Debates of June 7th, 1999

Division No. 544

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Speaker]

We will take this vote in the same fashion as we took the last vote, with the mover of the motion being first to vote, in this case to my right. Then we will start with the fifth row and come forward.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 545

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

Supply

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

moved:

That, since the government ignored most of the recommendations by the Sub-Committee on the Study of Sport in Canada, a Sub-Committee of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, the House demand that the government place amateur athletes at the heart of its concerns and make a commitment to placing their interests before the interests of professional sport.

Mr. Speaker, before beginning, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Témiscamingue. This will be the case with all Bloc Quebecois members throughout the day.

I must first say that I am delighted to be able to debate amateur sport in this House today, and I trust that our debate will have the attentive ear of the other side of the House.

The Bloc Quebecois is introducing the following motion on its opposition day:

That, since the government ignored most of the recommendations by the Sub-Committee on the Study of Sport in Canada, a Sub-Committee of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, the House demand that the government place amateur athletes at the heart of its concerns and make a commitment to placing their interests before the interests of professional sport.

If hon. members find this motion long, I must point out that every word has a meaning and a reason to be there. I would even say that each problem I shall address today could easily have been a motion onto itself, for the problems to be addressed throughout this day by my colleagues are but the tip of the iceberg. In fact, my impression in researching this matter was that it was like opening Pandora's box. Members will, I am sure, get that same impression.

I would like hon. members to know before I go any further that I too was part of the wonderful world of amateur sport. Yes, I was a competitive figure skater. I loved the sport and dreamed of taking part in international competitions, but I had to make a choice. That choice was to give up skating because my parents and I could no longer afford the skates, the costumes and the coaching.

I focused on my studies and then went into politics. Some might say I am still skating, but around issues. On this one, I will say right out that I want nothing to do with the kind of society that does not encourage its athletes, that politicizes sport and prefers to subsidize professional sport to the detriment of amateur sport.

Do members know what is serious here? Nothing has changed in the past 15 years. Nothing. Since the Liberals were elected in 1993 transfer payments for amateur sport have dropped from $76 million to $57 million. We are far from an improvement. In fact, I would call it a backslide.

For a moment we could have believed that the Liberals wanted to redeem themselves when the matter of striking a subcommittee on amateur sport came up, but no.

In passing, I would like to congratulate my colleague, the member for Rimouski—Mitis, who worked very hard on this issue and is undoubtedly following the debate today.

Although the Bloc Quebecois participated in good faith on this subcommittee, we have always felt that it was just an excuse to support professional sport and ensure the visibility of the maple leaf. We are still wondering if it was not a way to include the member for Bourassa.

The facts would certainly seem to bear us out. It is now clear that the subcommittee's report accomplished nothing because the minister did not implement any of the recommendations that might have helped athletes.

Although we were promised that this report would be the answer to all the problems encountered by athletes, the government is giving professional sport the nod over amateur sport.

What a sad comment on society, at a time when life is not easy for these promising athletes. Every year they face the same financial constraints and must struggle to find the necessary resources. The government should do more for these athletes, who do us proud and who give us a window on the world. It should match the commitment of the private sector.

The assistance now provided by Sport Canada falls badly short. Additional funding for our athletes should be made available immediately. Athletes cannot wait for the 2001 symposium and the resultant visibility for the government and its flag. If professional sport is in urgent straits, amateur sport is even more so.

As recently as May 1, 1999 one of our very well known athletes, Jean-Luc Brassard, asked whether athletes would have to walk behind their sponsors' flags. This is not a good sign.

Despite all the remarkable achievements of our athletes, of whom we are proud and who deserve greater assistance, the Liberal government's record on sport is a disgrace and I denounce it.

Since the tabling of the Mills report I have had the opportunity to speak to our athletes. There are many financial problems and they must be dealt with immediately.

As I said before, the issue of funding is among the most serious issues. Ten minutes are not enough to list all the problems that exist in amateur sport, but I will try to give an overview of the situation.

Let us be very clear. I want everyone to clearly understand that the Bloc Quebecois is not opposed to professional sport. We just want to make sure that the interests of millionaires are not given priority over those of amateur sport.

I also want the government to clearly understand that before funding professional sport millionaires there are questions that need to be answered. We should first determine the exact costs involved, know the spinoffs for Quebecers and Canadians, and control skyrocketing salaries.

