Debates of June 18th, 2002

National Defence

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, two copies of the annual report of the Department of National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman for 2000-2002.

Order in Council Appointments

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of Order in Council appointments made recently by the government.

Government Response to Petitions

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to four petitions.

Columbia River Treaty

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) and on behalf of the Minister of Natural Resources, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the annual reports of the Columbia River Treaty Permanent Engineering Board to the governments of the United States and Canada for the years 1998, 1999 and 2000.

Committees of the House

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 67th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding issues related to security within the parliamentary precinct.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the members of the procedure and House affairs committee for their fine work this year. As the House will note, this is the 67th report. It has been a very busy committee and members of all parties have been most supportive.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

Pursuant to its order of reference dated Friday, February 22, your committee has considered Bill C-48, an act to amend the Copyright Act, and agreed on Monday, June 17 to report it with amendment.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans presented on Tuesday, June 11, be concurred in.

It is certainly a pleasure to stand and speak to the report recently tabled by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, entitled “Foreign Overfishing: Its Impacts and Solutions”. It is on the word “solutions” that I will certainly be spending a lot of my time.

However, for those who are not familiar with the work of the committee or the issue, I certainly think that we have to look at the background on this major issue as it affects not only Newfoundland and Labrador but Atlantic Canada specifically and the rest of the country generally.

Thirty years ago, the fishery in Atlantic Canada was what we called a golden opportunity for people to find employment. Fishers from all over were involved in harvesting at all levels, inshore, offshore and of different species. Fish plants opened all over the place and provided all kinds of employment, but gradually, as the harvesting increased, the stocks started to decrease. Several things happened simultaneously. Our own fishing effort certainly increased but the foreign effort greatly increased. Instead of the two-masters or three-masters, fully rigged, that visited our shores, we had huge factory freezer trawlers that came over like vacuum cleaners and sucked up everything that was on the bottom.

Gradually, people who were involved in the fishery, the experienced fishermen, began to express concern about the state of the stocks. Nobody paid much attention and the scientists basically said “no problem, there are lots of fish out there”. As we moved into the 1980s the conditions became worse and of course in 1990s it was history as written. In the early 1990s, in 1992, we had the moratorium declared on a number of groundfish species, particularly the northern cod, which was really the staple product that supplied employment to so many Newfoundlanders, Labradorians and Atlantic Canadians.

Since the moratorium, these stocks have not increased. Again we can point to a number of reasons. Scientists will discuss changes in water temperature. They are concerned about what is happening in our oceans that neither our own scientists nor scientists from any other country seem to be able to explain. On top of that we know that we have a seal herd that has ballooned from a million or a million and a half to an estimated seven million. Seals have to eat something, and as a former member of the House, Morrissey Johnson, once said, “They don't eat turnips”. Consequently they must have an effect on the stocks, but one of the major effects is the foreign overfishing.

In the report and in our discussions, members have heard us all talk. When I say “us” I am referring particularly to members of the standing committee, all of whom, as a unit, dealt with this issue. The chairman, a good P.E.I. representative, handled the issue in a non-partisan way because of his concern. Being from the maritimes he understood the situation and has done a very good job as we have gone through our hearings in enunciating to anyone who would listen the concern about the problem. Other members of the committee collectively, regardless of party, have been solidly behind the efforts to deal with this major problem.

A couple of days ago a major announcement was made in Newfoundland and Labrador about the development of the Voisey's Bay project, a major mineral discovery that will create a tremendous amount of employment in the province. Whether it is a good deal or a bad deal, we will know more about it following the three days of the debate which is underway right now in the house of assembly in Newfoundland.

However the federal government put in $150 million to kickstart a small pilot plant that will test the new Hydromet process.

Minerals are finite resources. Whether it is a small discovery or a big one will determine the longevity of any such project. Whether it is 10 years, 20 years, 30 years or 50 years, somewhere along the line the minerals will be taken out of the ground and that area will be finished in relation to providing employment.

The fishery has been with us for 500 years. In 1497 John Cabot sailed to the coast of Newfoundland and reported catching fish in baskets. Whether it was codfish, caplin or whatever, we do not know, but fish were extremely plentiful. That is no longer the case.

My colleague from Antigonish--Guysborough has his plant in Canso, a plant that provided employment for hundreds of people for several years and is not operating. Why? It simply because of a lack of resource.

