, head of neurosurgery at the University of Toronto, and a group of interested parties, including myself, sat down 17 years ago, through volunteer efforts, to amass data on spinal cord injury through surveys of medical specialists across Canada. At the time, we did have some resources through the Toronto hospital. They were professional help, but with cutbacks in health care, those who helped have now all been let go.

The Canadian Hockey League cooperated, and so did the Pashby fund, and some money was given to help with the survey and mailings, but again, there is little funding out there to assist these volunteers.

A permanent sport research grant service to help finance legitimate medical research toward prevention through awareness needs to be established.

It wasn't so long ago that Wintario came in—at least it doesn't seem long in my memory—and we thought of it as a wonderful windfall. That's all been tightened back. I believe we now have to spend money to make money and create jobs. We have a ready market to buy.

• 0930

Resurrect Loto Canada to help amateur sport across the board. The criteria could be set so as to mesh with regional or provincial grants. If Canada is awarded either the summer or winter Olympic games in the future, the lottery will already be in place.

Before I give you my final recommendations, I'll say that the Canadian people are watching you, the members of Parliament, right now. They all feel you must address two other issues.

One is abuse in hockey. I know that's cultural and you say that's not in your mandate, but you're here and you have power. You could help the CHA in some way by giving out some of these or helping to promote it. It's the Speak Out program, in French and English. All these booklets are available to everybody across this country. This had to do with the Sheldon Kennedy case, in which Graham James was found guilty of molesting him.

This is a problem in all sport, not just hockey. Hockey has been a leader in this, and they deserve some help with it. It's costing a lot of money to produce all these things.

I could give you pamphlets. You can get them from the CHA. But you should know about them.

The other is violence. I believe at St. Michael's.... I don't mean to pick on St. Michael's, but they did come out with a non-fighting attitude recently. They believe there should be no fighting. In junior hockey, that would be the place to start, because that's what we watch. More than 5 million people come into their arenas this year. I think you should consider that as well, because that is important.

In summation, I'll give you my recommendations.

First of all, I think there should be tax credits for volunteers based on their per-month or per-year involvement. So the person who is registered with the Metropolitan Toronto Hockey League, when he returns his card at the end of the year, should get a tax receipt or credit.

Second, there should be tax-deductible receipts or credits for the cost incurred to take coaching, officiating or first-aid courses for all amateur sport.

Third, have an incentive program, such as a tax deduction or credit, for all donations to encourage more private persons and enterprise to invest in amateur sport programs.

Fourth, establish a research fund that would be available for projects into the cause, effect, and prevention of all injuries in sport, particularly catastrophic ones.

Fifth, resurrect Loto Canada. With machine gambling becoming more prevalent as a way to offset tax hikes, it will become more difficult for minor sport to raise the money necessary to support their needs.

Sixth, make sure an ongoing female council exists within the Canadian hockey structure. Don't ever let that fall away. It seems that women's hockey disappears when wars come out. I guess we keep the home fires burning. I'm not sure.

Seventh, have ongoing public service announcements to tell people about tax credits or deductions available to encourage them to support amateur sport. They can also be used for more Speak Out notices or anything that could help the public.

Last but not least, set up a federally funded ombudsperson office in each province or branch. The reason I said “province or branch” is that Ontario has three branches, while all the other provinces have one. Then there's the Northwest Territories.

The man or woman should be at arm's length from hockey. The person must have a working knowledge and respect of the system and rules that apply within the various areas. That office would objectively embrace the non-hockey and more human aspect of the game.

I thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms. Kalchman. That was very good.

We will now move to Mr. Gardner. After Mr. Gardner, we will go to questions.

Mr. John Gardner (President, Metropolitan Toronto Hockey League): My thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Listening to your preliminary comments, I guess basically what I'm going to try to do here is ask the question: where do we want to go in sport in this particular area of hockey, and how can we get there? At the end of the day, I don't have to tell you that the formula certainly involves economics. So if you'll just bear with me for a moment, I'll lead into that direction.

If there is one thing that most Canadians do not need, it's a basic history lesson on hockey. Therefore, I will not use your valuable time for an historical background on a sport that's accepted by most as a proud and inbred segment of our culture.

• 0935

At the youth and amateur level, it's a sport whose season operates six to seven months a year. At the professional level, the season lasts seven and a half months, or nearly three-quarters of the year.

As the volunteer president of what is accepted as the largest single amateur hockey league of its type today, consisting of some 50,000 youths in the greater Toronto region, and because of our capacity of possibly being able to read trends sooner due to the compactness of our geographic jurisdiction, I would like to take these few minutes and briefly share with you a projection as to the concerns that are being expressed today about hockey, especially and more recently in the media.

Our concerns were not initiated yesterday but have been expressed for the past eight to ten years, without much attention by any level of government. Shades of horror, I expect that we may be suffering from what some might consider to be identified as post-Nagano syndrome.

The Nagano Olympics was a time when Canada, with an assembly of top Canadian professional hockey players, was to hopefully regain its rightful supremacy in the hockey world. With no disrespect to these top Canadian professionals, who tried their best at the winter Olympics, somehow, the words “rightful” and “supremacy” were not to be. Interestingly enough, the medal honours all went to overseas nations. Possibly this in itself is the reason we should not be ashamed but learning and asking why.

Why has Canada's game at the professional level in 40 years dropped nearly the same numerical percentage in terms of Canadian content? As a proud Canadian who has had time to view the sport from the bottom or grassroots rather than from the top looking down, I'm not proud to tell you that we should not be surprised to see the Canadian content in the National Hockey League diminish to 50% over the next five to six years if our sport does not take some corrective measures almost immediately.

In terms of dealing with the hockey world at both the professional and amateur levels, it's not that we are doing it wrong, but possibly that others are doing it better. Imagine the thought of our Canadian game having been done better by others.