No independent study has yet shown the economic impact of a professional franchise, and no professional team has made a commitment to remain in its host city in exchange for taxpayers' support. There are still many unanswered questions regarding professional sport, and if I had more than 10 minutes I would mention many more.

Sport Canada only gives 8.3% of its financial resources to amateur athletes. Every study conclusively shows that athletes often live below the poverty line. Even the hon. member for Bourassa agrees with me on that issue. Coaches are not required to be bilingual and there is no training program to help them learn to speak French. Francophones are subject to serious discrimination. I could definitely use another 10 minutes.

There is a shift toward centres such as Calgary and Toronto. For example, the synchronized swimming federation transferred the team's training location to Toronto, in spite of the fact that the majority of its athletes are from Quebec.

Also, athletes cannot engage in politics; otherwise they could be expelled from the Canadian Olympic Association. They must, however, promote Canadian unity and prominently display the Canadian flag. If the athletes forget, the minister makes sure to take flags along with her and constantly reminds athletes that integration of Sport Canada with Canadian Heritage has focused attention on the contribution high level sport makes to Canadian pride and to national unity.

Amateur sport is so important to the minister that she rejects all measures that could really help athletes; such consistency, once again, from the minister.

Would hon. members like another example, just for the fun of it, since they are beyond counting? In her letter to the head of the committee, the minister wrote:

The committee has made a convincing demonstration of the necessity of solid assistance from the federal government to amateur sport.

Such a convincing demonstration that the minister is going to wait a while yet. She is not too sure. Stay tuned for further developments.

As I said, amateur sport is full of problems. Did hon. members know that there is no system to monitor the federations, and no assurance that taxpayers' money will be properly managed and our athletes respected?

I will give one example: the skaters Isabelle and Paul Duchesnay. They were forced to go to France to train and to compete for France, and now have had to go to Florida to teach figure skating because the Canadian skating federation refuses to allow them to coach here. And the government is doing nothing to resolve the situation.

When there are problems within a federation, athletes have to go elsewhere if they want to continue or have simply to give up. This simply makes no sense.

If I had more than 10 minutes I could also speak about another problem, that of francophone athletes who are often discouraged because they have to go elsewhere and learn English because national centres offer few services in French. As Sports Québec indicated to the Bélanger-Campeau Commission barely eight years ago:

Unilingual francophone athletes must overcome an additional obstacle in Canadian selections when they are unable to fully communicate in their own language with their trainers and those responsible for selection... They have less opportunity... because the majority of professionals and volunteers responsible for the selection and training of athletes are unilingual anglophones.

If I had more than 10 minutes I would also talk about the problems within the Canadian Olympic Association, but once again 10 minutes is not very long.

The third recommendation in the Mills report on the matter of funding for the drug program is another hot topic. Clearly, the minister's response to the Mills report is a vast disappointment.

What has to be understood is that there are problems in sports at the upper echelons, and the government was elected for everyone, not just for the millionaires contributing to election coffers.

The government must become a decisive player and correct things now. In this case, why not let Quebec have its own banner? Quebec could do sports as it understands them. We could manage our federations properly and really give priority to our athletes.

This is the sort of society I want. Who knows, perhaps Quebec might beat Canada at the Olympic Games.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, in this question and comment period I say to the member for Longueuil, a member from the Bloc Quebecois, that this motion is a great initiative.

As the chair of the House of Commons committee that tabled the report, it is only fair and proper for me to acknowledge on the floor of this House of Commons the fantastic contribution the member for Rimouski—Mitis made to the committee. The member, Suzanne Tremblay, was with us—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The hon. member surely knows that we do not name members in this House.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know what the rules are but I also know that my friend, the member for Rimouski—Mitis, is not with us today. She was unable to be here. I know her spirit and her heart are totally behind the work we are doing in the House of Commons today. She is caring and compassionate.

I must say the only problem I had with the member for Rimouski—Mitis was that I could never figure out why she was part of the Bloc. I sensed in her a real passion for young amateur athletes from coast to coast to coast. As we debate this report today I hope we in the House of Commons can do justice to all the good work she did on behalf of young people, amateur athletes, not just from the province of Quebec, but from every region of our country. I had to put those remarks on the floor of the House of Commons.

