Dick Proctor

[An act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, April 22nd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I intend to make a few brief remarks regarding the subamendment put forward by the hon. member for Selkirk--Interlake that says that the committee should report back to the House not later than June 21.

Bill C-15B has passed committee. The New Democratic Party caucus voted in favour of the legislation. We were supportive of government measures to modify sections of the criminal code dealing with cruelty to animals and sections of the Firearms Act making administration of the act and the gun registry system more responsive and easier to access.

Bill C-15B's cruelty to animals provisions would remove offences dealing with animal cruelty from the property crimes section of the criminal code and create a separate section. This is a conceptual shift our caucus has supported throughout the process. Rather than treating crimes against animals as crimes against property the bill would give animals their own status as creatures that can and do feel pain.

Concerns about the potential impact of Bill C-15B on rural and northern constituents were largely put to rest in going through the legislation. Amendments introduced by the former justice minister and supported by the NDP caucus addressed the concerns of farmers, fishers, hunters and trappers about being subject to frivolous prosecution or harassment. Under Bill C-15B they would have available to them many of the defences they possess under the existing code.

A number of animal welfare groups are concerned about the wording dealing with abandonment of animals. The government's recent amendments included the words wilful and reckless. According to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals this would make abandonment charges difficult to prosecute.

Bill C-15B would impact neither normal industry practices nor the legitimate use of animal products in society. Under the bill police forces and societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals would be able to prosecute animal cruelty offences in a stronger fashion.

The gun control and registration portion of the bill deals with modifications to the Canadian gun registration system. The changes were introduced to make the system more accessible and responsive to the demands of users. There was significant opposition from various gun lobby groups on the grounds that there should be no gun registration system at all. However the User Group on Firearms, a consultative body of gun users formed by the government, seemed satisfied with the modifications and the improvements they would make to the system. On the other side, the Coalition for Gun Control did not oppose the amendments.

When the agriculture committee was in New Brunswick last month we had the opportunity to tour the gun registration centre in Miramichi. We were all very pleased to see the image of the hon. member for Selkirk--Interlake come up on the screen. We were pleased his application had been accepted and his permit had been mailed to him the day before. I am sure he is proudly showing it to all his friends in Selkirk--Interlake.

I will close by referring to a sad and disturbing matter adjudicated last week in a Toronto courtroom. Two young men drew what seemed like, as the Globe and Mail editorial reported, “extraordinarily light sentences for killing and mutilating a cat and videotaping the spectacle in the name of 'art'”. Animal activists were outraged that one culprit received a 90-day jail term to be served on weekends and the other walked free in lieu of time already served. It was felt the sentencing judge could have been tougher. The two people convicted knew exactly what they were doing when they stole a healthy pet cat and inflicted unspeakable suffering by skinning it alive, dissecting it and gouging out one of its eyes.

Equally evident in court was that the two were in no way inhibited by the law as it currently stands. The law as it currently stands dates back 110 years. The maximum penalty for animal cruelty under the 110 year old act is six months.

Today's Globe and Mail editorial states:

Bill C-15B, which has received second reading by the House of Commons, would raise that maximum to five years. The new legislation would also permit a lifetime ban on pet ownership and increase the ceiling on fines to $10,000.

These useful changes, long overdue, reflect a sea change in public attitudes toward animals over the past century. As well, there is ample evidence that cruelty to animals is not only commonplace but also a threshold to other, more serious aberrant behaviour.

But you would not know that from the resistance the bill has generated among some Canadian Alliance and Tory MPs. For them, the new legislation is a sinister assault on the rights of farmers, ranchers, hunters and other law-abiding folk who work with animals.

Wrong. Under the changes, animal cruelty will have its own section in the Criminal Code. And in case those critics have forgotten, for a crime to occur there has to be intent.

[Privilege, April 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, may I say very sincerely and very sorrowfully to the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca that I think his interventions this afternoon are not worthy of him. We have heard him in the House over many years and I think this is a departure.