As in nature, a tree will only survive and flourish if the roots are kept healthy. The hockey tree in Canada is only going to flourish and get better if we tend to the roots first. I could likely speak or debate on this topic for hours, but in these few minutes, let me offer what are possibly three of the major components that should be addressed in your study of our national sport, especially at the grassroots or youth level, which consists of more than 80% of the total participation per day in Canada of the sport.

The major components are social, development, and economic. The social values should be well known, but may, from governmental levels, be taken for granted. Few youths who participate in amateur hockey at any level of competition are unhealthy in terms of physical fitness. They constitute part of that 25% of Canadian children who are physically fit. In addition, juvenile delinquency is minuscule. Why? Possibly because in addition to enjoying the skating, the camaraderie, etc., these youths have something to do for at least six months a year.

Consider player development and development of the sport itself in Canada. It's not that we're not doing it right; it's that we're not doing enough of it. Can we collectively do better for hockey in Canada? Yes, of course we can. But here's where the sport needs help from all levels of government, and much of any progress to be made is mainly dependent on resources—financial, of course—and facilities.

We cannot make it better without the ingredients, and we might as well tie development to the issue of economics. European hockey nations—remember the Olympic medal winners—are able to provide their youth with two, three, and in some cases four practices for every game, whereas there's a general “one practice, one game” ratio in Canada.

Canadian youth in hockey are every bit as good, if not superior, to their counterparts elsewhere in the world of hockey. But at the same time, please recognize that most students are going to do better in terms of development if they receive two, three, or four times as much teaching or training. Olympic- or international-size ice facilities, which are wider, enhance greater player skills. I'm prepared to debate this topic until the sun disappears.

Whether we want to tackle the issue of increasing training time or having wider rinks, unfortunately the solution is one mainly of economics. Much of our international competition receives help from their governments. If the municipalities in Scandinavia can't afford to build a new arena alone, parents and local politicians are offered 50-50 or dollar-for-dollar matching, if you will, to make it happen. And the stories or facts continue.

• 0940

I've prepared a brief summary for you, based on the economic impact of amateur hockey in Ontario. Some of these figures were derived through the Hockey Development Centre of Ontario, of which I hold another volunteer position of secretary. But the figures are, in some instances, two years old and in many cases are deemed to be minimum and not maximum amounts. In reality, the total input of amateur hockey in Canada today most assuredly has reached or exceeds $1 billion a year. Please make sure or understand that these represent expenditures, not revenue.

So we're still positive about the sport we love, but unfortunately, hockey has become a part of our society where, especially with regard to the youth, too often the rule has now become, if you can't pay, you can't play. Is it ceasing to become a Canadian right?

As I conclude my comments, I'm not about to tell the Canadian government or this committee what it should do but anxiously await your committee's report, as I'm sure do many other people in sport, and especially hockey, with the recommendations or what might be done to help lift this great Canadian sport of hockey from a static position back into a direction of greater development and achievement.

Can some of the GST be returned to the grassroots of the respective sports from which it is paid? Can not-for-profit sports clubs or organizations provide potential corporate sponsors for the same tax deduction receipts as charities?

We look forward to your final report, and especially as it relates to our national sport, and request that you give the needs I have touched on today your urgent attention before thousands of Canadian volunteers upon which the sport depends walk away from burnout.

Thank you again for giving me time to make this presentation, and as I say, you will receive, if you haven't already, a copy of the minimum expense charts we've calculated here.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Gardner.

Mr. Coderre.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): I will start with a question for Mrs. Kalchman. First of all, to give you some idea of what I have in mind, I would like to know if you believe that the aim of amateur hockey is to turn young players eventually into professional athletes?

[English]

Ms. Lois Kalchman: No, I do not. I think the purpose of amateur hockey is to have a place where children can go and enjoy the camaraderie of other Canadian children and learn something about being on a team and working as a team, whether it be in the arena or in the workplace later in life.

I think we need only say one half of one percent ever get a cup of coffee in the National Hockey League. We really have to preserve the very bottom, the roots, and make them grow, because, you know, we're losing the number of Canadians in the National Hockey League. The balance is changing. We're down to 60% of the people.

In the United States, they're now hothousing their youngsters. Outside Detroit they have a place where they are developing their junior players, and that's what they're doing. They're hothousing them.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: That's why I asked the question. I'm also interested in hearing what Mr. Gardner has to say. In the past, young people identified with the stars of the game whom they idolized. These stars embodied a certain lifestyle and served as role models. Today, at the amateur level, at least in Quebec—you can let me know if it's the same in Ontario—the number of young people involved in amateur hockey is steadily declining.

• 0945

I've personally sponsored an atom hockey tournament in the north end of Montreal and it was a very popular event. There were many participants, but fewer than in years past. Fewer and fewer people are following amateur hockey.

Is there a connection between declining participation and the decline of the sport at the professional level? Is this the reason why fewer young people are playing the game and why people's enthusiasm for the sport has waned? Is Canadian sport heading south to the United States? Everyone knows that the style of game played in the United States is more aggressive than the kind played by old timers like Rocket Richard and even Guy Lafleur. I enjoy the Canadians. I could even talk about the Maple Leafs.

[English]

Sorry, but....

Mr. John Gardner: There's a chap by the name of Potvin who's struggling along.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Don't mention Gordie Howe.

Mr. John Gardner: I'll try to answer your question as best I can.

If Quebec is representing a decrease in amateur hockey participation, it has to be unique, because right now the country is expanding in virtually all aspects, even in Ontario.

What controls the extent to which youth can participate in hockey today is really the number of facilities. You can only put so many students in so many classrooms. You can only fit so many children into so many rinks.