I also have to say that the government is passionately committed to amateur sport. When the Minister for Canadian Heritage responded some three weeks ago, she tabled a report wherein 53 of the 69 recommendations were accepted by the government. It is an unprecedented response.

The most important thing that should be put forward once and for all is that in the report “Sport in Canada: Leadership, Partnership and Accountability, Everybody's Business” there were 69 recommendations and 68 of them were dedicated to amateur sport. Only one recommendation dealt with the fact that we have small market professional teams which need to be dealt with in a serious and constructive way.

As we launch this unprecedented debate in the House of Commons, and I realize it is only questions and comments right now, let us make sure that our focus is on amateur sport. Let us not get sidetracked by the professionals. Let us not let the media sidetrack us.

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Madam Speaker, I in turn thank my colleague for his able participation on the committee. I think he made a substantial contribution to amateur sport. His heart was in the right place, and I do not fault him personally, but rather the government, and the response of the Minister of Canadian Heritage in particular.

I also wish to concur in the kind words addressed to my colleague, the member for Rimouski—Mitis. I am sure that she is here with us today in heart and in spirit.

I would like to tell my colleague, who mentioned 69 recommendations, 68 of them having to do with amateur sport, that I fully agree with him. I would like to ask him whether he finds it reassuring that his colleague, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, has rejected all of the amateur sport recommendations, or at least those that have a positive impact and would help athletes.

Right off the bat she approved the recommendation for professional sport, invested money and delegated the Minister of Industry—

[An hon. member]

That is not true.

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

—to meet with people in the sector. She wants to invest money, but does nothing for amateur sport.

I do not find this in the least reassuring, and I know that neither do the athletes of Quebec and of Canada. If the member wants to do something, I urge him to join the Bloc Quebecois, because he does indeed tend to think like us when he says that there has to be investment in amateur sport. He is welcome at any time.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in today's debate on amateur sport, in the wake of the report tabled by the Sub-Committee on the Study of Sport in Canada on the needs of amateur athletes.

I want to point out that sport is an integral part of our culture, both in Canada and in Quebec. Everyone has, at one time or another, taken up one or several sports, or closely followed family members or friends who were actively involved in sports. Every community has an arena, a gymnasium and other sport facilities.

In fact, economic spinoffs from sports are obvious in every community. Most municipalities have facilities that were built by people and that provided permanent work for others.

The problem right now is that a great deal of attention and energy are focused on what must be done to help professional sport. The Sub-Committee on the Study of Sport in Canada is no stranger to the problem. Even though most of the subcommittee's recommendations concern amateur sport, what got people's attention was the future of professional sport and some government members were quick to take a stand in that regard. Yet the future of professional sport is not so—

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Is was only one recommendation.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

—promising. It will never be what it once was. With the Americanization of professional sport, several of our professional sport clubs are being threatened, and it will be very hard to save some of them.

The positive effect of this is that our sports reports, of which there are many—one need only read a morning paper to be convinced of that—may give more attention to amateur sport in future.

As for sports broadcasts, some radio stations have five hours of phone-ins every day. Perhaps they would give more time to covering amateur sports. This would focus more attention on the unprecedented success stories.

I recently attended a boxing match. What goes on there can very easily happen in amateur sport. It is a very good illustration of how things are. A fighter's career can be over in a matter of seconds. An athlete may have spent his whole youth training, but a few moments of vulnerability can stop him from attaining his desired goal.

That said, there are other values to sport: team work, aiming for success, pushing one's limits, which can impact on our daily lives. Athletes devote a great deal of effort and energy to their passion, and the values stay with them for their entire lives, as they do with those of us who participated in various sports when we were young.

Do we give them enough support? I think not. A goodly number of our athletes lack financial support. Of course the best of them, that tiny minority of athletes who manage to win medals in amateur sport, or an international or Olympic medal, manage to gain sponsorship from a company like McDonald's. Yet few have sufficient sponsor support to be able to increase training time and perform at the level they would like.

The government also has a great deal of trouble monitoring Canadian amateur sport associations because its financial contribution is insufficient. The more room left for other financial partners—and partnerships are not a bad thing—the more the government plays a minor role and the less it can impose its views on choices and strategy decisions.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Despite what some whiners on the other side of the House are saying, I have heard a member of the Liberal Party, whom I will quote in a few minutes, say some really bad things about the Canadian Olympic Association with respect to the Calgary clique, which had some cleaning up to do. We certainly agree with that.