It reminds me of the story of the couple who were watching their son in a parade where the wife turned to her husband and said, “Look, everybody is out of step but my son, John”. I think that is what has happening here.

I want to put on the record the matter of the Waddell case. This is an historic debate. This does not happen every day where we have a situation like this. It happened about 11 years ago. It involved a member, Ian Waddell of Vancouver--Kingsway. There are some qualitative differences between that case and the case before the House this afternoon. I want to put some of that on the record.

The case involving Ian Waddell was night sitting. The House leaders had departed this place and the deputies who were acting in their place decided to have a short bell and a snap vote. Ian Waddell and Jim Fulton, the member for Skeena, were housed in the Confederation Building watching proceedings on television. They rushed to the Chamber to vote. There was a quick bell and there was not an opportunity for them to vote on a very important matter, that of seniors' taxation.

Mr. Waddell went to the Speaker of the day and asked him to return to the seat in order that they could have that vote. Surely, in that instance, Mr. Waddell's case was very strong. One of the fundamental rights of being a parliamentarian is having the ability to vote in this place. He was frustrated in that instance because the vote was taken away from him.

Mr. Waddell apologized. He was called before the bar. It was out of sheer frustration. It was not premeditated in his instance. The member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca has already told the House this afternoon that it was premeditated on his part.

I will simply close by saying that what we have heard today is unworthy of the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca.

[Trade, April 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Americans who claim to be free traders are rolling out the biggest farm subsidy in history. Our government ministers here on this side cluck their tongues and say that our pockets simply are not as deep. Our federal government surpluses are running at a record high, a much higher rate than was anticipated after September 11.

Farm leaders are asking for $1.2 billion to counteract the effect of these subsidies. Will the finance minister warm his cold, cold heart and agree immediately to provide the $1.2 billion that is so desperately required?

[Trade, April 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance apparently told the U.S. treasury secretary that there are some very serious problems in the Canada-America trade relations. He referenced hit and run duties on softwood lumber and a tax on the Canadian Wheat Board, both of which he said were politically motivated.

Americans need Canada's approval for the northern natural gas pipeline route. So far our government has been falling all over itself to co-operate. Did the finance minister indicate that this pipeline approval process would be slow walked should the U.S. continue to harass our lumber and grain exports?

[Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001, April 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating amendments to an act to amend the criminal code, specifically Bill C-15A, and that the House support amendments numbered 1(b) and 2 that were made recently by the Senate, but the Minister of Justice has indicated that the government disagrees with Amendment No. 1(a) because;

the amendment could exempt offenders from criminal liability even in cases where they knowingly transmit or make available child pornography.

Amendment No. 1(a) is designed to ensure that Internet service providers are not found liable for illegal acts under the legislation. This would mean that account providers would not be responsible for illegal content posted on websites owned by their account holders and made possible by the Internet service provider's equipment as well as not being held liable for illegal content received in an e-mail address or accessed through an account which they have provided.

The amendment is unnecessary. There are currently protections in the legislation for Internet service providers in terms of intentionally spreading and accessing child pornography. Further, Internet service providers have not given any alternatives to the situation that currently exists. Harmful content on the Internet is a growing problem and there must be some way that Internet service providers can ensure that web pages provided by them are not used to distribute child pornography.

Child pornography is extremely and especially valuable to pedophiles. Testifying in the Sharpe case, Dr. Peter Collins defined pedophilia in these terms: “the erotic attraction or the sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children”. Similarly:

The widespread availability of computers and the Internet has resulted in new ways of creating images, and has facilitated the storage, reproduction and distribution of child pornography.

Detective Waters, who also testified in the case, “likened this increased distribution to a tidal wave”. As stated in the annual report of the Criminal Intelligence Service Canada on organized crime in Canada for the year 2000:

The distribution of child pornography is growing proportionately with the continuing expansion of Internet use. Chat rooms available throughout the Internet global community further facilitate and compound this problem. The use of the Internet has helped pornographers to present and promote their point of view.