While an awful lot of people thought things would level out and the participation in hockey would stabilize, I can remember one mistake I made several years ago. I predicted that when the GST was first initiated, it would likely cut hockey back by the equivalent amount of 7%. I was very wrong in that aspect. That particular year, growth in amateur hockey in Canada grew 7%. So we aren't always correct.

I think you also asked if I think amateur players should be directed to becoming professional players. I don't think that's how the system works.

I think, out of the volume, you keep a proper balance between what the Canadian Hockey Association calls elite streaming and your grassroots hockey, that you don't let one overtake the other. You certainly don't want to let elitism take over the grassroots. But in this balance, it's like anything else. I guess it's like natural milk. If it's handled properly and nurtured properly, the cream will automatically rise to the top, and those are the young people who can go on to major junior hockey and to professional hockey.

That's really how the system has worked in the past and how it should work in the future in terms of it being a natural process. But we've had so many things interfere with that old-style developmental process, such as cost, facilities, and everything now that it has become very difficult to answer your question beyond that.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: A study has been done in Quebec. It is clear that there are two schools of thought on the subject. Is hockey an extremely competitive sport and if so, should we focus our attention on elite players? Or should hockey be a mass participation sport?

Again, let me relate to you something that happened in my riding. There are our nine parishes in my riding and at one time, each parish had its own club. Things have changed. Now we have an inter-city league, and double C has become double A or triple A. Many young players are unable to participate in the game. Quite often, the parents who come to the arena are more competitive than the young players themselves. The overall impression is that the sport has declined.

Wouldn't you agree that hockey is in a sorry state today? We have the arenas and the facilities that we need. That's not the problem. The problem is that these arenas are sitting empty. To what can we attribute this situation? Is it strictly a Quebec problem?

[English]

What's the problem? Why do we have the feeling right now that youth are not interested in hockey any more?

Ms. Lois Kalchman: Well, they are.

You talked about Atom hockey as having less interest. I believe, and I may stand corrected, a few years ago the Québec Ice Hockey Federation put most of the younger age groups into the school system. Did they not, John?

Mr. John Gardner: Yes.

Ms. Lois Kalchman: Because of that, it's a different milieu than it was at the time. It's different from Ontario, where there's very little in the school system, in public school. There is some, but not as it is in Quebec, where they take it and print it as part of their program.

• 0950

When you talk about parents at the rink, quite a few years ago in Quebec they banned parents from arenas for a while. It didn't work very well because parents have to take their kids anyway. They thought they would reduce the violence and leave the parents out of it, and of course it ended up that they had to let them back in.

But I do believe that because the schools are doing it, it becomes part of the school system and not part of the hockey system per se, as you may remember it.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: That's why I'm asking all of these questions, Mr. Chairman. Basically, if we want to know what role the federal government should play in our national sport, we must first understand the present state of our national sport.

There are those who will say that these things go in cycles. However, if we look at junior hockey and the NHL draft and even at the players themselves, for example those in Quebec, we see that more and more towns have a junior hockey team, but despite this, the impression persists that, perhaps because of the parity issue, the sport is in a state of decline.

Could the reason be that we are not giving our hockey teams enough training? Are we failing to provide sufficient leadership in the sport or is it simply that people have lost interest in hockey?

[English]

Mr. John Gardner: I'd make one comment, which is that the volunteers are burning out. You'll see a lot of the same people. I hate to think I'm old, but for 20 years I've been volunteering in a position. I keep the perception of it as a hobby. That way you don't get carried away with anything other than to enjoy it.

I think you have two things to confront. One is volunteer burnout. The other is—and I mentioned elitism with hockey before—that sometimes it gets out of balance. When you increase the higher grade junior teams in the same community or duplicate them, you're still drawing on the same marketplace. So what used to be special or part of a pinnacle to achieve is now readily achievable to more.

Maybe it doesn't have that same magnetism or draw for young people that it had before. I think too that the majority of our young students today in Canada are a lot smarter than our counterparts were 20 years ago. It's a whole new world out there, with the computers, the techniques, the instant communications. Parents used to be able to go to the general manager or the president of a club to get an answer. Those days are gone. They can't wait until that person gets home today. They have to pick up the phone and call somebody instantly.

The whole environmental system we're in has changed. I'm surprised to hear about the empty arenas in Quebec. If they have become empty, I would suggest they've become empty in the last half a dozen years, since, as Ms. Kalchman has said, a certain degree of the venue has been turned over to the schools from the volunteers. We should take a lesson from it, not be ashamed of it. There's an awful lot to say in favour of the club system today, because it's voluntary and it's there to support a specific rationale and a specific purpose, as against incorporating it with the poor teachers who are worked to the bone anyway and are asked to take this on as an additional responsibility.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Chairman, I have one final question. In your opinion, if volunteers received tax credits, would this promote volunteerism?

[English]

Mr. John Gardner: I don't think it's the single answer. It certainly would be an incentive, because volunteers in hockey today—and maybe in a lot of other sports—are likely to be at the youth level the most unrecognized volunteers there are. The only way the sport will likely continue if something isn't done is they'll be replaced by professionals, and that will be an interesting scenario. It could be headed in that direction.

I think if you combine this type of situation with a scenario whereby—and I don't propose to tell the government what it should do, but I would suggest that certainly a good start would be in providing incentives by allowing corporate donations to not-for-profit clubs. Most of them are not charities, so they could receive the same tax relief a charitable deduction receipt would offer. I think there has to be a scenario whereby there's some financial relief, but maybe built in with some incentives to look at the recreational needs.

My gosh, we've known for years that our society was going to have a shorter work week. We knew our society was gradually going to become more recreation-oriented, and yet there has not been that much done at the municipal level to provide for these recreational needs. I suggest we're just seeing the tip of the iceberg right now in terms of the need, especially for the youth.

• 0955

The Chairman: That's a very good insight.