During our committee hearings we heard from the mayors of two towns in the district of Burin-Burgeo on the south coast of Newfoundland. That area depended entirely on the trawler fishery, boats that fished on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and inside the 200 mile limit in the section we control ourselves. They provided Burgeo 12 months of the year with a steady source of product which provided employment for hundreds of people.

Trepassey and Fermeuse in my own area both had deep sea plants. Fermeuse phased into an inshore plant over the years and is now barely operating because of the lack of resource. Trepassey no longer exists as a processing centre. Six hundred people worked there year round. It was a unionized plant and the wages were good. Families did exceptionally well and students during the summer did not have to worry about programs that HRDC would fund. They went to work in the plant and made very good money. The plant no longer exists. Trepassey, a town of 1,500, is now a town of about 800 where all the younger families have moved elsewhere in the country and a lot of them to Alberta. That is what declining stocks have done to Newfoundland.

However it does not end there because the hurt is still occurring. Fewer and fewer fish are being caught by our own people because just outside the boundary the foreign nations are still scooping up the product, as I mentioned before, as if they were operating vacuum cleaners.

I will talk about the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. Our continental shelf off the coast of Newfoundland extends outward beyond 200 miles. When we brought in the 200 mile limit, and if we drew a circle around the province, we left outside that limit two projections of land, one to the north and one to the south which are referred to as the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. Just outside that limit is another shelf. It is called the Flemish Cap, a place where a few years ago we would not find a shrimp. Today, because of the increased activity in northern waters, the fishermen, not the scientists, say that the major activity on the grounds have caused the shrimp to move with the tides, land and multiply on the Flemish Cap. It is a lucrative shrimp fishing area to the point where several nations are now fishing shrimp, something that nobody did some years ago. They are not only fishing it, they are blatantly overfishing it by four, five and six times the allocated quotas.

What complicates the whole process is the fact that inside the 200 mile limit the Canadian government, regardless of stripe, manages the stocks. It allocates quotas whether they be individual quotas in the case of the inshore fishery, company quotas or general quotas, but it tries to manage the stocks relatively well.

The frustrating thing for the minister of fisheries, his scientists and advisers is that no matter how they manage the stocks there seems to be very little increase in many of them, especially those called straddling stocks.

If we put rocks in a garden and put a fence around them, they will be there for eternity. Fish however are not the same. We cannot tell them there is a 200 mile limit and that they cannot swim outside the line. Fish move. When they are inside the line our own fishermen can only catch certain amounts. In certain species they cannot catch anything. When they do catch a certain species, they are subject not only to quotas but to the type of gear they use and the time of year they fish because of breeding periods and whatever. However once these fish move outside the line, and sometimes we are talking inches and feet rather than miles, the foreigners are there waiting for them.

Many but not all of the countries that fish on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks are members of NAFO, the Northern Atlantic Fisheries Organization, an organization that has been in place for 20 years. For 20 years it has allocated quotas to the 18 countries involved. Some of them, such as Canada, have adhered to those quotas. Others, like Spain, Portugal and the Faroe Islands, have not. The Faroe Islands has been banned from the ports of Newfoundland because of the blatant overfishing of shrimp. Some years ago Spanish and Portuguese boats were banned because of non-adherence to rules and regulations, and that still exists today.

In speaking to the ministers of fisheries from all these countries, they will say that they are very concerned about the stocks in their own waters and in our waters where they share quota. However the companies and the individual fishermen continue to blatantly abuse the stocks outside the limit.

Recently, because of the attention that the committee and perhaps ourselves have drawn to the issue, people generally have become more vigilant. Because of tips we received and that fisheries acted on, we saw boats being checked as they entered port to transship their product. This has been going on for years but recently a few boats were checked. What did we find? In the first one we found 49 tonnes of cod, a species that we are not even allowed to catch.

When a sister ship about to arrive at port realized that boat number one had been caught it suddenly turned around and returned to Iceland. It was a Russian boat fishing out of Iceland. We are seeing a lot of Estonian and Russian boats flying under Iceland's flag to catch fish that is landed in Iceland.

The second boat that was checked did not breach any regulations according to the department of fisheries. What it did have was a tremendous amount of redfish, for which there are no rules or regulations as to where or what can be caught outside in 3O, the size of one's thumb. The gear it used was like the old hair nets that women used to wear years ago when they worked in the fish plants. It was smaller than caplin seine. It had X number of tonnes of cod liver. It had fishmeal. There was no way to explain how it could get those amounts of product without overfishing and fishing illegal species.

