Debates of Nov. 16th, 2004

Supply

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Chair, I received 52% in grade 10 math and figured I would be better off as a musician. I will ask the hon. member to clarify for me in my really poor reading of accounting. Did the hon. member say there would be no cuts to the Canada Council? I heard the term reallocation, but people in the field have told me there are cuts. Will there be cuts in funding to artists this year and to programming at Canada Council or not?

[Liza Frulla, Liberal, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

I want to be clear. I was talking about the reallocation program. Two exercises were done. The first was done at the beginning of 2004-05. The Minister of Finance asked for a contribution from everyone totaling $1 billion. That is why at Radio-Canada/CBC, for example, there was an $8 million cut to the $60 million supplementary estimates. In other words, instead of giving them $60 million, Radio-Canada/CBC received $52 million. In that sense, the Canada Council for the Arts did contribute.

Under reallocation, there were two exercises. The first was done in 2004, but there was another exercise and that is the one I am talking about. It is a reallocation exercise. It is this exercise in discipline that the government wants to use to make sure it reviews all the programs every time. It is in this context that we are saying we do not want to affect creators and artists at the Canada Council.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am fairly slow in the world of politics. We have taken money out of the Canada Council and we are calling it a reallocation. Is that like collateral damage? Will the money go back to the Canada Council? Can I go to the people at Canada Council and tell them to relax and stop being hysterical or, as was used earlier, to stop being alarmists because there is nothing to be alarmed about? Can I tell them that the funding they had last year and the year before is secure for this coming year and for the next year?

[Liza Frulla, Liberal, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

We have had discussions about the Canada Council. In the first exercise the Canada Council was required to contribute. If that is what the hon. member is referring to, it was the exercise in early 2004.

I have been in this position for four months. We are talking about reallocation. It was an exercise done throughout the entire government. When we asked our major national museums to see whether they could cut 5%, we did not ask the Canada Council because we felt that as part of its role funding goes through the Canada Council directly to artists.

However, we did ask the Canada Council to ensure that all its programs run efficiently, that all its programs indeed are geared to the artists, and that they are administered as efficiently as possible.

Nonetheless, there were two exercises: the first one involved the contribution of $1 billion and the second is the entire reallocation exercise. This second exercise is not finished yet, given that we are currently talking about it, as are all the ministers.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Chair, being asked to participate in an exercise with the Liberal government seems to me to be that the money is taken from them and is not given back. I am looking at estimates for the coming years and I am not seeing any money coming back. It concerns me because again the word alarmist was used earlier against one of our colleagues.

I sense great alarm in the arts community. Members of the arts community phone me every day. In fact they contact every member of the House because all my members are asking what they should tell them. What do we tell them when they do not have the ability to judge whether they can hire for the coming year? They cannot plan tours because they are participating in an exercise for which they do not know if it will have stable funding. I just cannot see that we can drag our artists out like this.

Does the minister know whether Tomorrow Starts Today funding will be fully reinstated? Would the minister go back to the government and say that Tomorrow Starts Today funding has to be fully reinstated now with stable funding for a number of years so that our arts community can get on with the work of creating Canadian culture?

[Liza Frulla, Liberal, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Chair, firstly, I want to reassure my colleague. Since the program review of 1994-95, the Canada Council saw its budget increase by more than $30 million dollars. Obviously, there has been some reinvestment at the Canada Council.

Now, I know what my colleague is talking about when he looks at the estimates review. Indeed, the Tomorrow Starts Today program will end in 2005. Because it ends in 2005, we cannot put it in the estimates. It will not exist anymore. We have to obtain new credits and get the program renewed.

Today, as I have mentioned and I repeat, we are negotiating. That being said, it is the goal of Canadian Heritage, and I think it is also the goal of my colleagues, to have the Tomorrow Starts Today program renewed. However, such a renewal requires the agreement of all my colleagues and of the Minister of Finance who looks at the overall picture and decides if we can afford it or not.

I have to tell you that we are negotiating intensively because, actually, the Tomorrow Starts Today program represents 65% of my department's programs, as far as culture is concerned. As I have said previously, this means that it is the most important initiative since the creation of the Canada Council for the Arts.

