Peter MacKay

[Code of Conduct, June 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, like other members who have spoken previously, it is with some reluctance that I stand to speak about the issue of ethics here in the House, given the sad spectacle that we have seen in the last number of weeks and months, I would suggest, and some might argue we could go right back to the beginning in 1993. We are talking about the government's record of ethics and the need to refer the matter to an independent committee to look at the issue overall.

The problem with the motion is that it is a bit of a diversion. It distracts away from the real issue of the ethics of the decision makers in this place, the cabinet and the executive branch, and those who have ultimate signing authority over millions and millions of taxpayers' dollars and the way in which they have been conducting their duties.

I want to address the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. I congratulate him on the remarks he put forward this morning. I was certainly pleased to hear him point out the fallacy of the Prime Minister's boast that he has not fired any ministers for misconduct.

Of course what we have seen is the complete duplicitous actions of the Prime Minister in sending off and in fact rewarding some members of the cabinet, giving them postings overseas, simply giving them lateral shuffles or waiting until there is an opportune time to sort of slip them under the rug. Indeed, because of the Prime Minister's low ethical bar, as has been pointed out many times by individuals like Gordon Robertson, the retired Clerk of the Privy Council, the Prime Minister has failed in maintaining a duty of high standards for himself and for those around the cabinet table.

It is easy to have no resignations or no dismissals because high standards are what result in resignations and dismissals. To brag that there were no firings is to admit that the bar has been lowered to an all time low. Do not just take that from a partisan opposition member. Let us examine the words of Gordon Robertson who now at age 83 is in a unique position to provide commentary.

Gordon Robertson spent his entire professional life as a public servant beginning in 1941 serving parliament. He worked for Mackenzie King. He was Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau's superior in the Privy Council Office between 1950 and 1952. He served as the Clerk of the Privy Council to John Diefenbaker, Lester Pearson and Mr. Trudeau. He was the first secretary to the cabinet for federal-provincial relations. Mr. Robertson is a person who in essence achieved the very highest office in the civil service. He is a very educated intellectual in commenting on the government's performance.

What did Gordon Robertson have to say about the government's performance and in particular the Shawinigan scandal? I am quick to point out that scandal is the all time low in government and perhaps will go down as the biggest scandal in Canadian history when all the facts are finally outed. It is the type of scandal that makes the Watergate scandal look more like a shoplifting charge at a five and dime store. This is what Gordon Robertson said about the government's performance:

What happened in Shawinigan would never have met the standard set in Pearson's code of ethics. I should know. I drafted it. This Prime Minister has lowered the bar.

Certainly that is a scathing, damning condemnation from a person like Gordon Robertson.

The Prime Minister cannot provide leadership to the House on ethical questions. He has failed abysmally in that duty. In 1995, two years after the Prime Minister took office, the auditor general presented a report on ethics in government. This is what it contained in chapter one:

Four scenarios dealt with the appropriateness of receiving benefits, preferentially conferring benefits or improperly using knowledge of a department. On the whole, public servants in the four departments believe it would be inappropriate to receive benefits from suppliers to or recipients of their programs, preferentially confer benefits or improperly use their knowledge of the department.

For example: 89% of public servants, 96% of senior managers, believe it would be inappropriate to accept the use of a ski chalet from a recipient of their contribution or grant program--

Does that sound familiar?

Seventy-five per cent of public servants, 94% of senior managers, believe it would be inappropriate to accept, at cost, goods or services for personal use from a supplier to their program;

Seventy per cent of public servants, 89% of senior managers, believe it would be inappropriate for an employee to hire a brother-in-law on a $20,000 untendered contract;

Seventy-two per cent of public servants believe it would be inappropriate for a senior manager in a department to use knowledge gained while working to secure a position with a firm wanting to do business with that department.

These points were brought out two years after the government took office, yet it was completely mired in this type of activity. This is what the Prime Minister was told further in that 1995 report on leadership:

Even the best codes of conduct or conflict of interest guidelines could not protect Canadians from a government that was not fundamentally honest.

Boy, there is foreshadowing.

To concentrate on public servants without emphasizing the role of leadership by ministers, deputy ministers and other senior levels would simply contribute to the existing cynicism among public servants. The literature on ethics and fraud emphasizes the importance of leadership and of the examples set by leaders in determining the ethical tone of an organization. Our discussions with former senior public servants also suggest the importance of support at the top to counter unethical acts.

