Mr. Speaker, I move that the second report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, presented on Wednesday, February 5, 2014, be concurred in.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for that warm welcome.
I would like to discuss this report, which was tabled just after the House returned following the adjournment for the holiday break. It was about preparations for the Sochi Olympic Games. It is very important to take this opportunity to congratulate the athletes for their fine performance and to thank them for how they represented us on the world stage.
With all due respect to our interpreters, since I get to work alongside these stakeholders and the athletes, I will, in the other official language, again repeat and offer my congratulations to our athletes for their phenomenal performances and the pride with which they represented us in Sochi.
I would like to talk about the recommendations in this report.
The first recommendation had to do with the biggest and most worrisome issue about the Sochi games. I am talking about issues related to protecting human rights and, more specifically, Russia's anti-LGBT laws. Those laws caused a lot of political tension and a lot of fear and concern over how people would be treated, especially those from abroad. We are talking here about Canadians who attended this event as athletes, coaches, support staff and journalists and everyone else involved in the mission to Sochi.
My colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, who is our critic for LGBT rights and issues in Canada, and I worked hard together to bring this issue to the forefront in terms of the concerns that a lot of folks expressed in the lead-up to the Sochi games.
One of the things that concerned us greatly was the fact that on several occasions we had the opportunity to raise the issue in the House and question the Minister of Foreign Affairs as to what exactly was going to be done and whether the government would accept the New Democrats' recommendation to appoint a special consular official, as New Zealand did, who would deal specifically with any issues that could arise concerning the anti-gay laws in Russia.
Unfortunately, the government did not act upon that idea. Not only that, but we were unable to get any sort of concrete information as to what exactly was being done. We had to limit ourselves to very vague ideas of possible extra consular staff and extra attention possibly being brought to the issue without any specifics.
That said, in committee and in the report, we were pleased to find that, despite our great disappointment regarding the lack of specific information from the minister concerning security measures, we nonetheless could see the good will to ensure people's safety. No matter our political allegiance, we all agreed that Canadians going to Sochi for the Olympic Games had to be safe. Naturally, we are very pleased that there were no unfortunate incidents and that everything went as it should. Despite our political differences on this issue, it is important, from that perspective, to recognize the work done by the consular officers on site. They were on the alert and there were no incidents. We are very pleased with that and with the government's response. Although some details were missing, we have to be satisfied with how events unfolded.
Setting aside the security issue, with this study we also had the opportunity to look into the development of, and funding for, our athletes. That is a very important matter. It is interesting because every time we ask questions about sport or physical inactivity among young people, the government likes to say that it is making record investments in sport. It is probably the only time we will hear this from an NDP or opposition member with respect to a government position. However, we agree with this government position and we do not want to make any changes to government investments in our Olympic athletes.
Nevertheless, the major concern raised in committee was not how much money was spent, but how the money was spent.
A big concern arose with regard to the own the podium program, which is obviously the cornerstone of the government's policy when it comes to funding sports in Canada, and more particularly, when it comes to funding our Olympic athletes and their successes. There are some challenges coming up in the next couple of days with own the podium, because own the podium was coming to an end in its first iteration. There was a need, according to nearly all the witnesses who presented to committee, to see that we had proper timelines in place to allow for the proper development of athletes. There was some concern about some of that funding being too short term. I think it is important to highlight the government's response to the committee's report, which did raise in recommendation No. 2 that we see that this funding continue over a longer term. The government does say, and as I said it is a fact, that it has continued the record investment in the last budget, but it is very wishy-washy in terms of how long that funding will actually be in place and whether the timeline will be appropriate for the different sports organizations.
In terms of the own the podium program, witnesses also talked about the sports it supported. Own the podium, as the name suggests, focuses mainly on the sports that we are most likely to medal in. We heard from a number of witnesses who represented associations for sports in which we were deemed unlikely to have a chance of winning, sports that do not get a lot of attention, such as biathlon. We heard from representatives of the biathlon association.
We do not want to change the funding strategy, but we do not want to abandon athletes in sports that are more obscure—I do not really like that word because it seems negative—and sports where athletes tend to be forgotten. It is very important not to do that. Once again, the government response does not really address that issue.
Recommendation No. 4, which we talked about in committee, is about encouraging private sector investment. All of our sports associations and the Canadian Olympic Committee rely heavily on funding from the private sector. The NDP and taxpayers know that it is important and good for private companies in our society to support and encourage our athletes in this way.
However, it is extremely important for the government to create an environment that encourages private sector investment. Several witnesses told us that that is not always the case, despite major improvements since the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver.
In that sense I think we are somewhat satisfied with the government's answer. We agree we need to find better ways to encourage private funding for athletes and for the Canadian Olympic Committee and all the sports associations that represent our athletes so well, that structure them so well, and represent the sports so well.
That being said, there is not a concrete plan yet. The Minister of State for Sport, with whom I have an excellent working relationship, and I will be discussing this in the coming weeks, months and years leading up to the next winter Olympics.
Recommendation No. 5 from the committee's report deals with an issue that has been at the core of the work I have done since becoming the NDP sports critic. It is the question of youth inactivity and how we can find better ways to take advantage of these great role models that we have in our Olympic athletes and these great ambassadors, dare I say great human beings? They are fantastic people I have had the honour and pleasure of meeting. They are ready and willing to help young Canadians be more active. They are ready and willing to be those role models.
Many of the witnesses who presented to committee did bring up this concern.