We now move from Mr. Coderre to Mr. O'Brien.

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

Thank you both very much for your presentations.

I have quite a few thoughts and questions, Mr. Chair, so I guess I'll start right in, but there certainly have been some interesting perspectives and information given to us today.

As I listen to this, it seems to me that the key question is what is the role of government at all levels in sport in this country, both amateur and professional. Of course, with the special place hockey has in the country, I think obviously you can direct it just to hockey, but as an educator I can tell you that a lot of the issues are not specific only to hockey.

Having served at the municipal level for a number of years before coming here, I know there's confusion. There's confusion on what is the role of the municipal council, what's the role of the province of Ontario, what's the role of the federal government.

Let's talk strictly about hockey right now. Ms. Kalchman talked about the ice-time equitability issue, and that certainly is an important issue. It seems to me that if all the taxpayers in my city of London, Ontario, or yours of greater Metro Toronto, are paying taxes, then it ought to be pretty simple. There ought to be equal ice time for boys and girls in public facilities. I know there isn't, and in London, Ontario, we're dealing with that right now in terms of the scheduling of ice time at the public arenas.

My question around that whole issue is this. Do you not agree that there is mass confusion about what is the role of the government? What can we do to clarify some of that confusion?

Ms. Lois Kalchman: As I said in my presentation, people have the perception that it is a right, that it's government-run and the government can step in and make things happen. The minute something goes wrong, they call you. The London Devilettes have probably called you at some point and said, we can't get ice for the tournament we're putting on because the guys are in there—that type of thing.

I think the only place you can help is in a supportive role, such as Loto Canada or tax relief. You can't run it. You can't afford to pay the John Gardners of the world or the people who run hockey in other places, because there are just too many people. You would break yourselves trying to cover it, and then they would have a responsibility back to you. I do see the government being able to step in and perhaps do some hothousing ourselves.

We've tried it at the centre of excellence to some degree, but it seems to be a shotgun approach and we don't seem to be able to focus on what it should or should not be, in terms of what we're trying to develop, how we're trying to get the best 15-, 16-, and 17-year-olds to come out and be in that program so that they will develop and mature and become our national team. We don't have a focus on that.

I remember years ago they were talking about putting a sports school up in Oakville. This was when we were involved with gymnastics and diving and hockey and all sorts of things. We've never done that. It seems to happen after every international meet. This was after the Olympics when the Germans, Kornelia Ender and all those.... We said, hey, we have to do something. But we never do. We sit back and say no. Now the United States has gone ahead. They've won the gold in the women's hockey. We won't talk about their performance at Nagano. But it has been proven that they will take the money and make it work, and we aren't willing to do that.

There are certainly a lot of Canadians out there who want hockey to succeed. They seem to have it in their own egos that this is important to us. That was my purpose in putting in the story on stalking: to see how serious people actually become.

• 1000

Mr. John Gardner: I'd just like to add one thing here. Your question was, what do we see as Canada's role in hockey, or in this case the government's role?

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Just to clarify the fact that I think there's mass confusion. Somebody called Dennis Mills, or me, because the kid isn't getting ice time. If it's a public facility, go to your city councillor, not your member of Parliament. If it's a private facility, I frankly don't think you have an argument, and there are private ice facilities in our city.

Mr. John Gardner: Your question about Canada's role and the government's role in hockey could be best answered—and I don't usually provide answers this way—by asking another question of people like you, who will be in a better position to answer. What is Canada's role in the Olympics? There's obviously a role there. They carry the Canadian emblem. They carry the Canadian design. There's great political support of all types for Canada's role in the Olympics. I would suggest to you hockey is almost deserving of the same type of involvement. I would say likely you'd find out the same type of involvement would benefit all sports, but especially a sport that....

You have to look at the sport itself. It has slipped a little bit behind soccer, I'm told, in terms of registrations. That's totally understandable when you consider you have a limited number of facilities, as against an unlimited number of fields with grass on them, and the economics of the situation. I don't think there's any other sport in Canada, let alone possibly in North America, that singularly has an expenditure base of $1 billion. I don't care if that's Canadian or U.S.; it's still an awful lot of money.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Yes, that's right.

Mr. John Gardner: But the government has to, I think, collectively work with us. You'll notice I didn't say the government has to do this or the government has to do that. Yes, the money is needed in some direction, but that's where we have to work collectively on determining an answer. If I had an idea to provide hockey or sport for the grassroots, I'd treat that in one area. In the other area, I'd deal with elitism but keep it under control, because elitism itself is getting out of hand in some strains.

I'd love to do a pilot project and have a facility for the budding amateur athlete who has also extremely good academic qualifications, and try it in a scenario where they're allowed to be given the opportunity to become the best at the amateur level. Beyond that, if they should go into professional sport or on to some other venue, that's fine, but at least they've made a productive contribution, not only to the sport but to our culture.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Thank you. I appreciate those answers.

When I'm talking about the role of government—and I believe there's a lot of confusion about the role of governments at all three levels, or two levels and the municipality—yes, there's funding and there are building facilities, but I'm talking about the jurisdiction. The Canadian government has very little jurisdiction with a minor hockey league in London, Ontario or in Toronto. The Canadian government doesn't.

So there's a misperception out there, and Lois sort of touched on it. If there's a problem, the government has to solve it jurisdictionally. That's what I'm talking about.

We need to clarify that quite a bit, the issue of funding but also just what is the proper role of government in sport, and in particular in trying to promote hockey.

My colleague, Mr. Coderre, talked about whether it's participation or elite that we should go. We talked about whether it's school or club that we should go. Having been involved in all four of those, I say both.

It's just like a school program in any high school you would name. There's a role for your intramural program. There's certainly a role for your elite athletes. There's a role for your junior A stars, but there's a role for house league hockey at the local community as well.