That says it all. The old expression is that the fish stinks from the head. The Prime Minister was engaging in unethical activities by lobbying the head of the Business Development Bank to help an individual and a property in which he held an interest at the time. The extraordinary efforts that were made to cover the tracks and hide those facts is what remains to be shown to Canadians in the true light of day.

Michael Starr and Mitchell Sharp noted in their 1984 report entitled “Ethical Conduct in the Public Sector”:

A large measure of the responsibility rests with the Prime Minister in relation to matters of ethical conduct in the public (because) the Prime Minister sets the tone for the entire government.

The actual and perceived day to day behaviour of leaders such as the Prime Minister, cabinet ministers and senior public servants must be consistent with the government's ethical guidelines. Again it is leading by example. For those who do not know the name, Mitchell Sharp is the Prime Minister's mentor and dollar a year advisor.

That information, logic and advice has been with the Prime Minister for a long time. The Liberals and the Prime Minister in particular made ethics a campaign issue. That was part of the red book promise. That was what was held out to Canadians as a shining beacon of change, that the Liberals were going to clean up government, that they were going to change it. What have they done? They have done the complete polar opposite of the promises that were highlighted in the red book such as the desire to change the free trade agreement and to get rid of the GST. They were completely broken, completely abrogated.

Clearly the Prime Minister prefers words and broken promises over actions. Effective and independent ethical regimes for himself and his cabinet have gone completely by the wayside. The motion before the House is just a smokescreen to conceal the dark refusal of the Prime Minister to honour the promises he made in the red book to appoint an independent ethics counsellor to police cabinet conflicts of interest.

In recent days the ethics counsellor himself has revealed that he is certainly not a watchdog but is a guard dog for the Prime Minister and his cabinet. He has proven to be ineffectual and anaemic in terms of his ability to have any sort of moral authority over the subject of ethics.

He admitted openly before a parliamentary council that he himself had been disciplined for unethical breaches over, wait for it, the awarding of contracts. He had lost signing privileges while working in the Department of Industry for breaching ethical standards that should have applied to him as a senior bureaucrat. Even faced with that fact, the Prime Minister chose to elevate him to the position of ethics counsellor who we know only reports to the Prime Minister. It is a complete and utter farce that drives cynicism into apathy in the minds of most Canadians.

The futile effort to cover the trail of many of these scandals and the pathetic efforts to arrange for an exit strategy for Mr. Wilson in months ahead, one must really wonder where he is headed. It is probably to an embassy in Norway or Sweden, somewhere close to Denmark. All of these efforts make it appear that he has seen the light.

After more than eight years in office the Prime Minister has finally grasped that at some point ethical standards had to be set, that ethical standards should apply to him. It did not matter that the report that was originally put forward was not about standards for ministers or the independent commissioner with powers to investigate the cabinet or the Prime Minister's own misconduct.

Groupe Polygone, Everest, Lafleur, all these infamous names in time will be synonymous with the ineffectual broken promises and contradictions of the government in what it said and what it actually did in awarding of contracts. It does bear mentioning because it is constantly thrown back at the Progressive Conservatives about the scandalous government that preceded it.

A lack of judgment on the part of a defence minister entering a strip club hardly cost Canadians hundreds of thousands of dollars, let alone millions. It cost that person a lot of embarrassment and he lost his job over it. The fisheries minister, when 15 cans of tainted tuna were found in a private plant in New Brunswick, also lost his job, not at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars to taxpayers. A cabinet minister making an inappropriate remark in an airport lost his job, again not at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

This is the litany of resignations that the Prime Minister likes to cite in the House. Yet let us compare his government's record. It is just incredible. I hear the chirping of hon. chipmunks opposite. They seem to be somewhat agitated.

What we have seen is no less than six criminal investigations embarked upon in a short period of time. We should give it time, there will be more. It is an unprecedented ethical breach that we have seen. We have never seen so much scandal and criminal investigation in our country's history in one condensed period of time.