The R v Sharpe report stated:

Criminalizing the possession of child pornography may reduce the market for child pornography and decrease the exploitative use of children in its production.

Last week, thanks to the member for Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge, 37 members of parliament had an opportunity to hear from prosecutors and Dr. Collins on this very important topic. We heard that pedophiles can and do download thousands of erotic images; 25,000 to 30,000 images are not unusual in a case. As the House was told last week, there were 400,000 in one case.

The feeling of the prosecutors is that not all images should need to be presented at court, but only a representative sample, because now it is tying up police and prosecutions to deal with the cases, to deal with the hundreds and tens of thousands of images. As a result they are not able to arrest other known child pornographers because their resources are stretched too thin. We certainly agree with the government's rationale and we will not be supporting the Senate amendment there.

Very quickly, Amendment No. 1(c) deals with the issue of the wrongfully convicted. As the legislation is currently written, without the Senate amendment the Minister of Justice may delegate someone, anyone for that matter, to investigate a case in which an individual may have been wrongfully convicted. The Senate amendment states that the individual so delegated must have certain broad, legal qualifications. We support the amendment. It is a housekeeping amendment and the NDP caucus gives it the good housekeeping seal of approval.

I would like to turn, however, in the time I have left, to Amendment No. 1(b), which provides for an exclusion similar to that envisioned by the B.C. supreme court in dealing with the judgment in the case of Robin Sharpe. This would ensure that the possession of materials of artistic, scientific and educational merit would not be criminalized under this legislation. Though the idea of artistic merit can be problematic, as we have seen recently, this exclusion may be necessary to ensure the constitutionality of the legislation and that the offence of accessing child pornography over the Internet is congruent with other child pornography offences. The amendment would ensure that the legislation has that exclusion written in, that materials created or possessed for these purposes would not result in criminal sanctions.

The question of artistic merit has raised a good deal of concern and that is what the debate has focused on here. I would like to read into the record letters that I have received from constituents in Palliser.

Hazel Raine wrote on the Sharpe decision and stated:

The ruling by Justice Duncan Shaw...that the violent graphic stories of child sexual abuse produced by John Robin Sharpe have sufficient “artistic merit” for Canadian society is an insult to Canadians. Our children are precious and we want them protected by every means possible from pedophilic material. There should be an immediate appeal of this ruling.

She asks me as the representative here to “take whatever steps are necessary”.

In a similar letter with a similar tone, Sheryl Van Wert, also from Moose Jaw, stated:

This ruling implies that we value artistic expression over the protection of Canada's children--our future. As a Canadian citizen hoping to one day be a parent, I ask that you carefully consider your part of the decision to be made regarding this ruling. Please protect our future generations from those who would destroy their innocence and safety.

We do have two very clearly different points of view on this. There is a notion, as these letters indicate, that the defence of artistic merit makes it a simple walk in the park for pedophiles to hide behind a claim of legitimacy. That is a major concern. On the other hand, there is the concern, from people who do not have child pornography as a primary concern, that we would be limiting freedom of expression and freedom of speech.

I will read an excerpt from a play written some time ago by the poet laureate in the New Democratic Party caucus, the member for Dartmouth. The play is entitled All Fall Down . There is a soliloquy by one of the people in the play, Connors, who works with sexually abused children and in this excerpt contemplates the working of the human mind. Connors states:

How do you protect yourself from the images flying around out there. How do you protect yourself from the images in your own head. A man bounces his daughter on his lap, sits on the bed and watches his wife undress, thinks about winter tires, the teller with the big hooters at the bank, how he'd like to reach out and stroke them, his daughter's musical giggles, the bruise on his wife's leg, how soft the little girl's cheeks are. He wonders if she was fifteen years older and not his daughter--but that's gone in an instant and he remembers his own mother's scent, her shining hair, sitting on her lap, feeling like the only special one in the world, and suddenly, he despises his wife, wants to strangle her, but just for an instant, maybe wants to end his own life too, all those gaping nights, weeks, years ahead, all those dark unexplored holes behind, and then that's gone too. Thoughts fly by like hummingbirds. Some of them could land you in jail but if you keep them in your head, they're harmless there--

In the matter of the Sharpe case and the supreme court decision, Chief Justice McLachlin, writing for the majority, indicated that “any objectively established artistic value, however small, suffices to support the defence”. While the ruling added that “what may reasonably be viewed as art is admittedly a difficult question--one that philosophers have pondered through the ages”, it concluded that it is necessary to maintain a society in which “artists, so long as they are producing art, should not fear prosecution” under a child pornography law.