So we have to keep the base wide but still allow the more gifted athletes to move up to the elite level all the way to professional. We have to encourage all of it. We don't have to make choices between this or that; we have to try to encourage all of it and support it through funding and through jurisdiction.

On that, I want to go to your point on tax credit for volunteers. I totally support it as long as it's not limited to sport. My background is sport, but I want to see my neighbours who take Meals on Wheels get the same tax credit.

Ms. Lois Kalchman: Oh, yes.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: I'm assuming you do. I just, for the record, want to make sure you're not singling out just sport.

Ms. Lois Kalchman: No, but we were told to speak on sport.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: No, no, and fair enough. That's what we're here about, but I want to widen the context to say that—

• 1005

Ms. Lois Kalchman: The volunteer army in this country, and I'm not talking about the military army, is what makes it run.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Right. Absolutely.

Ms. Lois Kalchman: There is a lot that we depend upon, including even in the health care system and all sorts of things. It is absolutely important.

I just want to bring this up. If you can define the different roles of government, the PSAs are the place to come out and tell the people of Canada that you have a problem within your cities and to go to their municipal government. They really don't understand this—that hockey or sport is not a right, and that you can't just step in and fix it. I'm sure you've had those calls.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Yes, I totally agree with you on that. I think there is mass confusion and I think we need to do what we can. Although our focus is economics, it's not solely economics, I don't think. We need to think about how we can clarify for the public just what the role of government is.

I'm pleased to hear about and I support your idea of a tax credit for volunteers in sports, including hockey, but I wouldn't want to—and I'm pleased that you don't—see it limited to sports, because all those Meals on Wheels service club volunteers....

Ms. Lois Kalchman: There is something that scares me right now. I know it's prevalent in the States, where they pay their coaches. I've heard of one coach in Toronto, at least one, and not at the major junior level, but at minor level, where the parents are getting together and paying this person. As long as there's an inequitable situation like that around, there's going to be trouble, and more problems, and you'll get more phone calls about whatever it is, and so will I.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: I'll make one more point, Mr. Chairman, and then defer to my colleagues. Mr. Proud, I think, has some questions.

It's kind of an observation that bothers all of us, I think, who are Canadians and avid hockey fans, which I think is a lot of Canadians. Somebody said it: are we doing it wrong, or are others doing it better? Well, there's no question in my mind that others are now doing it better than we are.

The skill level of hockey in other countries is simply better than ours is, and that's unfortunate. I'm talking specifically of skating, of passing. All you have to do is watch any NHL game any night and see who the skilled players are. There are far fewer of them being called skilled players who are Canadians, and that's ridiculous, because our best skilled players are the best still. It's just that there are far fewer of them, and that's a problem that I think has to be addressed.

The irony of this, Mr. Chairman, is that it was a Canadian who taught the Russians to play hockey. It was a man named Lloyd Percival who went to Russia. All the theories he had on hockey that the NHL would not accept, which quite frankly he was right about—a simple thing like in the off-season hockey players should run.... I well remember some of my friends who went to the NHL and thought it was crazy. “What do you mean, run? You can't get in hockey shape running.” Lloyd Percival went and sold all these ideas to the Russians, and then in 1972 they just about bit us in the butt, figuratively speaking, and knocked us off, scared the heck out of us.

So I think others are doing it better at the skill level development, and I don't know what role government has to play in correcting that, but I sure hope we figure it out and correct it very soon.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

Did you want to make a comment, Mr. Gardner, on Mr. O'Brien's views there of how we've lost—

Mr. John Gardner: I see that he was extracting some of the comments I made. It appears that we're in agreement. None of us have the perfect solution. I'd like to think that the community of both government and volunteers could work in harmony. Unfortunately, sometimes that doesn't work.

In some communities they feel they own the sport; they own the players. I quote the direction of Mr. Justice David Watt of Ontario who once told us that nobody owns children, not even their parents.

There seem to be things holding the sport up, as if it is a possession. It is an an ego-satisfying situation—I might as well put the cards on the table. We have to get rid of that. No hockey organization, no school, no entity should feel they have the inherent right to own a sport.

I'm one of the people who feels, and I sometimes get myself in trouble about it—I believe in freedom of movement for Canadian kids just as much as I do for their adults. At the same time, I'm encouraged that 98% of them support and likely stay within their own community centres. But if the other 2% want to jump all over the country, let them do it. My God, their parents might be helping the economy of the local aviation company or something of this nature.

• 1010

At the end of the day, I think the sport itself has to smarten up. We have to shake some of the cobwebs off it. We're not in a state of decay, but we're certainly not making any great headway, because of this perceived ownership, because of the perception that egos are controlling the situation. Too many of the solutions being found in hockey today are being dictated to satisfy egos instead of satisfying the very kids we're supposed to be in the game for.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gardner. We will now move to Mr. Proud.

Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the two people for coming here today. Pretty well all of my questions have been touched on by my two colleagues.

I want to just say I come from the smallest part of the country, the smallest province, in fact, but hockey is very much alive and well in Prince Edward Island, I might let you know. We have our fair share of players who have gone on to the NHL and to other parts of the AHL.

The topic I'd like to zero in on, I guess, is this development of players. I've read that series that was in the Globe and Mail as to what we're doing and what we're not doing, and you people have just been touching on it a moment ago. This is the part of the game that concerns me a lot—why are we not doing what we should be doing to develop these players? Why can't we get the coaches and the trainers and the people to change the way we are doing things? How come we're letting the European countries take this game of ours away from us?

Mr. Coderre wondered in his opening remarks whether we should be teaching these players to become professional players or not. I don't know if that's the real thing of it. But I'll guarantee you—I had three sons who played hockey and I have two grandsons who play hockey, and when they stepped on that ice from six years old on up, they were going to be so-and-so in the NHL, whether it's Patrick Roy or whoever it is. That's who their idols are, and they strive in their own way to be that.