We certainly will not watch as it disappears without uttering a word, on the contrary. I have the support of all my colleagues here.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Chair, yesterday I had the honour of meeting Mr. Rabinovich, who spoke before the heritage committee. It was an interesting discussion because he described his taking over the CBC after the Liberals cut $450 million to the CBC's budget. He made a decision at that time to cut regional news programming which had a devastating impact. CBC lost 200,000 viewers across Canada. Everyone probably realizes that in the private sector a broadcast CEO who lost 200,000 viewers would be fired.

I asked Mr. Rabinovich why he allowed a move to be made that devastated regional CBC programming across Canada. Knowing about these cuts, I asked him why he did not return to the government and say that it would be devastating. He said, “It was sort of silly to say I am going to the government to ask for money when in fact the message was extremely clear. CBC does not have credibility with the government”. That is why the CEO of CBC did not stand up and fight for regional programming.

Now we have $10 million more in cuts coming in a year when CBC is facing between $30 million and $60 million in losses from the loss of Hockey Night in Canada .

I would ask the hon. member to tell me today, does the CBC still not have credibility with the government?

[Liza Frulla, Liberal, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Chair, I find the CEO's statement very surprising. But that is all in the past. We have to remember that the $400 million cuts were made 10 years ago. Canada's economy was then considered a Third World economy. Today, we have the pleasure of hearing the Minister of Finance announce surpluses. I think it is better to announce surpluses than to announce cutbacks.

It allows us to come together and discuss our programs and to tell the Minister of Finance that it would be great to renew them, and even to add some new ones. It is harder to do that when there is a deficit.

That being said, Radio-Canada was my home for four years. My show was live every day. I have strong feelings for the institution of Radio-Canada and the CBC. The CEO of CBC and I spoke last week about the possibility of reviewing regional programming in order to bring back Radio-Canada and the CBC closer to the communities across Canada, since it is in their mandate to do so.

Mr. Rabinovitch is supposed to submit his strategic plan for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. We will use this plan as a framework to see what we can do and how much flexibility we have.

Again, discussions on the CBC, museums, Telefilm Canada and Tomorrow starts today are taking place today, right now, at this very moment. They will also be held next week with our colleagues during the redistribution exercise.

Of course, what is most important to say right now is that yes, we are deeply committed to Radio-Canada and the CBC.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to stand this evening to participate in the estimates of the Department of Canadian Heritage.

As the former chair of the National Liberal Women's Caucus and now as chair of the newly formed Standing Committee on the Status of Women, I am particularly interested in the estimates of the status of women area, one of the member portfolios of the Department of Canadian Heritage. I will focus on one particular area in a moment.

However, before I do that I would like to take the opportunity to say a few words about the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

By creating a Standing Committee on the Status of Women, Parliament has recognized that gender equality is one of the keys to Canada's social and economic success and to effective government. In its upcoming deliberations, the committee will work to advance the cause of women across the Government of Canada with a goal of achieving lasting, measurable and sustainable change. I am hopeful that in my role as chair of the committee and given the make-up of the committee that gender equality and women's human rights will be promoted to become an important part of the government's policy agenda.

In January 2003, when Canada reported on its progress to implement the United Nations convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, the concluding comments of the committee pointed to the situation of aboriginal women in Canada as needing particular focus and particular attention.

This past September, I was pleased to have the opportunity to accompany the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister responsible for the Status of Women to the annual meeting of the ministers responsible for the status of women in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador. Immediately, when I was there, I was struck by the passion that the ministers had to advance equality for women and men in Canada and particularly by their commitment to prevent violence against all women and girls, especially aboriginal girls and women.

In September 2003, the federal-provincial-territorial ministers responsible for the status of women made the situation of aboriginal women both on and off reserve a priority. This year they made prevention of violence against all women, and again particularly aboriginal women, a priority and they agreed to take action to improve access for aboriginal women to programs and services, public education and policy development processes.

We all heard the terrible reports coming from Vancouver and Edmonton of murder and sexual violence against indigenous women. Unfortunately, many aboriginal women, many of whom who have turned in desperation to the sex trade for employment, are disappearing off the streets of some of Canada's major cities. For too long their invisibility in Canadian society and their low economic and social status have allowed them to go unnoticed.

As members are aware, Amnesty International recently released a report entitled “Stolen Sisters: A human rights response to discrimination and violence against Indigenous women in Canada”. It documents the pervasive human rights problem of violence against aboriginal women in Canada. The report paints a grim portrait of grinding poverty, addictions, violence and powerlessness and disenfranchisement in the daily lives of aboriginal women.