I have no doubt that members of the Liberal Party must also support the principle that the government must invest more if it wants to play a greater role, and I challenge Liberal members interested in amateur sport to tell me otherwise. I am not talking about the gang that looks after professional sports, but rather those interested in amateur sport.

Some things have to be settled: the language problems in Canadian federations, location problems and strategic choices. There is a strong pull from Calgary in amateur sport. They deprived Quebec of a number of sports facilities. They even sent athletes to train there when most of them were from Quebec.

There have been a lot of dubious decisions such as these, and I am not talking about the place French occupies in events. Even in events where they are trying to make a public show French is forgotten. Imagine what is going on in the wings.

There are places in the world that are more open to Quebec's having its own delegations at certain sporting events, and I would like to see Canada being more open. Would it not be just fine to see Canada and Quebec competing in the finals of an international hockey tournament? It would be extraordinary and something else.

When these same professionals were on strike and organized hockey tournaments before the start of the season, they established regional groups very different from our Canadian political groups. There was a team from Quebec, and it was great to see the game. It was also great for once to watch our professionals not play for money, because they were on strike at that point. The competition was really interesting.

The government should, among other things, increase its financial involvement with all the federations. There are currently a number of sport federations that are not even funded. How can they be expected to develop and to help athletes? There should be a review of all of them.

The selection of those federations that are currently getting help is highly questionable. Several need support but are not getting it. The government should quickly look at this issue. This was in fact one of the subcommittee's recommendations, but the government did not follow up on it.

I congratulate the hon. member for Longueuil for raising this issue today, as the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis did before. I hope this debate will at least have the effect of reviving the report of the Subcommittee on the Study of Sport in Canada, which had been shelved. When I say that it was shelved I am being positive. Indeed, for all I know, it may well have been thrown into the garbage. Let us hope for the best, that the government will dig it out and implement a number of recommendations included in it.

Many people are actively involved in amateur sport and are expecting positive developments and signals. At a time when professional sport is becoming less appealing to many people who enjoy watching sport, this is a good opportunity to promote amateur sport.

It is somewhat disconcerting to ordinary people to see professional sport millionaires sometimes drag their feet and not perform as well as expected.

Amateur athletes do not have that luxury. When we attend a baseball game we may see a player earning $4 million or $5 million performing poorly. An amateur athlete cannot afford not to turn in a good performance during a competition because, unless he meets the very high standards he needs to qualify, he may lose the little support he has from sponsors, as well as from the government. He cannot afford to make any mistakes if he wants to survive in his sport.

I have a much greater respect for amateur athletes than for some professional athletes. We are all proud of Gaétan Boucher, Myriam Bédard and Sylvie Fréchette. Canadians of whom we are proud include swimmers Alex Bauman and Victor Davis, who projected a positive image and did Quebec and Canada proud.

One danger is that the government will simply see this debate as an opportunity for political visibility. It would be just like the Minister of Canadian Heritage to want to tattoo a maple leaf on the best athletes' foreheads to make sure that Canada is visible at competitions.

That is not the goal. The goal is to support athletes. Instead of conducting propaganda campaigns, as she did with the flag, the minister should provide funding for the daily expenses of these people so that they have a decent income while they are training, so that their passion for what they do will not be fettered. Let us agree: what we need is not a flag campaign, not money for visibility, not money for the government, but money that will go to athletes. If we keep that as a goal we will be on the right track.

In conclusion, I would like to move an amendment to the main motion moved by the member for Longueuil. I move:

That the motion be amended by adding after the word “and” the following: “immediately”.

We are moving this amendment because we want action now, not commitments in principle saying that the government will study 50 or so proposals at some distant date. We want action now and that is why we are adding the word immediately to the main motion.

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague from Témiscamingue, who made a fine presentation.

However, with the little time he had at his disposal, I would have liked for him to speak more about the impact that Quebec having its own banner might have. Where did he get this idea and what would be the effect?

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

Only yesterday I was involved in public events. We were discussing various subjects of concern to people, who are increasingly interested in what happens internationally, whether it involves the economy, various subjects or different variables.

A number expressed the desire to see us on the international stage soon, whether it be in the Olympics or other events. It was not just the sovereignists saying so. There were federalists as well who would like to have Quebec with its own group, its own team in certain international competitions.