I guess what I'd like to see us look at seriously is, how do we give them more training sessions than we do games? My youngest grandson is only 12 years old, and I think he played as many games this year as lots of guys in the NHL played. This, according to statistics, isn't producing the NHL players the Europeans are producing.

We talk about government's role, and I don't know if government has a role in this business or not—probably in the tax end of it, we do have. But I think we're getting away from this, because I see these kids go every day to hockey and they have to play so many games. Then we have the triple As and the double As. They got so frustrated in one area that one father wanted his son to be on one of the elite teams that they made a double B. I don't think this is doing the children, the hockey players, be it men or women, that much good.

How do we get down to the basics of this game? How do we show the volunteers—and they are all volunteers—that they have to probably have three practices for every game?

When I was a kid growing up, the poor-kid sports were hockey and baseball. Now I say to my son, if you want to get your son into a cheap sport, put him in golf. I couldn't afford to go into golf when I was a kid, but now it's the cheapest sport to get into.

I wonder, how do we change this system to make our players better and give them more of this?

Mr. John Gardner: We can all start by taking the pressure off the system. It is a pressure system. I'd be less than honest if I didn't say, even being a proud supporter of the system, that it's taking its toll.

The pressure starts right from the top. Every time the National Hockey League expands—and I don't think it makes any difference whether it's the U.S. or Canada—and prior to that, when the WHA came into existence, there was a demand for more players. They had to come from someplace. So they dove deeper into the major junior ranks and the major junior ranks—it's a spillover effect—had to dig down to the tier two, and the tier two ranks dug into the minor ranks. The situation is so ridiculous.

Now, there may be some agreement or disagreement with what I'm about to say, but the situation is so out of whack right now that I have an awful lot of difficulty wondering how in some instances 14- and 15-year-old players, say the odd Lindros or Gretzky or something of that nature, of which there are no more than you can count on one hand—how these players can be brought into junior hockey. Our system is teaching them that if you aren't drafted by the National Hockey League by the time you're 18, you're washed up. I say this with no disrespect to the good scouts and agents, but we can thank the scouts and agents who aren't that good who go talking to parents of 12-year-olds about representing their kids. It's the pressure that's created on the system.

• 1015

To get back to the answer to your question, we have to say to parents, to educate parents, because sometimes they're the ones who are vulnerable: forget about this; hockey is not the be-all to end-all. It can be very beneficial if it's used properly, and if you want to afford more teaching and more enjoyment of the sport, slow down the pace. With the support of some level of government or corporate sponsor, you are able to develop more facilities in Canada where they are needed, because there's a terrific disproportion here, whereby the kids can have that two, three or four....

Amateur hockey is a thing that's expending. Very little is on revenue; it's all expenditure. Where are they going to come up with the money now? The mini casinos have stopped in Ontario. The fund-raising that used to be available for sports through, unfortunately, certain aspects of gambling has been cut off. A lot of them don't know where they're going to go. They'll come up with the money, but it will likely be as a result of sending the kids out on the streets again to sell chocolate bars or whatever other tickets.

As I say to my good friend from Quebec here, I have some very good hockey friends in Quebec. I was not aware that there was available ice, but....

Mr. Denis Coderre: I'll give you my card.

Mr. John Gardner: We may be into some trans-provincial trade here in order to provide, but I would hope that most kids don't have to travel too far from home to get that additional practice time.

To answer your question quickly, remove an awful lot of the pressure that shouldn't be there in the first place. We're all guilty of letting it happen, but somehow the system is not letting the ones that want to get rid of it get through to stop it.

The other thing is to expand the facilities for the youth, because the youth interest in recreation and ice sports—it could be figure skating, or hockey, or anything—is not going to diminish.

Mr. George Proud: For instance, in Prince Edward Island, I think we have 26 to 30 ice rinks for 135,000 people, and there's still not enough ice time, as you say, for the minor hockey, for the figure skating, for all of these things that are going on. We can't afford any more facilities. We went on a binge in the 1970s. I happened to be in charge of it, I guess, at the time. We built rinks in every community, artificial ice rinks. But now those ice rinks are full to capacity, and of course all through the week.

Mr. John Gardiner: I must protest, Mr. Chairman, because when I hear of that number of rinks for 135,000 people, I don't think I have to tell you that in the now new city of Toronto or Mississauga area we seem to think 46 rinks for almost 3 million people is great. I'd say we're suffering badly, that we should likely be seeing the elite coming out of the Island sooner than we expect.

Mr. George Proud: That's a fact of life and it's there. Of course, there are the critics who say we have too many, and I guess we do, but we went overboard in the 1970s with this stuff.

But we still get into this with the hockey system where we have all of these hockey games and I believe not enough training time for these young men and women. Women are getting into it in a big way down in that part of the country also.

Ms. Lois Kalchman: You have a very good women's program in place there.

I want to tell you that when we had the world championship a couple of Septembers ago, 11 of those members on the American team had played hockey somewhere in Canada in their junior or development years.

I was reading the amendments for the new CHA meeting coming up, and I see again we're trying to limit the number of players in our system who are non-North American.

I think we learn both ways. They said the Canadian Hockey League did not live up to their promise of going down to one player from outside North America, and they are trying to limit it so that our kids, Canadians, can have the lion's share.

But when you talk about development of players.... It was by accident that this piece of paper was in my briefcase. It had something to do with something else, but it's very apropos. This was written May 16, 1992. It was at the CHA meeting, and Murray Costello, president of the CHA, was talking. It says:

Costello talked about returning from the world championships. He spoke of players who “dance the way they do with the skills they have on the ice without fighting”. He then turned his attention back to the national television approach each night that sees, even at the Memorial Cup, “the kids with the talent in the game...being disallowed to express that talent”.