The supreme court's attempt to strike a balance between preserving freedom of expression and protecting children from dangerous pornography has drawn fire across the board. Rose Dyson, representing Canadians Concerned about Violence in Entertainment, stated that the “artistic merit defence” is in fact “a gaping loophole” that would make it easy for the most vile pedophile to hide behind claims that he is producing literature.

While civil libertarians applauded Mr. Sharpe's acquittal on all charges related to his fictional works, their main argument is that only photos or other material depicting “actual children” should ever be subject to prosecution. According to John Dixon, President of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association:

Writings ought to be freely distributable among adults no matter what fantastic or imagined content.

A 1999 paper written by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association stated:

Artistic taste is largely in the eye of the beholder. How could a blunt instrument like the criminal law define the distinction between serious efforts and those which are not? What possible justification is there to criminalize any fictionalized depictions?

The CCLA warned that the “overbreadth” of the law “appears capable of imperiling legitimate art” while striving to stamp out the pornographic fantasies of a few “disordered souls”.

On the other hand, Carleton University journalism Professor Klaus Pohle, who has criticized similar legislation in which hate propaganda and obscenity are left open to broad interpretation by the courts, said that building a law on a “fuzzy” definition is a recipe for disaster. He stated:

Anybody can stand up and say there is artistic merit in anything. What you're doing here is putting on trial the definition of artistic merit.

In fact, English Professor Paul Delaney of Simon Fraser University testified at trial that Mr. Sharpe's writing skills were negligible and insisted that even if some of his work showed a shred of artistic merit:

...we do not allow speeding drivers to avoid punishment by appeal to the 'esthetics' of an intense, thrill-seeking experience.

Mr. Justice Duncan Shaw sided with those who indeed viewed Mr. Sharpe's work as literature. Judge Shaw stated:

Mr. Sharpe's portrayals of people, events, scenes and ideas are reasonably well written. He uses parody and allegory, not expertly, but he does use them...His plots show some imagination and are sometimes fairly complex.

On the other hand, in the 6 to 3 verdict at the supreme court, those in the minority, Justices L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier and Bastarache, saw this case very differently. I would like to quote from their observations in their dissenting minority report. They stated:

Child pornography, as defined by s. 163.1(1) of the Criminal Code, is inherently harmful to children and to society...Child pornography is harmful whether it involves real children in its production or whether it is a product of the imagination. Section 163.1 was enacted to protect children, one of the most vulnerable groups in society. It is based on clear evidence of direct harm caused by child pornography, as well as Parliament's reasoned apprehension that child pornography also causes attitudinal harm.

In their report, those three justices went on to state that:

The inclusion of written material in the offence of possession of child pornography does not amount to thought control. The legislation seeks to prohibit material that Parliament believed was harmful. The inclusion of written material which advocates and counsels the commission of offences against children is consistent with this aim, since, by its very nature, it is harmful, regardless of its authorship. Evidence suggests that the cognitive distortions of paedophiles are reinforced by such material and that written pornography fuels the sexual fantasies of paedophiles and could incite them to offend.

...the benefits of the legislation far outweigh any deleterious effects on the right to freedom of expression and the interests of privacy...[it] helps to prevent the harm to children which results from the production of child pornography; deters the use of child pornography in the grooming of children; curbs the collection of child pornography by paedophiles; and helps to ensure that an effective law enforcement scheme can be implemented.