What do we really know? Certainly our knowledge remains limited, given the historic invisibility of women and particularly aboriginal women in Canada but a picture is starting to form. We know that aboriginal women run a greater risk of being victims of violence than do other Canadian women. Three times as many aboriginal women report that they have experienced some form of violence perpetrated by their spouse, and aboriginal women run eight times the risk of being killed by their spouse after a separation. That is according to Statistics Canada's 1999 general social survey.

My question for the minister is this. Given the alarmingly high rates of violence against aboriginal women in Canada, how can we ensure that the aboriginal communities on reserve as well as off prosper and grow healthy and that aboriginal women and girls have as bright a future as their non-aboriginal counterparts?

[Liza Frulla, Liberal, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Chair, it is true that violence toward women, aboriginal women in particular, remains a very present and very pressing problem.

My colleague has referred to the conference of ministers. I would like to congratulate her on chairing the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. That committee is, moreover, an initiative of our government, which will, with the help of my colleague and all those sitting on it, cast light on subjects of urgent concern to women, and the cause of women in general.

That said, hon. members will recall that the Prime Minister held a round table this spring. At the end of it, the Prime Minister made a commitment to carry out a series of follow-up meetings in conjunction with the aboriginal peoples. These include one specifically aimed at addressing the issues of aboriginal women, children, social housing and violence.

I will point out also that, within our department itself, we have allocated $1 million over three years to help organizations address the issue of aboriginal women and violence. At the present time we are working on a specific project relating to aboriginal women and this terrible violence that affects them.

I must also point out that we acknowledge the concerns raised in the Amnesty International report. Status of Women will make use of funding allocated to it for the campaign against family violence to support the efforts being made by the aboriginal women's group.

The government has also committed to advancing the cause of gender equality, as well as implementing the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. I am working as well in close conjunction with my federal colleagues, my provincial and territorial counterparts, and the NGOs in putting this convention into practice.

There has been a report on violence against women. The provinces, along with the federal government, have reiterated their desire to work together so that their programs will be virtually interdependent, in order to resolve this inherent problem.

As well there is the entire issue of what is termed gender equality, that is equality of the genders and of what they earn. We have specific measures to encourage this, and to ensure that women are paid at the level their work merits, and of course at the same level as their male colleagues doing similar work.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Chair, I will be sharing my time with the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl and also the member for New Brunswick Southwest. I will speak for about 10 minutes, my friend from New Brunswick will take about 4.5 minutes and my friend from St. John's will finish up.

I want to thank the minister for being here tonight, not that she had much choice. However, we are glad that she is here to answer some questions.

I want to say off the top that the Conservative Party of Canada takes the issue of Canadian culture and heritage very seriously. As a party with the name “conservative” in it, obviously that says something about our values. We want to conserve the best of Canadian culture and find ways to do that.

We recognize that the Department of Canadian Heritage has limited resources. When one only has so much money, one has to ensure that it goes to the things that do the most good. One of my questions has to do with CBC Television. It is a long-standing issue for me as someone who comes from a broadcast background,

I recall a number of years ago when a CRTC commissioner at the time, Keith Spicer, really raked English language TV over the coals because the viewership continued to fall. I think the term he used was that the viewership has fallen like a stone. That was never reflected in any way in the amount of money that went to the CBC at the time. I am concerned that we are not getting value for money when it comes to English language TV. I am not talking about Newsworld , or radio or RDI. I am talking about English language TV.

I wonder if the minister shares my concern. We see hundreds of millions of dollars going into English language television, but the ratings continue to flounder, certainly compared to CTV and some of the other private networks. This should be of concern, given that the Auditor General has told us time after time that expenditures should be tied to clear, measurable objectives. Is she concerned that we are not getting value for money, given how much money we have put into English language television and how weak its ratings are?

[Liza Frulla, Liberal, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Chair, I believe there are two ways to look at public television. Obviously, you have a simple yardstick, the ratings. This is one yardstick.

Having worked for the CBC, I honestly believe that this is not a yardstick appropriate for public television, which has a role it must play. It must be serve as a model. It must be the outlet through which Canadian dramas can be seen, produced and also distributed across Canada. Public television must also maintain a presence in the regions. This is why it was said a moment ago that it is important to re-examine the CBC's strategic plan. The goal is to ensure this regional presence.

Indeed, public television must have ratings, of a qualitative nature, however. This is the only television that must broadcast regional news, but also international news, public affairs telecasts, shows for children. Its mandate is quite specific. We must ensure that public television abides by this mandate and that the relevant ratings are based on qualitative factors.