“It is time we spoke up”.... “We cannot wait any longer. When you see at the NHL level the way they threw a blanket on...Gretzky, the one player you would pay to see, and what happened to Mario Lemieux, it is not presenting the game in the way we want it presented. That type of action filters down.”

He noted that small players are being driven from the game before they show their skills.

“We have to protect those kids to stay in the game,” he said. “If we don't address this issue now we are simply not going to have any hockey players that can show any accomplishment at all because of the clutching, grabbing, holding and interference that [has] truly taken the game over to the point [it] is not a spectacle any longer.”

• 1020

That's where your development is and that's what they've been trying to do. I heard this in the 1970s after the 1972 series, and everybody did the same stories about the development and what was needed. The five-year program was put in place at the beginning of the 1980s.

There seems to be a disproportionate amount of time given to how much we criticize and how much we actually do. We have to act. We have to be proactive instead of sitting back and saying, “He will do it”. You have to do what you can do. It has to be defined clearly what each role is and how it can be implemented and used. There is no purpose to having committees or people looking into these problems if we don't act at least in some degree.

I'm sure you'll be able to come up with some sort of program that will incorporate some of the things you've heard from the various people who come, and that's important. But the importance is you implement them and not just sit on them.

I have, as I said, volumes of material at home.

Mr. George Proud: As for the ombudsman idea, what do you see as that person's role, other than, for instance, you mentioned that a coach can dismiss a player from the team, but the player can't get out himself? What other areas do you see in the provinces?

Ms. Lois Kalchman: There's a disparity in all sport with what goes on within the sport. We've been involved in diving, we've been involved in gymnastics—and I'm talking about elite levels—hockey, soccer, baseball, as parents too, watching our kids.

I see a role for all the sports within an ombudsperson's office that would have to be defined as you sat down and studied each set of problems that arises. When the people involved in the specific sport make rulings on people, they don't always consider what's going on in the psychological aspect. They say they do it for the better of the sport, for the good of the sport. But what about the good of that child? We have forgotten that individual child.

I see it as a last resort. I don't see it as an expensive thing, but I see it as an important thing, an important thing that says, “Yes, our government cares. We have an office where, if nothing else is satisfied through the governing bodies, we will listen or we have somebody who will listen and who has access to professionals and to things.” But they have to have authority. They have to be able to say, “This has to happen. Sorry, guys. Your sport will survive without this one child, but this child is being mentally or verbally abused.”

We used to laugh at the coach with the salty language. We'd say that's just him; this is macho; this is okay. Today they're calling it verbal abuse. The people at the head offices, some of them just know these guys, and they say, “We're their cronies. We know he's like that; that's okay.” It's not okay any more.

I watched a hearing at the Ontario Hockey Federation, and what did we get but lawyers who came out with the charter, and they read it. You know, it makes you sit back, look, and listen, because there aren't enough people who do that.

Mr. Gardner may disagree with me, but I get calls—a lot of calls—from people who would love to have an ombudsperson there who doesn't have to answer to just that sport; they have to answer to people and for caring.

• 1025

Mr. George Proud: To give you an example, if I might, a young man is a goaltender, and each hockey team has two goaltenders. It's fair ball, fair hockey.

Ms. Lois Kalchman: Right.

Mr. George Proud: The other goaltender also plays out. One goaltender is just a goaltender, so every second game he has to sit out, but this fellow plays every game. The goaltender who doesn't play complains about it, and the coach says, well, that's too bad, because if I get you mad at me, I've just got one, but if I get the other fellow mad at me, then I've got his father and his mother and everybody else. So this young goaltender quits hockey because of that.

Mr. Lois Kalchman: He should be found another place. He should be allowed to—

Mr. George Proud: Those are just things that I see an ombudsman—

Mr. John Gardner: Therein lies the solution to what you're talking about, though. You asked what an ombudsperson could do. Not just in hockey but in all sports, I would suggest to you that there are too many component parts that seem to think they're doing the best for the sport, and somehow the participants are getting left out of the equation.

One of the major things they can do is deregulate. Take out some of the regulations. Take out some of the restrictions. There are restrictions in sport today with regard to movement, as to whether it's one side of the street or the other, one rink or another, or what not, and you as an adult would feel that the charter of rights was not protecting you. But we let it happen to youth, and it's awfully difficult for us to sit back and say, well yes, we have this privilege as Canadians, but you don't as minors.

You know something? I think if we took a few simple steps—and it is simple—to correct some of those situations, you get a greater response out of youth, and you'd be surprised. The youth in sports today are smart, as I said before, and they will respond with participation and excitement and challenges, far more than you'd ever realize, if we'd accept the fact that they are not commodities; they are people.

Gentlemen and ladies, you can't go wrong. The bottom line is youth are good business. They are not a political liability, and as long as you're doing something for youth, we're all going to be winners.

The Chairman: Have you finished, George?

Mr. George Proud: Yes.

The Chairman: Mr. Gardner, I'd like to ask you a question that relates to the emphasis you put on more skill being developed.

You are the leader, as you described in your presentation today, of a billion-dollar business: minor hockey. I think it's the first time we've heard any number associated with the level of dollars being associated with amateur minor hockey in this country. That is an awful lot of influence, not just in terms of economics but also in terms of the number of people who are involved in your community, the minor hockey community.

One of the distractions for the skilled hockey player today, and Lois touched on it with the smaller player not having the chance at development, is this whole notion that fighting is a central part of hockey development today, right up to the National Hockey League level.

I declare, of course, that I'm associated with an organization, St. Michael's, that has taken a public position that next year our players will not be involved in frivolous fighting at the Canadian Hockey League level, but with the economic influence and with the numbers of people involved in your organization, I wonder if the Metropolitan Toronto Hockey League has ever taken a public position on this whole notion of fighting and whether you sort of tolerate it, whether you.... What is the MTHL's position in this area?