For example, this is already possible in the Francophonie games. But here again, we could have a debate on the selection of athletes, how it is done, whether the Canadian or the Quebec teams have precedence in the selection of the people taking part.

I would like to add one thing that I did not have time to develop in my remarks. We have extremely capable athletes. Where I come from we have Denise Julien, in badminton, who is a great athlete. At the moment, however, Canada sets its own standards for athletes going to the Olympic Games. In theory, it wants to send the people most likely to be among the best. While she is among the top 20 in the world, she may not be able to meet the standards Canada sets in order to go to the Olympic Games.

There is the whole business as well of elitism or of the visibility that the federal government is aiming for with its athletes. These are participatory sports, and our best athletes in Quebec and in Canada should be able to go. If Canada does not want to send them under its banner, it should let us send them under our own.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is very important that our listeners and viewers today understand that the motion on the floor of the House of Commons is essentially about amateur programs in Canada.

They would be a little confused if they did not understand that currently we have a Canada games system where each and every province goes to the games and has its own flag. That condition already exists for the Quebec teams, the Prince Edward Island teams and the Ontario teams. It is called the Canada Games.

It is very important to remind the Bloc Quebecois that there has never been a player from the province of Quebec, who put a Team Canada jersey on his or her body to represent Canada on the world stage, who has said that he or she did not think it was one of the greatest experiences in his or her life.

Let us not bastardize the great work we have done in the House of Commons, as the member from Rimouski has done in talking about amateur sport, by trying to bring in the notion of separatism for athletes. There is not an athlete who espouses that theory who has put on a Team Canada jersey.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I cannot help but smile at the hon. member's grandstanding.

First of all, we have all heard about the Canada Games. We were not talking about the Canada Games, but about Quebec having its own delegation. Of course, our athletes are in a difficult situation and I am not asking them their point of view. However, when athletes start wondering if they will have to wear their sponsors' trademarks at the next Olympic Games, there is indeed a problem with the level of funding for amateur sport and our athletes do not feel they are getting the support they need from the federal government that is sending them to compete at the international level.

Private corporations are making up for the lack of funding and commitment from the government and soon enough they will have our athletes covered with their trademarks from head to toe and defending their interests instead of those of the country these athletes should be representing.

The hon. member should reflect upon this and go after his own colleagues, who choose to close their eyes or to worry only about professional teams, without lifting a finger to help amateur sport. They have not done a single thing to help the people in amateur sport.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I find it regrettable that members of the Bloc are trying to get some credibility at our athletes' expense. Not only that, but we saw from their speeches that they do not have the depth, passion and credibility of the member for Rimouski—Mitis, whom we miss.

I have been working on this issue for two years. Contrary to those who are trying to score political points because they have yet to make a breakthrough in this House, I have met individually with each and every Canadian and Quebec federation, and when we are able to meet them all together, I challenge those members who are trying to score political points to find out who those people want as representatives.

Last week, I was at the general meeting of the Fédération du patinage de vitesse du Québec, which took place at the Auberge des Gouverneurs in Sainte-Foy. Some people there told me “Mr. Coderre, you don't want to get involved in flag flaps. You really work for athletes and we acknowledge the fact that your government has already given its support to 53 recommendations out of 69”. This is an important point.

While some members are trying to make political hay at the expense of professional sports, athletes will be judge and jury and will understand. The Bloc is taking a position against professional sport. One individual, by the name of Lucien Bouchard, got involved in the Expos situation. The first thing he said was “I will never invest in professional sport. I will never invest in Montreal's Expos. This is inhuman. This does not make sense”.

Several months later, the head office—I am not talking about the valets—said “Okay, we will give between $7 million and $8 million a year for 20 years”. Not a tax abatement but a direct contribution amounting to some $160 million, because the head office understood that professional sport is an industry which generates revenues of $300 million and represents 35,000 jobs.

I will stop talking about professional sport, because they have understood nothing.

The hon. member for Témiscamingue mentioned sports fans and open lines. However, when there is a serious problem in sport issues, do experienced sports columnists, people who gave their life for amateur sport or for sports in general, ask themselves “What will the Bloc do about it?” People would be more inclined to say: “All the Bloc wants is to create winning conditions for a new referendum”.