Referring the matter to a committee is an attempt to take the pressure off the Cabinet. I highlight the fact this is for all members of parliament and it should apply. It is nine years too late but it should definitely happen. It is a listing of tools to fight corruption. Transparency International lists Canada's Access to Information Act as a vital tool. This is the same act that the Prime Minister has gutted in either a pathetic reaction to September 11 or in a Machiavellian power grab. It is an attempt now to claw back this useful tool for parliament, to somehow blunt that instrument, because it is starting to disclose information and evidence. It is allowing the opposition to disclose and uncover much of the critical evidence that is needed to expose the government.

This is the same type of legislation that the Prime Minister, at great length and great expense to the people of Canada, has challenged in the courts when inquiries got too close to him. The Information Commissioner finds himself embroiled in a court case because he will have to jump through hoops to get information from the Prime Minister's Office rather than simply disclose the information, judiciously review it and decide whether it is relevant or not. The Prime Minister is not interested in ethics or access to information or the tools that would fight corruption and instill public confidence in government.

What the Prime Minister is doing and what he is signalling is that he is only interested in staying in office so that he can continue his calls to those he knows. He can continue to do business with the Business Development Bank of Canada when it benefits him and his friends. He can hammer down the media when it starts to write stories and disclose information about his activities. He can throw caution to the wind when it comes to these contracts and how they are being played out.

We have heard the evidence. This is not something that is scurrilous or being made up. We have seen consistent reports from people like the auditor general that hundreds of thousands of dollars were paid for absolutely nothing. This magical figure of $330,000 was paid out for a sport and fishing and hunting show that did not happen. Some reports were not written, others were written once, photocopied and billed two and three times.

This is not something the opposition has made up. These are facts. Groupaction has been the subject of one of the recent investigations and the auditor general herself brought to parliament's attention three questionable contracts worth $1.6 million. The government's money is not at risk. This is public money. This is money that would be far better spent on x-ray machines, electrocardiograph machines, overtime for nurses, farm aid, or heaven forbid that we order helicopters for our military. All of this thrown into this cesspool of corruption that has been seizing parliament has taken away from the real priorities of Canadians.

We can talk about individual cabinet ministers. There is an aide to the industry minister who travelled five times to Manitoba on so-called government business right around the time that the industry minister was kicking his campaign for leadership into high gear. The Winnipeg Free Press filed an access to information request about this particular aide and it was found that then and only then did the industry minister reimburse the House for one of those trips.

We know about the heritage minister who has been under fire recently. It was revealed that the chairman of the Toronto Walk of Fame, whose organization received $1 million from her same department, is also signed on as her chief fundraiser. Talk about a conflict of interest.

We have the former finance minister and Mr. Palmer and the embarrassing revelation that one of his top fundraisers in Calgary was simultaneously advising the finance department on resource tax policy and soliciting donations for the minister in the undeclared leadership campaign.

We know what happened to the former CIDA minister with respect to her voting patterns and what has happened at DND. My colleague from New Brunswick has raised this issue numerous times in questions about the Lancaster Aviation project, where thousands of dollars in parts belonging to DND are being stored in a warehouse belonging to a convicted felon in the United States.

There are the HRDC grants and contributions between 1999 and 2000. The Prime Minister refused at that time to fire an incompetent minister and the auditor general was not praiseworthy of his comments at that time. It was “more than just sloppy paperwork”, reminiscent of the auditor general's revelation about breaking every rule in the book. The auditor general's report on the HRDC scandal at that time stated:

This is very serious, because taxpayers have a right to expect that the government will follow due process when it spends public money.

That was the previous auditor general. I suspect that those sentiments are also held by Ms. Fraser.

Then there is the pièce de résistance, Shawinigate. Throughout this longstanding, yet to be resolved scandal, the Prime Minister claimed that he never did anything wrong, that he was only acting as any normal member of parliament would. I have to beg to differ though. I do not believe any normal member of parliament would call the president of the Business Development Bank of Canada to his or her home at 24 Sussex to influence and have a decision reversed about a loan to an individual in his or her riding. The individual in question had a pretty spotty history and had purchased adjoining property in which the Prime Minister still held an interest. And of course there are the extraordinary lengths that the Prime Minister, his minions in the PMO and others like Jean Carle went to, to ensure that the public never truly got the facts on what took place there.