There was no correlation between the manifest that showed what it had on board was legal and the actual catch, but no one did anything about it.

What happens when we catch something like boat number one where we saw a blatant abuse of a resource that is under moratorium? Canada cannot do anything. Canada can only let the boat go back home and hope the ownership nation will take action. In many cases no action is taken. Observers are supposed to be on the boats. Our observers are excellent and report on time. Other nations also follow that example and it is helping somewhat. On many occasions the observers are employees of the companies involved. Reports are either not tabled, tabled late or inaccurate and the system is not working.

In a nutshell, for 20 years NAFO has not been able to handle the blatant abuses of a renewable resource. This resource creates, as Joey Smallwood used to say, not dozens, not hundreds, but thousands of jobs for Atlantic Canadians and improves the economy of Canada generally. We let this resource be abused day after day and all we say is that when we go to the next NAFO meeting we will ask them to live by the rules. We have done that for 20 years and things are getting worse.

In listening to the fishermen, to the people in the towns affected, to the people who have followed it for years and to the officials of this very government, the committee members realized there was only one thing we could do. We had to manage the resource adjacent to our shores to which we have every right to manage. If we were to scrutinize the law of the sea regulations we would see that we are responsible for managing the resource. I was going to say we have to extend jurisdiction but the minister has said the government will never do that. What we asked for, which he says is the same thing but it is not, is custodial management. The adjacent state should be the managers of the resource. It would still allow countries that have legitimate quotas to fish them but to fish them legitimately under our supervision. If we do our work properly I am quite sure many of those countries would agree with us. All we are asking for is custodial management. It would not extend jurisdiction, as the minister says it would.

The other statement he made, which I have to refute because when the report was tabled he turned it down even, as he admitted, without reading it. He said that we could not do it. He did not discuss it with anyone. He is more concerned about the foreigners than our own Canadians. That has to stop.

The majority of the members on the committee were Liberals and some very good ones. He said that the committee only gets its information from those who do presentations while he listens to scientific advice. That was a slap at his own members who make up the majority.

I challenge anyone to do a poll in this country and ask people who they would rather depend on, the scientists at the department of fisheries who may be good but because they are so underfunded and there are so few of them they cannot do a good job, or the fishermen who have fished these grounds for years and who know what is happening, the towns that have been affected and the people who have followed the decline of this resource over the years. I would hedge my bets that the majority of the people would say that those involved in the industry know best.

In summation, we have made our recommendations. I am looking forward to the Liberal members, especially the Newfoundland members who are even more drastically affected than I am, getting up and letting the House know how important the report is. It is one chance to save an industry, a renewable resource that can add to the Canadian economy and provide employment for years.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the hon. member opposite. Could the hon. member outline some of the points of view Newfoundlanders and Labradorians gave to us when we were in Newfoundland? Could he give us a taste of some of the views they expressed?

To get the hon. member started I will refer to the testimony of Mr. Jim Morgan, president of the Newfoundland and Labrador Rural Rights and Boat Owners Association. Mr. Morgan felt the Government of Canada should be moving on the issue. He said Canada must act now to stop the decimation of our stocks. He said we should use our legislative framework to arrest ships that fish illegally outside the NAFO framework.

Alastair O'Rielly, president of the Fisheries Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, outlined where Canada's lax regime was leading. He said that prior to 1995 there were 26,000 fishing days from 71 vessels. As the hon. member opposite stated, after 1995 when we seized the Estai the problem cleaned up for a few days. After 1995 there were 6,000 fishing days with 16 vessel years. There are now 10,000 fishing days with 27 fishing years.

Pat Chamut, the assistant deputy minister of fisheries, clearly outlined the problems although he did not say he was in favour of custodial management. He said the problems included: a significant increase in infringements since 1995; directed fishing for moratoria species; exceeded quotas; misreported catches of three ounce shrimp; use of small mesh gear; and failure to provide observer reports.

Could the hon. member give us a taste of what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have been saying before the committee? Could he expand a bit and say how we could implement custodial management from the point of view of the standing committee on fisheries? We are not talking about taking historic rights away from foreign nations. Historic allocations should remain but we should manage the fishery the way NAFO intended. NAFO is clearly not doing this now. Canada must take strong action.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I again congratulate the chairperson. Usually when an opposition member speaks we get negative comments, but the hon. member strongly supports the recommendations more than anyone on the committee.