In sum, the legislation benefits society as a whole as it sends a clear message that deters the development of antisocial attitudes. The law does not trench significantly on speech possessing social value since there is a very tenuous connection between the possession of child pornography and the right to free expression. At most, the law has a detrimental cost to those who find base fulfilment in the possession of child pornography.The privacy of those who possess child pornography is protected by the right against unreasonable search and seizure as guaranteed by s. 8 of the Charter. The law intrudes into the private sphere because doing so is necessary to achieve its salutary objectives. The privacy interest restricted by the law is closely related to the specific harmful effects of child pornography. Moreover, the provision's beneficial effects in protecting the privacy interests of children are proportional to the detrimental effects on the privacy of those who possess child pornography.

They end the section this way:

It goes without saying that child pornography which sexually exploits children in its production is harmful. Moreover, we have seen that the harms of child pornography extend far beyond direct, physical exploitation. It is harmful whether it involves real children in its production or whether it is a product of the imagination.

The dissenting supreme court justices wrote:

In either case, child pornography fosters and communicates the same harmful, dehumanizing and degrading message.

At the meeting of MPs last week we heard from police and prosecutors who stated that the dehumanizing and degrading message extends to the written text where short stories apparently give vivid examples of every imaginable sexual act, including rape and bondage. It was pointed out that if someone advocates genocide or promotes hatred in Canada, artistic merit is not a defence. We then have to ask why artistic merit should be a legal defence when it comes to child pornography.

There is no artistic merit defence inherently required for child pornography as, for example, no artistic merit defence applies to uttering threats to cause death or falsely yelling fire in a theatre or a host of other offences. In those circumstances, parliament has rightly concluded that the risk of public harm inherent in the expression outweighs any attendant public benefit derived from the artistic merit of the expression itself.

This is an extremely important issue. Very good arguments can be made on both sides but I think it is critically important that we have a rapid re-examination of the question of artistic merit, either by parliament itself and if not by parliament then certainly by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The committee should be looking at this very carefully so we can have legislation that can and will create a more comprehensive and thoughtful legislation dealing with child pornography. The failure to act will continue to place children at substantial risk.

In closing, I will read what Dr. Peter Collins said last week to the 37 members of parliament who gathered in the reading room for a discussion. Quoting from the Talmud, Dr. Collins said:

If you save one life, it is as if you've saved the world.

[Species at Risk Act, April 16th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take part in the debate on Bill C-5.

This is the third version of species at risk legislation that has been brought before parliament in recent years and there is one common theme that runs through them all. Each time they are introduced the legislation is weaker than the previous time.

On this occasion there were a number of good amendments from a hardworking environment committee, one that I participated in briefly. There were countless hours put in on that committee in its deliberations. It came forward with a number of amendments and as we heard today virtually all of them have been gutted and undercut by the cabinet members opposite.

It seems to me that what the speaker who just concluded his remarks and others are saying and what cabinet is doing by its actions is that the legislation is too important to be left in the hands of legislators. That is an extremely unfortunate occurrence. We are sent here from 301 ridings across the country to do our jobs to the best of our abilities.

In this case the environment committee came together, worked hard, proposed a number of good amendments including compensation for ranchers and farmers and then the cabinet turned around and said in effect that it did not really care what the environment committee thought. The government said it would be this way. It really diminishes the relevance of the House of Commons, this institution, and the whole democratic process.

On the species at risk act, SARA, we are experiencing the largest extinction epidemic worldwide since the time of the dinosaurs. Scientists believe we could lose a quarter of our species on earth within the next three decades if we do not change course.

We have serious endangered species problems of our own. Twenty-seven have already gone extinct in Canada in the past century and a half. We have more than 350 species known to be at risk and the list grows year after year. Some of the animals that are at risk are: the beluga whale; the woodland cariboo; the burrowing owl, which we have in the riding I represent in Saskatchewan; and the grizzly bear. All these species could vanish in coming decades unless and until we take strong steps to protect them. The legislation is long overdue.