There have been questions raised by the right hon. member for Calgary Centre about the transaction itself, which the Prime Minister has maintained all along was legitimate. Yet the company to which he supposedly sold his shares does not exist. It is not a registered company. This backdated napkin that was signed is the height of incredulity. There is no chance that the contract was legitimate and written at the time.

These are a few of the litany of examples. All of this is sticking to the government. It may not want to admit it but the public is looking now with a jaded eye at the performance of the Prime Minister and the government. What has happened in the midst of all of the panic and the scrambling around? We see the government coming unravelled, but not with the efforts of fixing, or giving the appearance of fixing these ethical breaches, this scandal and mismanagement of taxpayers' money.

What are the Liberals fixated on? They are fixated on the internal leadership battle that is under way. We have seen in recent days and weeks the Prime Minister and the former finance minister engaging in a personal battle of egos and wills, putting all of their efforts into shoring up support.

That speaks volumes to the priorities, the disconnect, the drift, and the arrogance that has become so prevalent on the government side of the House. Surely the Liberals must be hanging their heads in shame as this session comes to an end. They must be going back to their constituencies to face their constituents with a great deal of guilt and trepidation, as they should. This is a record now that they have to defend. They have spent the last nine years chastising the previous government, shifting the blame away while taking the credit for the positive financial policies that were put in place by the previous government.

The government has simply followed the previous government's plan with respect to the financial management of the country. It has broken new ground in hitting new lows in terms of ethical breach and breach of trust with Canadians.

[Code of Conduct, June 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the House leader of the official opposition. He likewise would have heard the remarks from the government House leader and the feigned indignation and haste with which the government now seems to be in to bring this matter to a committee to have the issue generally of ethics studied, which rightly should happen. However I think he will agree with me that nine years is far too little, far too late in terms of this suddenly becoming a government priority.

I think the opposition House leader would also agree that the substance of the motion, in referring it to a committee, deals more with opposition, government backbenchers, Senators and those who are not at the cabinet table. They are not the ones in a position to make these important decisions in the first instance with respect to government spending and approval of contracts and with respect to these decisions that are very much the subject of these allegations of corruption and unethical decision making.

There is certainly a high degree of distraction and duplicity in the government's suggestion that we should move with haste in this direction. It should happen but the opposition House leader will be the first to admit that he is very much aware, as are most Canadians, that the government wanted to leave and shut this place down on Wednesday. Here we are at the eleventh hour and he is saying that we have to get this through even though the Senate is no longer sitting. Does the opposition House leader not find a great deal of credibility lacking in what was just put forward by the government House leader?

[Prime Minister, June 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in a letter to the ethics counsellor dated March 26, 2001, Deborah Weinstein, the Prime Minister's personal lawyer, stated that a partial payment was made in November 1997 on the 1993 debt owed to the Prime Minister's company, J&AC Consultants Inc., for the alleged sale of the golf course shares.

Could the Prime Minister table the cheque which would show the company that the payment was made to in November 1997? Would he table that cheque?

[Copyright Act, June 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, much has been said by the previous speakers to put into context the purpose of the legislation, namely, to amend the Copyright Act.

Bill C-48 would ensure that retransmitters who benefited from compulsory licensing regained the regime provided for in section 31 of the Copyright Act. It would ensure other retransmitters met the conditions prescribed by regulation. It would also ensure parity and fairness throughout the regulatory regime.

There were issues pertaining to fairness. There was concern that the bill include regulations to prevent loopholes and ensure that individuals could not make use of new technologies to rob those who provide the service. I am talking particularly of television stations; entities such as the NHL, CFL and other sporting organizations; and the movie industry.

The spirit of co-operation on the committee and the amount of input we received in a relatively short period was extraordinary. I give kudos to the parliamentary secretary, the chair of the committee, all members of the Bloc, and a particular member who put a great deal of extraordinary effort into ensuring the proper balance was met.

We in the Progressive Conservative Party support the amendments and the bill. Bill C-48 came about as a result of a great deal of co-operation and effort. Members united to do the right thing and put in place a proper regulatory regime to protect everyone and ensure all the industry interests were met.

If I may echo the sentiments of my hon. colleague from Nova Scotia, there is no doubt that we will be required to come back and re-examine some of the issues as technology and the industry evolve. However this is where we want to be at this point. We in our party support the effort. I again congratulate all fellow committee members.