The committee has heard a lot of comments from Newfoundlanders. I will mention two or three to add to the ones the hon. member mentioned. The Liberal fisheries minister of Newfoundland, with whom I spoke this morning, said before the committee in March:

In summary, NAFO has failed us since its inception in 1978--

This is extremely important. It is why I am glad we are having the debate this morning. As we head into the NAFO meetings this fall, the House generally and governments specifically should be aware of what the report says and what members are saying. If we go to the NAFO meetings with the same frame of mind we have had at past meetings there will be no fish left next year to worry about.

The minister went on to say Canada had failed us as well. The political will, with the exception of a few brief moments in our history, has not existed in Ottawa to deal with foreign overfishing. Trevor Taylor, a member of the house of assembly, said:

I suspect if a tree falls in the forest, nobody hears, and when a fish is caught on the tail or the nose of the Grand Banks, nobody hears. The people of this country are not engaged in what's happening down here.

Luckily, some people are becoming engaged through their members. The final comment I will use is from Allister Hann, the mayor of Burgeo. His town has probably suffered more than any. This is factual. He said:

Rural Newfoundland is dying, particularly my town.

This is pretty hard stuff to listen to but it shows what we can do. What can we do? We can notify NAFO that we are getting out of it. We can notify it that with or without its help we will take custodial management of the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. If we have the guts to do this we will provide a resource for our people and employment for many years to come.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from St. John's West and the hon. member for Malpeque for their comments.

There is concern about how custodial management would work. Some people have contacted me to say we would kick the foreigners off the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap. That is not necessarily so. Our interpretation of custodial management means other nations would be allowed to fish in the waters but under Canadian management and enforcement. That would be a good thing for Atlantic Canada and, for that matter, all of Canada.

Could my hon. colleague elaborate a bit on that?

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, that is an exceptionally good question.

Many people including the minister do not understand what custodial management means. All it means is that the adjacent state, in this case Canada, would be the clear custodial manager with the right and duty to environmentally manage the stocks off its coast including those outside the 200 mile limit. We would declare ourselves the manager of the resource. This could be done in consultation with other members of NAFO because they all have quotas in the area that they want to see preserved and protected.

Even those who blatantly abuse the quotas admit that if we destroyed them there would be nothing left. Many countries are conscious of what is happening and of the need for someone to manage the resource. The logical manager is the adjacent state, in this case Canada. If officials in our department of foreign affairs did something besides drink cognac and eat caviar we might get agreement to manage the stocks for the benefit of not only us but all the other countries with quotas provided they operated within the guidelines. As I have said, I think many of them would. It is not a difficult process. It is one that takes a lot of guts, and I am not sure they are there.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague from St. John's West for his passionate and informed speech. He and other members of the fisheries committee have worked diligently on a problem that has plagued Atlantic Canada and other regions including the north and west coasts.

The hon. member spoke of custodial management. He spoke of dying villages and towns in rural Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. In my home province of Nova Scotia the towns of Canso and Mulgrave have suffered enormous losses and out-migration as a result of the hardships in the fishery.

There is another element about which my hon. colleague and friend is informed: the issues of historic attachment and adjacency which for many years have been the criteria. In the context of custodial management could he discuss how these two issues factor into helping rural communities control their own destinies?

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, those are two pointed issues which have been discussed quite often in the fishery. First, the hon. member addressed the issue of adjacency. Over the years the people of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, the provinces adjacent to the resource, have not been the only ones to fish it. In relation to almost every resource worldwide the principle of adjacency applies. Those adjacent to the resource are the first and main beneficiaries.

Second, the hon. member spoke about historical attachment. This is where the Spanish, Portuguese and everyone else comes in because they have been fishing these grounds for years. We are not saying in any way that they should not be allowed to do so. All we are asking is that people abide by the rules. Someone has to be the policeman. We are satisfied to do it. It does not cost that much and everyone benefits.

I hope members from Newfoundland and other members will participate in this. The story must be told. It should not be cut off.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for St. John's West for allowing us to have a brief discussion this morning on this issue of interest. Not long ago we had a take note debate on the Atlantic fishery in which I took part. There are many concerns about the issue.

However I now move:

That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

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

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

Physical Activity and Sport Act

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, for the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

moved that Bill C-54, an act to promote physical activity and sport, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I stand in the House of Commons to debate third reading of Bill C-54, an act to promote physical activity and sport.