I think, as we see in the recommendation, part of that comes through working with provinces and territories and, through them, with municipalities. Municipalities are obviously at the front line of the services offered to Canadians when it comes to infrastructure, for example, when it comes to having sports programs in place at the more local level. I think that is interesting. I remember having a discussion with some of the witnesses and some of the stakeholders, both in committee and in private discussions. I think that one of the ways we need to move forward is to look at the funding as a pyramid.
At the top of the pyramid are the elite, our Olympic athletes, to whom we will continue to provide financial and moral support. However, when our Olympic athletes perform for us, they also inspire future Olympians, young people in our local communities. That is the base of the pyramid.
There is a very good expression for this:
A rising tide raises all ships.
We should be funding sport and supporting our Olympians with the aim of encouraging young people to be more physically active. That is something that the sports community is very supportive of.
At the local level, we encourage people to be active. Of course, not every young person is going to go on to become an Olympian. However, some of them will maintain healthy lifestyles and others will become Olympians. It is a win-win because we will have an active community as well as up-and-coming Olympians, who will make us very proud.
In its response, the government mentioned the children's fitness tax credit. I was disappointed with that response because we concluded that the children's fitness tax credit was hugely inadequate and did not address the needs of everyday Canadians.
Let me explain myself in a bit more detail.
I think the first big flagrant problem with the tax credit for youth physical activity is the fact that when we look at the income brackets of those who are benefiting from this tax credit, it is those who do not need it. At the end of the day, it is a situation where one has to put out in order to get back. Folks who are able to pay are getting extra money in their pocket, which is fine.
However, the flip side of the coin is that folks in lower-income brackets who do not necessarily have the ability to pay for the skyrocketing costs of participating in sports, whether that is the equipment or the registration costs, are not able to benefit from this tax credit. That is a huge problem.
Our preliminary research shows that tax credits do not really seem to help those who are not already enrolled in physical activities or sports.
Those who benefit from the tax credit are usually already enrolled in a sport anyway. The government says that this tax credit is meant to be an incentive for those who are not already involved in physical activities, but it is clear that the policy and social objectives of the tax credit are not being met. That is why we are trying to find a way to improve this policy, which has proven to be somewhat disappointing.
I want to say another word on the rising cost of sport in this country.
When we look at some organizations, I think of the phenomenal work that is done by an organization like Right to Play. It is an organization that sometimes goes to war-torn areas in the world. It also goes to developing countries where it is a lot more challenging to put in place the proper sports infrastructure, to get kids involved, because they are worried about day-to-day issues. They are worried about eating. They are worried about clean drinking water and things like that. They are not necessarily thinking about physical activity. Right to Play has done phenomenal work in using sports as a tool to build communities, using sports to get young people involved in their communities in a positive way.
I always like to say when I meet folks that one of the reasons I got involved in politics in my community was through sports. It is a way to meet people in the community, to be involved with them and, hopefully, one that leads to more constructive community participation.
That being said, when we think about the work that Right to Play does, it is unfortunate that we sometimes forget what is happening in our own backyard. To that point, there is some great work being done. I know there are some projects that are getting aboriginal youth more involved in sports, programs that unfortunately do not always have the support that we would like to see from the government, so when I see this answer from the government, I am obviously pleased to see that it is acknowledging the problem, but it is far, far from enough.
Let us look at the other recommendations in the report and the aspect that pertains to the provincial governments. I think it is important to understand the challenge facing the sports community in terms of respecting jurisdictions.
A number of witnesses said that provinces such as British Columbia and Quebec were good examples to follow when it came to some aspects of their programs to encourage young people to participate in sports. We are hoping for collaboration in that regard. In its response to the report, the government promises to strengthen and improve that collaboration.
However, we are still concerned. Whether we are talking about sports—a somewhat less partisan topic—or about more substantial issues in this Parliament, we know that collaboration with the provinces sometimes means that the federal government offloads its responsibilities onto the provinces.
It is extremely important that collaboration means just that and that the federal government fully assumes its responsibilities and does the work it needs to do in that regard, while respecting the jurisdiction of the provinces. The most obvious example is education, where most of the work is done to encourage young people to engage in physical activity.
I would also like to talk about certain aspects of the study that are not necessarily included in the recommendations but that we hear about. However, I do not want to forget a major recommendation in the report that deals with doping and injuries, two extremely important issues. In committee, we heard from a witness from the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport, who spoke specifically about doping.
When I look at the question of doping, there are some serious concerns. As far as we and the stakeholders are concerned, not enough is being done right now, especially on how we behave in terms of border security and with what is happening at the ministry of public safety with the handling of drugs. Often they are steroids, as in this particular case, and there is a huge problem with the amount of information available. A lot of time steroids are finding their way into products that are being consumed, with very little to no information available for athletes, so they are consuming these in ignorance, and that is a very serious problem.
I see that I am running out of time. It is crazy how time flies when you are talking about something you feel passionate about.
The government did not really mention concussions in its response, but I would like to say that the answer to that problem is simple.
It involves supporting the bill introduced by my colleague from Sudbury, my predecessor as the critic for sport, which seeks to implement a national strategy to combat injuries in amateur sports, particularly concussions, which are a scourge. We are working very hard to try to set up a round table to bring together experts.
The government brags that it has made unprecedented investments in the study of concussions. However, we know that too much work in this area is being done in silos. We need to bring together the stakeholders to solve this problem.
I will end on that note, and I encourage members to ask me questions so that I am able to share more information on this subject.