Mr. John Gardner: Fighting does not have to be a natural component of the sport. As to what our position is, sadly, I guess I might say that we are almost taking a leaf out of the professional book, where there is no clear definition, that it might be termed as acceptable, but that it's different from the standpoint that professional hockey is not a science. It's not a technique; it is a form of show business, which is a whole different scenario.

• 1030

We used to have as a league some of the most stringent rules in minor hockey in Canada, especially with regard to stick work, which we feel is the greatest ill in the sport, and maybe treating fighting as a secondary situation. By means of a very brief explanation, the players today are so well-equipped, if they're properly equipped, that virtually the only way you can hurt an opponent is by taking their helmet off, if it isn't fastened on properly, or by strangling your opponent.

The Chairman: If I understand you correctly then, you accept fighting as a part of the MTHL culture?

Mr. John Gardner: No, I do not accept fighting as part of the MTHL or any other part of hockey. I am saying that participants today, if they're properly equipped, are really wasting their time and potentially doing more damage to the expensive equipment than they are to each other.

I will tell you that I think there's a way that this country from the national level down could solve the fighting and the types of violations that cause injury. It would be good for professional hockey too, and it would put an end to some of these concerns where there are injuries that cause life-threatening or professional-threatening concussions.

Anybody today who violates a regulation of the sport and causes an injury to an opponent, either at the amateur or the professional level, should be required as a start to sit out a participation in sport as long as the person they injured takes to get better. Tell me that wouldn't wake an awful lot of people up, right at the professional level down—and that would be leadership.

Can we get our leaders in the amateur or professional level to do it? I don't know. I think it would certainly get everybody's attention, and it would get it back to being a realistic sport and a sport that's supposed to have some purpose and benefits.

The Chairman: I know you have a full page in the Toronto Star on a weekly basis, and maybe I've missed this, but have you ever discussed this issue of fighting or tried to get involved in the debate to see if the MTHL could not take a more proactive role?

If your premise is right that the skilled player is where we should be putting our emphasis, why wouldn't the MTHL take a more dramatic position with its league power and its economic influence to set a standard and get the Toronto media and others on side and influence the coaches and the management, etc.?

Let me put it to you in a different way. Do you feel that if you took such leadership it would have an adverse impact on your sponsorship dollars?

Mr. John Gardner: It might have an adverse effect within the hockey community. There are an awful lot of benefits to being part of the Metropolitan Toronto Hockey League, but like any other league it's no better or worse than others. We are more compact. We are able, because of that compactness, to keep our thumb on the pulse of changing trends. At the end of the day, it's symptomatic of life in general. People have the perception from other parts of Canada about Ontario. Ontarians have a perception about us as Hog Town, or a big city.

We are the largest media outlet in the country. If we were to make a dramatic change like that, it's not unheard of that we might be castigated within certain aspects of the hockey world at the amateur level for trying to show off or trying to do something that didn't have any purpose. People are very suspicious of things that come out of a large league like the Metropolitan Toronto Hockey League, which is different from an association.

In fact, I sometimes in the past have said, tongue in cheek, at hockey meetings that there are two things I get upset with. You sit down for an hour and a half talking about a sport and you don't mention the participants. That's point one. The other one is because you're from a large centre, it's almost better to take a totally different position knowing the people are going to vote against you to get what you wanted through in the first place.

Ms. Lois Kalchman: In regard to sitting out for the time you caused damage, in 1985 that was actually brought up at a Canadian Hockey Association meeting. I believe it was Quebec that suggested the length of time someone else is out.... They voted it down; they didn't want to do that. They suggested that in Vancouver. For some reason it just didn't fly.

The Chairman: I have one final question, and then I'll defer to colleagues before we adjourn.

You mentioned that soccer's participation was more to do with the fact that there were more fields around. You don't believe it has anything to do with the cost of hockey, for instance, in terms of rink cost and equipment cost, and parents in a city like Toronto not being able to afford it?

• 1035

Mr. John Gardner: It's 98% cheaper than hockey. Most soccer clubs today, for the amateur level and the youth, don't even buy the uniforms—the sweatshirts and the shorts—from the sporting goods store. The parents make them. All you need is to pay the umpire's fee and get a permit for the field. That's a heck of a lot different for an hour from, say, $3 a minute for hockey.

The Chairman: Fair enough.

George.

Mr. George Proud: I'd just like to go back for a moment to talking about the aspect of fighting. Of course where you have body contact, you're going to eventually have a fight somewhere down the road. You might be able to slow it down a bit. But do you think too probably one of the things is the larger ice surfaces, that they tend to do away with it more so than in the smaller, confined ones?

Mr. John Gardner: They certainly help, and I can give you perfect evidence of that. At Christmastime, during the winter vacation, we have quite a few, likely more than most people, teams of 12 and 13 years of age to, say, 15 and 16 years of age going overseas to play predominantly in Scandinavia, some in central Europe. It's rather interesting.

I've been over there, and by the second time, the players have adapted to the large ice. I'll tell you it is a thing of beauty to see these young Canadian kids, who you thought were playing pretty well in your own country, play even better. To emphasize the situation, at the end of two weeks, when they come home, the parents are standing there saying, “Tsk, tsk. My goodness, they must be jet-lagged. They're running into the boards.” Nothing happened other than somebody reduced the width of the ice by 15 feet.

Mr. George Proud: Thank you.

The Chairman: Ms. Kalchman and Mr. Gardner, thank you very much for appearing before us today. You've come forward with specific recommendations, great recommendations. As the months evolve, I'm sure you won't be surprised that you'll find some of your recommendations in our final report. Thank you very much for coming.

Mr. John Gardner: Thank you.

The Chairman: We're adjourned.