I had the pleasure of introducing the bill to the House on April 10 on behalf of the Minister of Canadian Heritage. On April 15 the bill received second reading in the House of Commons and was referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and then to the Subcommittee on the Study of Sport in Canada. The subcommittee heard the testimony of witnesses from the sport community, from government officials and the Official Languages Commissioner. It also received written submissions from a number of different organizations. On June 12 the member for Toronto--Danforth tabled in the House the first report of the Subcommittee on the Study of Sport in Canada of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. The report was debated yesterday, June 17.

I am pleased with the process that was undertaken and I am assured that the bill has had a thorough review and debate. We worked with members of the sport community and with all parties both inside and outside the committee to reach an agreement in areas of controversy. We have respectfully considered all views and worked together to strengthen the bill.

The bill began with an extensive consultation. There were exchanges with the sport community and all levels of government. Their unanimous support have made the existence of the bill a reality and it is important that we recognize that.

Thanks to the dynamism and contribution of all stakeholders in the sport community, the conditions most favourable to the advancement of sport in Canada were brought together in one place.

Henceforth, this bill entrenches the policy of the Government of Canada regarding sport. This policy reflecting the concerns of the sport community was adopted last April by the federal government in conjunction with all provincial and territorial governments.

The bill is consistent with the first ever Canadian sport policy. This landmark policy was the result of unprecedented consultations with the sport community. It was endorsed last April by myself as the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport and the provincial and territorial ministers responsible for sport, fitness and recreation.

The ministers embarked on this policy development process to create a more effective and transparent sport system to underscore the importance of sport and physical activity to the health of Canadians and to build a more harmonious environment to improve the sport experience. No government can claim on its own to change the system. Sport concerns everyone and everyone needs to participate in the process. The support of the sport community as well as the partners, the population at large and other governments was key.

We are entering a new era in Canadian sport and physical activity. We will soon have new legislation for sport and physical activity which serves to modernize the mandate and policies of the Government of Canada with respect to physical activity and sport. The Fitness and Amateur Sport Act of 1961 served the government well for 42 years and now we will soon be set for a new era.

The policy objectives of the Government of Canada regarding sport are threefold: to increase participation in sport, to support the pursuit of excellence, and to build capacity in the Canadian sport system. The policy is based on the highest value of ethics in sport including: dope free sport; respectful treatment of all persons; the full and fair participation of all persons in sport; and the fair, equitable, transparent and timely resolution of disputes in sport.

By entrenching the Government of Canada's physical activity and sport policies in this bill, the government is acknowledging that physical activity and sport are an integral part of Canadians' lives and culture, and procur benefits in terms of health, quality of life, economic activity, cultural diversity and social cohesion, particularly by their reinforcement of the bilingual nature of Canada.

This also demonstrates the commitment of the Government of Canada to encourage and assist Canadians in increasing their levels of physical activity and participation in sports. It also recognizes its commitment to support the pursuit of excellence in sport and to build capacity in the Canadian sports system.

The government through the bill does not only respond to the recommendations of the subcommittee on sport, it also responds to commitments in the Speech from the Throne where it indicated it would promote health and prevent disease and strengthen its efforts to encourage fitness and participation in sports.

The Government of Canada is well aware that any government action with regard to sports affects a large number of Canadians. According to the 1998 general social survey, over 8.3 million Canadians aged 15 and over participate in sport on a regular basis. According to the 2000 Statistics Canada survey, an estimated 1.8 million people are involved in sport and recreation organizations on a voluntary basis, not to mention the millions more who take part as parents, spectators, officials and administrators.

For this reason, a preamble was added to the bill demonstrating that the government's commitment to physical activity and sport needs to be seen as an investment in enhancing the well-being of all Canadians, and not an expense.

Any investment in physical activity and sport contributes to quality of life and procures long term savings in health care.

Given today's challenges facing sport, the proposed legislation clarifies, along with the title and terminology, the existing ministerial mandate to adequately reflect and strengthen the role of the minister responsible for sport in fostering, promoting and developing sport in Canada.

Over the past 10 years the Canadian high performance sport system has experienced a large number of disputes over the selection of athletes on national teams and over doping in sport. Internal mechanisms of sport organizations have many limitations.

To respond to the needs of the sport community, the bill provides for the creation of a sport dispute resolution centre of Canada. The mission of the centre would be to provide the sport community with a national alternative dispute resolution service with expertise and assistance in this regard. The sport community will be able to use the services of the centre to resolve sport disputes, which could include disputes regarding doping infractions, in an equitable, fair, transparent and timely manner.