I always said, when I was with the CBC, that the important thing for public television is that each viewer must watch public television and say: “Today, I have seen something new and I have learned something”.

For instance, a show like H2O , written and produced by Paul Gross, is fantastic. It can be seen on public television and it is its role to show and distribute it. This my idea of public television.

I honestly believe that a country like ours owes it to itself to have public television that is strong and also well funded.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Chair, I would like to follow up on that. The minister said that these programs should be rated based on their quality. Who decides whether or not these are good quality programs? Is it the minister? Is it the department? Then we have a closed system where we do not have anybody ensuring that this truly is good stuff. The best way to determine whether there is quality is by judging how well accepted it is by the public. Of course that means using ratings.

The other point I want to make is that without ratings, the CBC cannot generate advertising revenue to the point where it can continue to fund these other programs. It is fine to say that we should rate these things based on quality, but that is completely subjective. Clearly, I think the Auditor General sees it differently and I think many Canadians see it differently too, who pay a lot of tax dollars every year to support the CBC.

Should the programming on CBC not be relevant to Canadians to the point where we start to see the viewership grow, not continue to sink as we have seen it do for a number of years? Is it not of concern to the minister that we have soft ratings for CBC and we really do not see, as far as I know, any prospect of that turning around?

[Liza Frulla, Liberal, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Chairman, the member asks “is it not of concern to the minister?”. I would tell him that my main concern is to make sure that public television remains public.

I will give you some examples. The series Canada: A People's History was watched by 15 million people. The videocassette and book of this series are best-sellers. The bilingual Web site comprises 500 pages and is consulted by students, professors and the general public.

The news team of the CBC television won the Excellence in Journalism Award of the Canadian Journalism Foundation, for its coverage of the Iraq war. The mini-series Shattered City: The Halifax Explosion captured the attention of 1.5 million viewers on CBC and was completed with 350 local activities. That is also what it is about. This is the role of the Crown corporation, non only as far as the image is concerned, but also as project originator and developer.

I think about ZeD TV, in Vancouver, and about Bande à part , for instance. These are all initiatives of our public television. Now, another program, Grande Ourse , is watched by over one million people every week on SRC.

In my opinion, our public television has to set standards. It is its purpose. Obviously, it should be provided in both languages, it should also serve the French-speaking communities outside Quebec that are minorities. This is the role of our public television.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Chair, I note that the minister cites numbers when it flatters her case, but she just finished saying that numbers are not important. She cannot have it both ways.

I want to ask a very specific question regarding something in the estimates dealing with lieutenant governors. We note in the estimates that in some cases there is a dramatic rise in the money being allocated for lieutenant governors through the department. Some of these can be justified rather obviously. Saskatchewan and Alberta will be celebrating centennials next year, so we can understand that. However, the amount going to Ontario, for instance, for its lieutenant governor is an amount seven times greater than what it is today.

Could the minister explain why that is? Hopefully, these lieutenant governors are not following the example of our own Governor General, who has been a little profligate these days with tax dollars.

[Liza Frulla, Liberal, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Chair, first I would like to reply to my colleague's remark, when he said that I cannot have it both ways. In fact, it is possible to have it both ways. All I said, for the record again, was that public television needs to have good ratings.

When I talk about 15 million viewers watching Canada: A People's History , Le Canada: une histoire populaire , this is what I mean by good ratings. Nobody here will make me say that public television, where I and my colleague worked on serials or miniseries, is not useful in a country like Canada.

To come back to lieutenant-governors, it is obvious that as we are getting ready to celebrate the centennials of Alberta and Saskatchewan with much pleasure and joy, increased investments are necessary. On the other hand, another grant program came into force on April 1, 2004. In an edifying way, it gives lieutenant-governors more flexibility in spending public money as the Queen's representatives.

Having said that, I think that, unless the opposition is willing to say the opposite, and then it should say the same thing to each lieutenant-governor in each region, lieutenant-governors play a role which is very--

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Clarington—Scugog—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Chair, I rise on a point of order. My concern is about the length of time of the response compared to the length of time it took to ask the question.

[The Chair]

I urge members on both sides that when they divide their time to try to adjust their questions and answers so that they are both the same. I have a little flexibility and try to let it run for a few seconds longer one way or the other. We are going to go now to the member for New Brunswick Southwest.