I will turn briefly to Group No. 4 that is under discussion today. We feel that none of the changes are more offensive than the amendments that are proposed that remove the ability of the first nations to have input into the implementation of the species at risk act. There were a number of proposed amendments made at the time and they have all been gutted. These amendments were made by the Metis, the Dene, the Inuit, and other first nations. It is a sad commentary what has transpired since the committee reported before Christmas.

I would like to mention the Rio summit of 10 years ago. There was political courage demonstrated and political capital risked at the earth summit at Rio in 1992 when Canada was a signatory to the creation of laws aimed at protecting the vulnerable species. I happened to hear the former environment minister speaking on CBC last Friday and referring to the decade of neglect, which was her phrase, and what transpired since the Rio summit of 1992. The government office came into power late in 1993 and virtually nothing has happened in the intervening 10 years since that occurrence.

This is in sharp contrast to what is happening in other countries. Mexico has made the protection of critical habitat mandatory. Canada is only proposing to make it discretionary. A species would enjoy protection under the provision of this law at the pleasure of the environment minister. If a species were deemed worthy of protection there would remain a period, which could be as long as 30 months, before the habitat would actually be protected, and only the residents, the nest or the den would be protected in the interim.

I want to say a word or two about property rights. I acknowledge that I come from a riding which contains a mix of both rural and urban. I want to address the real concerns that people have in the riding of Palliser about the law which if passed would affect them.

Our party believes that people must be compensated if their lives are affected by this plan to rescue any endangered species. Landowners must be assured that they are not facing personal loss in order to protect habitat. If land is purchased it has to be with the consent of the owner and at fair market price. Workers whose jobs are lost or whose paycheques shrink must be compensated. The same logic applies to communities.

We know that Canadians want to stop more of our wildlife from disappearing forever. All of us want to do that and we understand that as a result the cost of protecting those species must be shared by all of us and not just the people on whose land the endangered species happen to live.

There is an amendment in Group No. 4, made late in the day, which would suggest a bit of a compromise in terms of natives, and working with cabinet ministers and aboriginal leaders. It is a may as opposed to a shall. We are concerned about that. The cabinet opposite needs to stand and restore that wording to shall as opposed to may in this regard.

A large number of communities, such as the aboriginal groups, the first nations, the Metis, the Dene and the Inuit, have come forward with detailed, strong and impressive presentations that impacted not only with regard to representation in the legislation but also in many other ways. I know that the committee was impressed with the representation by those organizations. The feeling of betrayal that those groups have is understandable with what has transpired since the House returned in late January.

It seems to me that the changes that have been made to Bill C-5 do nothing to encourage farmers and ranchers. They do nothing for aboriginals. Frankly they do nothing for the environment and for species at risk. They do nothing for the institution of this place and for legislators. All they do perhaps is put a happy face on the cabinet's point of view. The bill as amended is a sham and not worthy of support.

[Physical Activity and Sport Act, April 15th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. Yes, of course we think the Official Languages Act should be respected.

In the preamble to his intervention the hon. member talked about health as a totally provincial jurisdiction. That is not my interpretation of health care in Canada. It is a shared jurisdiction. It is clear from the British North America Act that there is a significant federal component to health care. The federal government has responsibility for maintaining the five principles of the Canada Health Act. The federal government needs to work with the provinces and territories in this area but it is not an either/or situation. It is the same in agriculture where there is joint jurisdiction.

Regarding the Official Languages Act, there is no question our party supports the hon. member's view.

[Physical Activity and Sport Act, April 15th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister. I hope that is the case. I take him at his word.

All I am trying to say is that it seems there will inevitably be more tugs and pressures toward putting resources to the high performance side. That is why I think the minister and the department need to keep their eye on the ball. However it is comforting to hear what the minister is saying. We will be watching with care.

[Physical Activity and Sport Act, April 15th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague because he has hit on what I was trying to emphasize perhaps in my own feeble way. I am concerned because the bill has the two track approach. The sports side would be overwhelmed at the expense of the physical activity side.