The creation of the centre through legislation demonstrates the importance given by the government to principles such as transparency, equity and diligence. It will place Canada at the leading edge internationally and will ensure stability, continuity and credibility to the dispute resolution process.

In response to concerns expressed by members of the sport community about Sport Canada being party to dispute resolutions, I would like to point out that under Bill C-54 no individual or organization would be obliged to use the centre's services, which are to be used on a consensual basis. This also applies to Sport Canada.

However clause 10 of the proposed legislation states that the centre's mission is to provide alternative dispute resolution services for sport disputes which include disputes among sport organizations and disagreements between sport organizations and persons affiliated with it, including its members. The notion of sport dispute is therefore broad enough for the centre to provide dispute resolution services where Sport Canada could agree to be a party.

Therefore Sport Canada could in its policies, programs or in any specific agreement include an appeal mechanism that would refer disputes to the centre under terms and conditions of the said policy, programs or agreements as long as those disputes can be qualified as sport disputes. I think I can give the undertaking that Sport Canada will engage in such agreements. Obviously not in the policy areas but certainly in programming areas it is the intention that Sport Canada will avail itself of the services in the dispute resolution centre.

I would also like to indicate that the government's intention regarding the centre was not to create a federal institution or a governmental body but a not for profit organization at arm's length from the government. In creating it we have tried to achieve the appropriate accountability measures in light of the arm's length nature of the centre.

It is important for us and the sport community that the centre be independent and have all the flexibility necessary to meet the future needs of the sport community while being accountable for public funds. I will be consulting with the sport community to ensure that individuals will be appointed to the board who have the expertise and capacity to enable the centre to fulfill its mission.

Physical inactivity is costly. Reducing it by 10% can save $5 billion annually in health care costs. Provincial and territorial ministers responsible for sport have reiterated their commitment to reach such a target by the year 2003.

Sport is about inclusion. Irrespective of age, culture, language, social status or physical or intellectual capacity, more people must be allowed access to a greater number of sports so that everyone can practise the sport of their choice.

I would now like to discuss the Canadian sport policy, which was unanimously approved in April by the federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for sport. This policy clearly demonstrates the goodwill of the different levels of government to address the issue of official languages in the Canadian sport system.

The policy recognizes the barriers that francophones sometimes confront in sports. For example, according to Sport Canada policy, sport must be accessible to all, regardless of their language. Furthermore, the regulations and responsibilities in the sport system stipulate that services must be provided in both official languages.

As for the role of the federal government, it must ensure that services will be provided in both official languages.

Finally, the different levels of government must increase the number of coaches who work in both official languages, in order to guarantee services for francophone and anglophone athletes.

I believe that these initiatives clearly demonstrate the goodwill of the different levels of government to address the issue of official languages in Canada.

I was pleased that the tabling of the proposed legislation raised the debate of the place of women in sport and physical activity. The government has made its position clear. We believe that women should be full and equal partners in Canadian sport, whether as athletes, coaches, officials, leaders or decision makers. We will work with the sport community drawing on the expertise of the Canadian Association for the Advancement of Women and Sport and Physical Activity to improve the status of women in sport and physical activity.

I have had communications with the executive of CAAWS. I have assured it that we will rely on it to provide us with the information, assistance and expertise on the compliance of the gender equity policies that are already in our funding programs now to ensure that the national sports organizations are in compliance.

Key players are also volunteers such as our coaches, officials, members in sports associations, organizers of competitions and so on. They contribute so much to sport all across the country. More than ever, sport must be regarded as an investment and not as an expense. Last year 378,000 jobs in Canada were related to sport. Sports contribution to our GNP is estimated at $8.9 billion, quite a score.

The Government of Canada, with the support of the sport community, provincial and territorial governments and the private sector, believes that the proposed legislation is an important step in a comprehensive strategy to affirm the key role of sport in Canadian society.

The issue of sport in Canada is a social issue, an issue of goodwill and of partnership. It is an issue that affects us all.

In Canada sport is everyone's business.

This bill affects all Canadians.

In conclusion, I would seek the consent of the House for the second speaker, the hon. member for Toronto--Danforth, to have extended time. He is the chair of the subcommittee and has been involved with it since the very beginning. I am sure members would be pleased to consent that he be allowed sufficient time to complete his remarks.