[Greg Thompson, Conservative, St. Croix—Belleisle, NB]

Mr. Chair, I want to draw the minister's attention to an article by Chris Cobb with the headline, “CBC asks for extra $100 million to save regional programming” which appeared in today's Ottawa Citizen . I think most of us are very sympathetic to that. I point to New Brunswick as an example of where we do need the CBC. We need alternatives to what we are getting.

In New Brunswick media concentration is a big issue. Irving Group, one of the strongest and largest corporations in the country, owns all the daily English language newspapers in New Brunswick. It owns several weekly newspapers and periodicals and in addition to that, numerous radio stations. It is media concentration at its worst.

What I am suggesting to the minister is that there is an opportunity for the CBC to be an alternative in New Brunswick. I think people are tired of listening to the Irvings and their editorial comments and the position that they happen to take from time to time in terms of whom they support in national elections. Most Canadians find that very objectionable regardless of whom they support in an election. They have done this time and again.

I would like the minister to comment on that type of media concentration. What would her government's position be on allowing foreign ownership of newspapers in this country, in terms of competition alone? I know that is not just her decision but I do know the Government of Canada would have a position on that. I would like some comments and reflections by the minister if there is time.

[Liza Frulla, Liberal, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Chair, it is strange—but it is also quite right—that in the same party, there is one member who is questioning the role and usefulness of public television, while the other one—and rightly so—is saying that public television has a major role to play within Canadian components.

Because it is its role to do so, public television can present a variety of voices and it must also reflect on Canadians in general.

As for media concentration, it is important to ensure that we have a variety of voices in Canada. We are a very well informed society, with over 350 television channels that are available. However, this diversity must be reflected everywhere. This is not so much an issue of concentration of ownership. Indeed, today, to buy or to own media, one must have considerable financial means. Consequently, conglomerates are unavoidable in that industry. We must ensure that within conglomerates, there is a diversity of voices. We can say that one conglomerate is a little too much on one side. We can say that another one is too much on the other side. That being said, we must ensure that, within the same ownership, this diversity exists.

A Senate committee is currently examining this issue and is supposed to reach some findings. It has held consultations everywhere and is supposed to submit the conclusions of its findings before Christmas. Now, we are asking the Senate committee to share its findings with us so that we can refer them to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. We will then examine the issue of diversity that is very important for Canada.

[The Chair]

We are trying to run a close clock on it, but both the questions and the answers have to be heard. If the questions are long, the time gets eaten up. The member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl will have to come on the next round. Resuming debate.

[Michael John Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Chair, I am very pleased to speak to these estimates. I am delighted that one of the first things that I did as a member of Parliament was to conduct a round table in my community with the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Her competence, passion and commitment shone through and made a big impact on the people of Dartmouth--Cole Harbour and Halifax.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the Government of Canada's collaborative approach and commitment to sport and physical activity in Canada. The best illustration of this approach is the work that we are doing to prepare for the Olympics and the Paralympics in 2010 in Vancouver-Whistler.

As the recent throne speech said, these winter games are an opportunity to reinforce participation in sport by Canadians at the highest level and in our communities. The games are also much more than that. In just a few short years Canada will have a chance to showcase our commitment to excellence.

Of course, sport is about teamwork. Only through teamwork involving all Canadians, and I mean all Canadians from coast to coast, can we ensure that Canada will win gold in 2010.

The federal government is not alone in this. Canada's sport system is based on partnerships, and its sustainability relies on the full support of governments at all levels, sport organizations, the private sector, communities and volunteers. We all have a role to play because hosting these games will result in tangible benefits for Canada's developing and high performance athletes and to the country as a whole.

Our government's commitment to creating a lasting legacy will mean more than state of the art sport and training facilities. The legacy will be the expertise that is developed among officials and volunteers. It will be the pride Canadians will feel in themselves, their communities and their country. It will be the stories we will share as a nation for generations to come.

The games will also give Canada an opportunity to demonstrate to the world not only our sport excellence but our commitment to innovation, our distinctive culture and our values, values like cultural diversity and inclusion. The cultural component of these games, which will include a strong emphasis on the cultures of our first nations people, is already shaping up to be nothing short of spectacular.

Over the next six years the 2010 games undoubtedly will heighten Canada's interest in sport and physical activity. This brings me to one of the primary goals of our government's policy for sport: getting more Canadians involved and taking part in sport and physical activity and ensuring that the barriers to participation are reduced. This means involving more new Canadians, more young people, more economically disadvantaged people, more persons with disabilities, more aboriginal people and especially aboriginal children and youth.