[Government Contracts, June 18th, 2002]

And $100 million for new Challenger jets, Mr. Speaker. The minister of public works has tried to deflect the corruption and criticism. By parroting the Gray line, he seems oblivious to the fact that these contracting scandals are his government's fault. The government had the ability to call a public inquiry, or the police or the auditor general two years ago after an internal audit flagged these problems. Ethical misconduct and mismanagement of the public purse could have been reined in then, saving taxpayers millions.

Why did he, the Prime Minister, his predecessor or his predecessor's predecessor not do something two years ago to at least act on these problems rather than try to cover them up and wait until they got caught?

[Physical Activity and Sport Act, June 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the hon. member makes a very important and succinct point. The investment early on in a child's life, just as the investment in a business or in any sort of health care scenario, will pay huge benefits later on, whereas the neglect can play out over many years.

The particular point I believe he is driving at is the need for that upfront investment. Surely we have seen over the past number of years the costs associated with starving the provinces, for example, in terms of transfers and the investment in social health care. That has come to fruition now in the country and is causing angst everywhere one goes. If we visit hospitals or clinics we see that health care has been neglected and now we are paying a cost for it.

What the legislation hopefully will do is ensure that there is going to be a focused attempt to get the resources into the sporting community and, indirectly, I would suggest, into the health care system by prevention through greater participation. He is right. It is about the short term pain, one might say, because of the investment and taking from other areas to that ensure we have the money in this particular area versus the costs that we will pay later on.

I believe that perhaps nothing helps more to make a country feel not only healthy but unified, proud and patriotic than having a very active lifestyle, successful teams and certainly a community that feels good about itself in terms of its own health and social well-being.

[Physical Activity and Sport Act, June 18th, 2002]

It can be like politics.

Families should also be a big part of the equation in encouraging their children to participate in physical activity.

I was very taken with quite recent suggestions about tax incentives. I know that is not part of this legislation, but giving Canadians an opportunity to in essence defer the cost of enrolment in a minor hockey program, for example, or to write off some of the expenses associated with figure skating lessons or the cost of equipment in some instances, to have that perhaps included on the income tax form, would again put a built in incentive in place for encouraging a healthy lifestyle, which is very much the spirit of this legislation. It would provide immediate and long term health benefits, and in the short term it is fair to say that physically active lifestyles do help children develop some of the very essential tools they will need as they proceed through life.

The mention of childhood obesity was part of the discussion here today. The figures are somewhat disturbing when one looks at 30% of Canadian children being categorized as overweight and 13% of Canadians overall, a total of three million, who lack the physical activity to be considered in that range of healthy living. That, to me, sets the goal. It indicates that there is more work to be done. This legislation will hopefully put Canada on the right track and put us in the direction we should be headed. A healthy lifestyle in the long run will save the Canadian health care system millions and millions in terms of financial costs alone. Jobs, equipment manufacturing and community pride are other intangible benefits when we look at the long term.

It is a tremendously positive initiative, one that I, on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party, am proud to have played a small part in. I think that on so many levels this legislation builds on a spirit of co-operation. The teamwork displayed at the committee level is consistent with the aims and goals of the bill, which reflects linguistic duality, is inclusive in all terms for all Canadians and should hopefully increase participation in activity throughout Canada. I would end on a note of congratulating the minister for his stewardship in bringing the bill before us today.

[Physical Activity and Sport Act, June 18th, 2002]

With the hardest shot in the league, as I am reminded.

He contributed greatly to his community of Port Hood to build a new rink. There certainly is support out there in the general sporting community. Many athletes, reflecting on their lives and their joys in life, want to give something back to the sport.

There is this natural human cycle of those who benefit from sport wanting to give back to the sport. We see it daily played out in fields and parks across the country where coaches who love their sport want to give something back to the game.

[Physical Activity and Sport Act, June 18th, 2002]

The affordability is of course very important, as my colleague from St. John's points out, as well as ensuring, particularly in rural parts of the country, that there is not a disparity as to availability of sports programs. We know that in cities and towns the costs associated with ballparks, diamonds and equipment is ever increasing, particularly as it relates to our national sport of hockey.

The minister, with the approval of the governor in council, may enter into agreements with provinces and territories to provide for the payment of contributions in respect of costs incurred in undertaking programs designed to encourage and promote the development of physical activity or sport. A process would be set up so that we would not over-developing or over-concentrating in some areas of the country at the expense of others.