People want to talk to the hon. member for Bourassa, to my friend, the chairman of the Sub-committee on the Study of Sport in Canada, and to my friend, the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier. What does that mean? That means a very precise thing: the Bloc tried once again to make some political hay on sports. The hon. member for Témiscamingue predicted that the report would die after only 48 hours, but we are still talking about it. Then the Bloc Quebecois decided to raise the issue of sports in the hope of scoring a few points.

I want to talk about specific and important issues. I will not talk about the Bloc, but about amateur sport and especially about athletes. It is true that opposition parties did not support all of the report. They would have liked to go further on some recommendations. However, one thing is certain. Those who predicted that the subcommittee's report would be stillborn, who today are trying to make some political hay with it, failed to grasp one thing, that the subcommittee's report is the first one in 30 years to examine the whole future of sports in Canada. That is my first point.

The second point is that the report on sport is the beginning of a process. This means it will take some time. This means we will be talking about the sport issue. The separatists tried to produce a minority report and to throw their venom at us. We decided to take a stand on amateur sport. We decided to take a stand for athletes, because it is true there are problems.

It is because this government followed through with our demands that we demonstrated once and for all that we, on this side of the House, want to work in the interests of athletes.

Some things must be done about taxation. Instead of making personal attacks, as does the hon. member for Longueuil, who is trying to score points because she has not yet made a breakthrough in the House, Bloc members should have suggested some alternatives. In this report, which they have rejected outright, there are things that are extremely important; so much so that the finance minister decided to follow up by planning consultations at prebudget committee level for the next budget.

While they are trying to wage flag wars to campaign for the referendum and to create the winning conditions, we have decided to see the associations. Do we think people at Sports Québec will fall in love with this gang on the other side? Who do they come to talk to when there is a problem and when they want not only to send a message but also to find a solution? It is not to the gang on the other side. Let us be serious. They talk to my colleague, they talk to me, they talk to the minister and to the parliamentary secretary.

If we have proven to be sensitive to this issue, and if we have established our credibility and our intellectual honesty, it is because we have decided to take a stand on certain issues. We heard remarks a while ago about the Canadian Olympic Association. I am one of the instigators of the boycott of the last movie, which was in English only and produced by Americans. Guess what? Not a single senator, not a single member of parliament on this side went to see this movie, because we all know this is a bilingual country and there is problem here that needs to be dealt with.

If this does not demonstrate our sensitivity and our concern for both official languages in amateur sport, I fail to see what could do it.

Secondly, it is obvious that we need to bring forward a new approach to our tax system. This excellent report presents a blueprint for our society to improve the social, economic, political and environmental quality of life.

This report makes suggestions that cannot all be implemented overnight. We have suggested alternatives. We have decided for example, to have a tax credit per child for parents with a household income of $75,000 and less. These things are important, but they have been set aside. The finance minister has decided to go ahead with prebudget consultations.

The other point, and I think it is important to mention it, is that, while they make a fuss in an attempt at flag wars, in an attempt to score points because servility is the order of the day, we came up with a very important recommendation. This recommendation provides for a sports summit.

We will recall that two years ago there was a health summit. What happened with it? In the latest budget, the most important item, the cornerstone, was health.

Therefore, if we create not only a sport summit, but one that is chaired by our Prime Minister, there is no better decision making than that. Give us time. We will work, we will send a positive message and, from that, things will certainly start moving.

I want to launch an appeal to the associations, to the federations and to the athletes. I do not care what the other side may think. What I know, for example, is that people have given us this credibility. I invite federations and athletes to tell their viewpoint and to take an active part, like the president of Sports Québec, Jean-Guy Ouellet. I want all federations to be involved in this process. It is not a matter of trying to make the referendum the cornerstone, as they are doing the other side, but they should provide the solutions, approaches and, especially, show us their importance in this matter.

We can do things together. I have no interest in swapping a maple leaf for the fleur de lys on team jerseys. That is of no interest.

This is what was said last week—and members can check it—when the Fédération de patinage de vitesse unanimously gave me its support. Its representatives said “Finally, here are politicians not involved in the flag flurry, who want to work actively for our welfare. They want to help athletes. They want to help parents”.

I invite all those who are really interested in athletes and sports, not those interested in making political points at their expense, to become fully involved in this process and to work so that together we may find a solution that is viable and meaningful, because our goal, their goal, is to work for the well-being of society.