As a member of Parliament I have seen the tremendous benefits of sport enjoyed by young people in my own riding. Participation in sport improves their health and fitness. It teaches them important lessons about life. It bolsters their confidence and self-esteem and builds friendships and social skills. I have seen how sport can improve the lives of people whose circumstances have put them on the margins of society. We must ensure that everyone has the opportunity to enjoy sport.

My colleagues in the government and I intend to work hard to remove the barriers to participation faced by the groups that I mentioned a moment ago, such as persons with disabilities, youth at risk, teenage women and others. We are operating from the deep belief that sport has the ability to transform lives. I know this belief is shared by many colleagues on all sides of the House. It is our duty to make sure that it is understood by all Canadians.

This belief is directly related to our government's priorities, as announced recently in the Speech from the Throne, including strengthening Canada's social foundations. Sport has a unique and important role to play. After all, our communities really come to life on the soccer fields and the baseball fields, at the hockey rinks, the tennis courts, sailing clubs, swimming clubs and rowing clubs, where people of all ages and walks of life come together in activities that help them lead healthy and more productive lives.

One of my passions and one of the reasons I strove to be appointed to the Standing Committee on Health is my belief that our cherished health system, our pride and joy, is only sustainable if we can develop a national wellness strategy, one of the chief components of which will be sport, because sport and indeed physical activity bring people together.

I remember someone telling me the other day of a bike ride he took here in Ottawa during which he saw different people playing cricket, ultimate, tennis, horseshoes and basketball, not to mention other cyclists, in-line skaters, joggers and people walking their dogs, all at different times. The more Canadians involve themselves in physical activity and sport, encourage the volunteerism embodied in sport, ensure that we have an ethically based sport system and give our top athletes the support they need, the more we make Canada a leading sport nation.

In doing this, we reap the benefits of a healthier population, stronger communities and a broader base of participants who will ensure long term excellence in sport for our nation. We can do these things by building on the commitments already laid out in the historic Canadian sport policy, the blueprint for the future of sport in our country.

The Government of Canada invests $120 million a year in initiatives designed to get more Canadians involved in sport and to support high-performance athletes. This investment is leveraged by our partnerships throughout the provinces and in the communities, ensuring that citizens and athletes get the resources they need to achieve their objectives.

There is still more that we can do.

Canadians understand the value of sport and physical activity in our society. The Government of Canada, along with our partners, will work hard to make sure that more Canadians, regardless of circumstance, can realize the benefits.

As we look ahead to Vancouver and Whistler in 2010, we must remember to cheer on our athletes who make us so proud as they serve as our ambassadors to the world. Their long road to excellence has meant a life of great personal sacrifice in time and money but also in terms of human relationships, career choices and on so many other levels for these athletes, athletes like Stephen Giles from my community of Dartmouth--Cole Harbour, who announced after the Athens games this year that he would be resigning from sport. He has inspired so many other athletes in my community and in the province of Nova Scotia. We need to recognize and honour that commitment.

Finally, we also need to acknowledge the importance of coaches to the success that Canadian athletes enjoy and ensure that we have world class coaching to back up our world class athletes. We will do it all and more in our efforts to make Canada a leading sport nation.

In that spirit, Mr. Chair, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of State for Sport. The minister recently announced an additional investment of $30 million for sport in Canada. I would ask the minister to tell the House what these funds might be used for.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Sport)]

Mr. Chair, I am immensely grateful to my hon. colleague for asking that important question, but also I am extremely pleased to be able to welcome him to the House. He clearly makes a great addition to the important policies of this government, taking them forth for the benefit of all Canadians.

Sport and participation in physical activity is of course one of the ways in which we enjoy the quality of life in this country, which probably is unrivalled anywhere in the world.

I was very pleased to hear of the very in-depth knowledge my colleague has of the importance of sport, from participation in our everyday life through physical activity, games, school sports and community sports, but also of the long development time people take to reach a really high performance level for international competition. Of course those athletes have to be assisted in their development. Also, when they reach that high level they must have access to the best coaches. They must have expenses covered for international competitions and international competitions must be hosted in Canada, something that is immensely important.