With the approval of the governor in council, the minister may enter into an agreement or an arrangement with the government of any foreign state to encourage, promote or develop sport. Clear lines are delineated as to the direction the minister might take.

This bill would establish the sports dispute resolution centre of Canada, a not for profit corporation. It would not be an agent of Her Majesty, or a departmental corporation or a crown corporation within the meaning of the Financial Administration Act. It would be a unique body. Some of the amendments which were made yesterday reflected the necessity for independence and for the board of directors to have a larger degree of autonomy and self-control over the centre itself.

This is important and is very much in keeping with the spirit of the bill because it would allow the board of directors to develop a rapport, team work and a sense of belonging in the effort to promote sport in the country and to deal with problems when they arise. There will no doubt be occasions where the dispute resolution mechanism will be called into play on very important issues that could have a significant impact on the direction of a national team, or a national athlete or simply to bring about a resolution of a dispute that is getting in the way of greater participation.

The mission and powers of the centre are about providing the sports community with this national alternative of a dispute resolution service. It is clear to me that this will be a more timely resolution and better than going through a traditional court hearing or going through a alternative mechanism that might involve lengthy submissions and mediation that in many instances could result in a greater injustice because of the delay involved. The expertise and assistance regarding this dispute resolution will no doubt be an important part in its formation. As in most teams, businesses and parties, it is very much about personal commitment and quality of personnel that will determine its success.

With respect to the overall thrust of the bill, the Progressive Conservative Party wholeheartedly supports physical participation in sport. We support legislation that will aid in the pursuit of a healthier live style for Canadians of all ages. It is clear from the language in the bill that it is aimed at encouraging Canadians of all ages, of both sexes and of all cultural origins to feel a part of the sporting community. Clearly the bill encourages that participation.

I talked earlier of the lessons learned. It seems to me that in a team atmosphere with individuals from all sorts of cultural backgrounds and countries of origin working together at a common goal can foster the essential human spirit of betterment that we all seek. Turning our efforts toward the greater purpose is a very healthy reminder.

I have always found that sport is a perfect vehicle to do that. It is a perfect scenario through which young people can learn the very basic values that will help them throughout their life, such as tolerance, inclusion, co-operation and understanding. Young people will also learn how to deal with disappointment and with success and modesty. Parents want to instill in their children all of these lessons in life and they can be fostered in a sporting atmosphere. Let us not forget competition, for competition is one way to bring out our best.

We should turn our efforts toward the sport infrastructure itself as a part of the bill. That brings it back to the resources. It brings it back to the actual dollars that are needed to ensure that the infrastructure is there, such as the ballparks and the hockey arenas. We have to give young people in particular the ability to participate and to have the basic necessary equipment.

I know that in Sherbrooke there was a wonderful venture undertaken by that community to build what they call the Rec-Plex, an outdoor sporting ice surface. The NHL Players' Association was instrumental in ensuring that the project was completed. Al MacInnis, a resident of Port Hood and current NHL hockey superstar, contributed greatly--

[Physical Activity and Sport Act, June 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is very good to see you in the Chair. I know what a good sport you are and how often you have been a strong advocate for your teams in Brandon, the Wheat Kings and your national basketball championship team the Bobcats.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak at third reading to this important piece of legislation. Given the heady times and the time constraints that parliament is under, it is encouraging to see a piece of legislation that is so positive and so unanimously endorsed by all parties in a non-partisan way. This is exactly the type of legislation that should give Canadians food for thought and certainly cause them to pause and ponder the very nature of what can happen when this co-operative spirit exists.

The enactment of this legislation will replace the Fitness and Amateur Sport Act, which was enacted in 1961, with modernized legislation that is better adapted to the contemporary realities. That is a very good phrase that encapsulates much of what this bill would do. It would modernize Canada's approach to sport and fitness at a time when the world is moving very quickly and at a time when sports, like business and politics, have become more sophisticated, more complex and more involved. Issues such as those pertaining to doping, equipment, sponsorships and the money that is often involved in the promotion of sport affect many people across the spectrum. All these are encapsulated and touched upon by the provisions of this bill.