There are a number of ways in which to respond to the member's point. One of them that comes to mind is the whole infrastructure program that occurred a few years ago. Some of that money in the province of Alberta went to the Calgary Saddledome and the Northlands Coliseum, or whatever business group it is named today.

That is not what Canadians in this Environics poll were talking about when they said to build more arenas. They want to build more arenas for kids to play hockey, not for the Jerome Iginlas and all the other superstar athletes.

That is the point my colleague is making, we need inner city activity. We need to get our kids involved in programs to get them away from the television set or other activities that are harmful to them and perhaps to other members of our society as well.

The member spoke of the specific incident of the Winnipeg Jets. A couple of years ago we went through the 24 hour flip-flop by the now Deputy Prime Minister about helping out professional sport teams with support payment subsidies. Canadians gave a very negative reaction to that. The quick reversal recognized the furor that it caused at the time.

Canadians are sending a clear message. I am glad the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport is here today and listening to this debate because it is important that we focus on the physical activity side so that it is not overwhelmed by the glamorous professional sport or the excellence of our top athletes.

[Physical Activity and Sport Act, April 15th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to publicly congratulate the minister responsible for amateur sport for his recent appointment to cabinet.

The purposes of Bill C-54 are to encourage, promote and develop sport and physical activities and to reflect and strengthen the role of government in sport. We saw here today on the floor of the House that sport and physical activity are very important to Canadians and I think there is a recognition that the government should promote physical activity and participation in sporting activities. As the member for the Bloc noted, all of this requires the co-operation of provincial and territorial governments, physical education and activity groups, the sports community and the private sector. The government's role in all of this is the promotion of physical activity as a basic element of health and well-being of Canadians and also the reduction of barriers that prevent them from being active.

There certainly are barriers to physical activity. Canadians face real and perceived barriers in moving from a sedentary to an active lifestyle. Central among them is the lack of social, physical and cultural environments that support people's intentions to become active. Other barriers include lack of time, energy, information and access to facilities and costs and concern for safety. These systemic barriers need to be addressed if public health objectives related to physical activity are to be achieved.

The bill sets out various goals such as increased participation, the support of excellence and the building of capacity in the Canadian sports system. The government is looking for drug free sports, fair play and the fair and timely resolution of disputes, the alternative dispute resolution system on which I will say more in a moment.

The government has correctly targeted women, the disabled, aboriginals and other minorities as groups requiring upgrading of physical activity, all the while boosting the high performance sports and the athletes that go with them. Physical education programs will be re-emphasized according to the terms of the bill and that is welcome. Recently the press has reported that there is something like a 400% reduction in physical activity in the current younger generation compared to those who were young back in the 1960s. A fitter, more active population would obviously save billions of dollars in our health care system.

Today the member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough was on his feet talking about sport and physical activity. The current Minister of Health applauded and congratulated him, especially on his remarks about physical activity, but the ministry that she is now responsible for has over the last couple of years entirely cut out the very well applauded participaction program that was around for almost 30 years starting in 1971. It died, not because Canadians were not interested but because financial resources from the government continued to drop until the program was not sustainable any longer.

Back to public health and on women and aboriginal groups, these two groups are overrepresented in many of our health care areas and underrepresented when it comes to physical activity and sports.

In January immediately after the minister was appointed Secretary of State for Amateur Sport, his department received a letter from a gentleman in Regina who was endeavouring to develop a weekend tournament in March of next year for outdoor hockey league participants. Probably 45% of these participants, 950 individuals all told, would be first nations or Metis children.

The outdoor hockey league, the OHL as it is known in Regina, is particularly for young boys who do not have the wherewithal to join the tiered hockey system. They have a competitive outdoor hockey league which relies on used equipment. It has received support from the NHL Players Association and others. It is a highly worthwhile endeavour.

Mr. Ken Jones, who is intimately involved with the outdoor hockey league in Regina, is trying to promote a weekend tournament in March called the world cup dream weekend. He is looking for financial assistance from the government. Unfortunately, there has been no response. My office checked with Mr. Jones earlier today and there has not even been an acknowledgment. We hope that there will be an acknowledgment forthcoming so that plans can proceed for this important tournament next year.