We have to do this together. The Government of Canada cannot fund all of this itself, but it is the largest funder of sports and athletic activity in Canada. That is even before we added $30 million in this year's budget to assist our athletes in reaching the highest performance and becoming the inspiration that they are to all Canadians, so that even if they do not reach a podium themselves, they will understand the advantages of healthy living and the joy of sport.

Even with all this extra funding, it has to be understood that the expense is really not very much compared to the advantages we Canadians get from it. It is relatively inexpensive for the benefits we get. It is fun. It is value based. It is rules based. It promotes collaboration, playing by the rules, gender equity and respect for each other. This is an extremely important aspect of the quality of life of all Canadians.

I have been asked a very specific question. As well as responding generally to the importance of the expenditures that the Government of Canada makes in sport, I would like to give a bit of detail on the extra $30 million in this year's budget, which we have been able to add, and since the budget, frankly, and which has been announced over the last two months.

This extra $30 million, which takes our total budget this year to $120 million, includes an extra $4.6 million to the athlete assistance program for the year. The athlete assistance program assists developmental athletes and high performance athletes by giving them a monthly stipend, tax free, to enable them to meet the tough conditions of training to the very highest degree but still be able to live in an effective way.

The 1,400 carded athletes in Canada, as they are called, these high performance and developmental athletes, if they are at the high performance level, the highest level, they now are granted, tax free, an increase of $4,800 a year. These 1,400 athletes include Paralympic athletes and this is immensely important. Canada is the only country in the world that treats its high performance Paralympians in exactly the same manner that it treats its Olympic athletes.

If I may digress, to underline the importance of this funding and this extra funding now, an extra $400 a month on top of the $1,100 already received tax free equals $18,000 a year tax free for our Paralympians and other high performance athletes. Let us reflect on the results of the Athens Paralympic Games. We had 144 Paralympians from Canada in those games. This is one of the largest numbers. Not only were all of those people participating in the games, but they achieved number three status in terms of gold medals in the world. This is extraordinary.

I believe if we all think together about what indicator of the level of development of a society could best show that this development is high and people are respected, it is the way that people are able to access all of the aspects of a quality of life, including physical education and competition and being supported to the very highest levels of competition.

Our Paralympians won 72 medals. I hope this extra money will get even more medals in the next Olympics and Paralympics in Turin, in Beijing and of course in Vancouver-Whistler.

I have only begun to talk about how far this extra $30 million this year is going to go for our Paralympians, our other Olympic athletes, our developmental athletes and the people who are inspired by their performances right across Canadian society. As they improve their health, they have fun, they learn to live by rules and rules based systems, and they enjoy the quality of life of this country.

[The Chair]

It was very good that the hon. minister made it all the way through without talking about the B.C. Lions. That is pretty good for the two of us.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Chair, let us move on to serious things. The way the government treats Canadian athletes is not serious. They deserve more respect than to be talked about once every four years.

I watch and I completely agree that Olympic athletes are an image of Canada, Quebec and all the other provinces. I have some questions for the minister of state for sport.

First, I would like to explain my knowledge of sport to the minister. I come from the world of sports. I climbed up the levels in mountain biking to become world president in 1991. From 1981 to 1992, I represented Canada as president of the Canadian Cycling Association. Thus, I know both elite and developmental sport, as well as the ministers who preceded this minister, including, of course, the hon. member for Outremont who is present in this House, and the minister, who was then the hon. member for Bourassa.

We succeeded in bringing the World Anti-Doping Agency and several world championships to Canada. I always asked myself why the government was so little involved with assisting athletes with potential.

Sport does not consist only of our elite athletes, certainly not. When I look at the elite athletes who just competed in Athens and who won medals, who took to the podium at the Paralympic and Olympic Games, very few of them have trouble attracting major financial sponsors who will help them continue until Beijing or wherever the summer Olympic games will be held in 2012.

I have some questions for the minister. I am looking at the document called Canadian Heritage: Estimates 2004-2005. I am on page 5; it is very precise. Under the heading “Development of excellence in the Canadian Sport System” $60 million has been budgeted for 2004-05. For 2005-06, this amount drops to $10 million. That is a $50 million hole in the funding for our athletes. Worse yet, in 2006-07, it remains at $10 million.

Thus, the $30 million the hon. minister has found for the athletes is non-renewable. That is very important. It is only a one shot deal. But, oops, as the hon. members opposite might say, what does the minister intend to do to restore the $50 million the athletes will lose? Unless, of course, the figures in the document before us are not correct.