The enactment of this legislation also establishes an important element and response to dispute and some of the controversy that sometimes is inevitable in sporting activities. As a former referee, Mr. Speaker, you would be familiar with the occasional dispute that might break out during competition.

The resolution centre will be an independent organization. Its mission is to provide the sports community with a national alternative dispute service for sports disputes. I will speak a bit more about that in my remarks. In particular, it is aimed at offering some independence and greater credibility in getting to the very root of the dispute itself. With infractions, impartiality and all these charges, there has to be a very clear and transparent system that allows all the parties that might be involved, and sometimes it is more than one or two, to have faith and trust in the governing body that will ultimately decide the outcome.

There is also an important element of timeliness when there is international competition. A perfect example that comes to mind was the Moscow Olympics wherein many Canadian and North American athletes were denied that once in a lifetime opportunity to compete internationally.

There are other occasions when people find themselves off a national team or suspended from participating in an event. That might have been their one opportunity in their entire lifetimes to participate at a level and to achieve their highest goal. Therefore, these dispute resolution mechanisms and this centre are critical to the very essence of what this bill seeks to accomplish.

Just looking at some of the overall effort and direction of the bill, the objectives are clearly to promote physical activity as a fundamental element of health and well-being. What more noble purpose than that? Other speakers have mentioned the health implications.

The very essence of cultural diversity is found in the legislation. Specific effort has been made to achieve linguistic duality to promote activity and participation in both official languages and of course the very intrinsic elements of healthy, extended and joyful living on the part of Canadians. Statistics from Health Canada and Statistics Canada clearly indicate that Canada has some distance to go to improve its record and some of the ailments, including obesity, which I think can be deemed fairly a detriment to the health of Canadians

The bill is all about encouraging greater participation, simplicity of participation and doing away with some of the hurdles that might prevent those who given ideal circumstances would come forward.

As a very positive comment, the bill is meant to encourage Canadians themselves to take ownership over their own health issues, to integrate physical activity into their daily lives and to assist in reducing those barriers faced by Canadians that might prevent them from living more active lifestyles.

It is fair to say that huge practical benefits and savings are associated with what the bill specifically is targeting. It is meant to increase participation in the practice of sport and to support the pursuit of excellence at the same time. Clearly there are those who choose to make sport their life's pursuit and greater support, both through resources and encouragement, is essential. However there are also the other very pedestrian benefits of encouraging greater participation in daily activities, as simple as going for a walk, or attending a child's sporting match or activity or making a choice between doing an activity indoors or outdoors. This is all about building and enhancing the very foundation of the Canadian sports system.

As I mentioned earlier, Statistics Canada has shown that increasing numbers of individuals are not participating in traditional sports, which is another acknowledgment that deserves mention. A whole new infrastructure will develop around climbing, kayaking and outdoor winter sports such as snowboarding, which has taken off exponentially in recent years, but there is cost associated with them. Again one of the underlying factors as to the true success and measure of the legislation will be whether that infrastructure develops. I believe the legislation is at least encouraging that.

The elements that I wanted to touch upon personally also deal with the social benefits in particular for young people, where they are encouraged to participate in active sports whether they be the traditional or mainstream sports or more individual type sports, where they make choices in life, their intrinsic values, and where they gain the knowledge and education from those choices.

One gentleman in my riding made a very telling comment to me one time about his son's participation in minor hockey. He described how his son was with a crowd of other youth who were engaging in the use of alcohol and drugs. They were hanging out on street corners. They were headed down a road to trouble. He sat his son down and encouraged him to spend more time on his sports and school. He said to me “I could tell the direction my young fellow was headed. It was either going to be courts or sports”. For many young people in Canada, not just young men, this is a choice. If they put their efforts into a sporting activity, it detracts from the pull and the potential to get into trouble with the law, with drugs and alcohol and other questionable activities.

The choices that young people have to make cannot be overstated. The availability of sports programs in communities encourages them to make the right choice. I know the RCMP in particular has been very active in pursuing sports related programs. There is a terrific program in my community in Nova Scotia that deals with literacy in sports and makes that linkage between the choices that young people make to avoid trouble with the law and the choices that will help them later in life. It also teaches them very fundamental lessons about competition and fair play and about winning and losing and how to cope with both.

These again are very fundamental principles that weave their way through this entire bill.