The physical activity and sport bill would encourage sport as a tool to develop Canada in co-operation with other countries. Private sector money is part of the bill, facilitating the participation of under-represented groups. It would encourage provinces and the territories to co-ordinate, stage and host Canadian games or international games in this country. It would also support additional activities and alternate dispute resolutions for sport.

The dispute resolutions centre is deemed to be a not for profit independent corporation, a national dispute resolution service with expertise and assistance in this area. The goal is timely, fair and transparent resolutions of sport.

One of the things I am concerned about in the bill is the two track policy, one is sport and the other is physical activity. It will be easy for people who are monitoring and implementing it to be overwhelmed by the sport aspect of it at the expense of physical activity.

Jim Thompson, recently appointed chief executive officer of the Canadian Olympic Association, has said that we definitely need to focus on high-performance excellence. The Secretary of State for Amateur Sport agreed with Mr. Thompson's analysis. I emphasize, and we saw it here today, that we do need success stories. Our children need success stories that come from athletes who perform very well at the international level.

With the glamour, the idolization of athletes, and the fawning that sometimes occurs around successful athletes we must ensure that we do not go all out on one side and forget about the fact that it needs to be the greatest good for the greatest number. We need to be out there promoting physical education and physical activity that occurs for all of our young people, encouraging lifelong habits and, as a result, put less wear and tear on our health care system.

I am pleased to see in today's newspaper some reference to the greatest good for the greatest number. There was a fairly large survey that has just been released that indicates 65% of Canadians would like more government money spent on arenas, playgrounds and swimming pools, as well as sports for women, the poor, the disabled and aboriginals. As long as we can keep our eye on the goal of physical activity, the government will be responding to what Canadians are saying as a result of being polled.

The result of the extensive consultation that has been alluded to in this debate earlier is that the 1961 act is no longer reflective of today's modern sports and Canadian sport policy. The government's role requires a more strategic and collaborative approach. One of the minor things that would occur with the bill is the deletion of amateur sport because it is increasingly ambiguous and many other countries have dropped it.

I note in passing that this was presented by the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport. I am assuming that we will see a bill to make that individual the minister of state for sport. We will stay tuned on that one. Bill C-54 would allow the government to work collaboratively with partners, including professional sports.

I would like to provide a few more specifics on the alternative dispute resolution which proposes a secretariat. There is no organization in Canada now to advise national sports organizations when they have a dispute. This would offer procedures and independent mediation and arbitration services as an alternative to the time consuming notion of going to courts, which is what has been in place heretofore. That is an appropriate change in the bill.

I will be supportive of Bill C-54 and my colleagues in the New Democratic Party caucus will as well. It is worthy of support overall but I urge that we keep an eye on the physical activity component because there will be that inevitable attraction to the high performance side of sport where we shower attention and money on our star athletes.

We need to be concerned about the growing obesity that we see, especially in the younger generation, the potato chip crowd, that likes to sit back and watch all of this. The minister said that Canadians have a passion for physical activity and sport. They have a passion for sport. I am less sure that they have a passion for physical activity. We really need to encourage that in the bill.

The bill talks about barriers. Surely one of the barriers is the fact that too many Canadians are working too long. They are exhausted at the end of a workday or work week and too tired to either work out themselves or to encourage their children to get away from the television set, go outside or otherwise take part.

In the province of Ontario where the House of Commons is situated we have a 60 hour work week. Some of us thought many years ago at university that we would have reduced work weeks. What we find is that people tend to be working longer hours, which means that there is less time to indulge. We could take lessons from Europe, especially Scandinavian and Nordic countries, in terms of learning how some other societies deal with those kinds of problems.

These kinds of barriers must be addressed. Let us be careful that the physical activity side is not overwhelmed by the sport side. I expect the NDP caucus will support the bill and I intend to.