Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue 4 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 20, 2002
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, to which was referred Bill C-12, to promote physical activity and sport, met this day at 4:35 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Marjory LeBreton (Deputy Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: We are meeting again this afternoon to consider Bill C-12, to promote physical activity and sport. Our first witnesses are from the Office of the Commissioner of Official Language: the Commissioner herself, Dyane Adam, Johane Tremblay, general counsel, and Gilbert Langelier, Director, Special Investigations Branch. Ms. Adam, please proceed.
[Translation]
Ms. Dyan Adam, Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages: Thank you for giving me the opportunity today to comment on Bill C-12, an Act to promote physical activity and sport.
Last June, I appeared before the Sub-Committee on the Study of Sport in Canada of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage with regard to this bill, then Bill C-54.
As Commissioner of Official Languages, it is my duty to do everything I can to ensure recognition of the equality of status of our two official languages in federal institutions, and the promotion of that equality in Canadian society. During my appearance in June, I accordingly presented a number of amendments to ensure that the official language dimensions of the Canadian sport system are duly reflected in the new act.
I am pleased to note the changes made to Bill C-12 in response to some of my concerns, especially in the Preamble. Later on in my presentation, I will come back to the changes made to the bill and those I proposed.
[English]
Given the importance of physical activity and sport in Canadian lives — more than 8 million Canadians participate in sports. It is essential that this bill, which is aimed at creating a strategic framework for federal government policies on physical activity and sport and at defining the measures the minister may take to that end, reflect the fundamental values of our society, including the value of linguistic duality.
A study published by my office in June 2000 showed that francophones were under-represented in high performance sport. Only one in five athletes were francophone and they were concentrated in only a few sports. As well, training in a number of essential support services, such as health care, psychological care and sport science, were unavailable in French in many sport disciplines. Although some progress has been made, particularly concerning the language requirements to be respected by national sports organizations, there is still substantial catching up to be done.
Two earlier studies had also noted similar shortcomings regarding services to athletes in both official languages. The Subcommittee on the Study of Sport in Canada, chaired by Dennis Mills, recommended in its 1998 report that ``the Government of Canada ensure the development and delivery of services and programs in both official languages.'' That report also acknowledged that sport is an important facet of our culture.
Moreover, in the early 1990s, a working group reporting to Canada's minister responsible for sport identified problems in providing services in French, as well as significant barriers to full participation by francophones in various sport activities.
The enactment of a new law is an excellent opportunity to strengthen the framework that upholds government activities in the field of sport by ensuring that linguistic duality is firmly anchored in that framework.
The three amendments that I am proposing today are to the preamble, as well as to clauses 6 and 7 of Bill C-12.
[Translation]
I was pleased to note that the preamble to the bill includes two references to the principle of linguistic duality. I believe, however, that the initial wording I proposed last June for the first paragraph stated this principle more clearly.
The use of the term ``linguistic duality'' refers not only to Canada being a bilingual country, it also reflects the principle of the equality of both official language communities.
Senator Murray had also raised concerns about the current wording in the bill. Therefore, I would like to propose once again the following for the first paragraph of the Preamble:
Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes that physical activity and sport are integral parts of Canadian culture and society and produce benefits in terms of health, social cohesion, linguistic duality, economic activity, cultural diversity and quality of life;
The fourth paragraph of the Preamble, which states that the federal government intends to promote physical activity and sport in accordance with the principles set forth in the Official Languages Act, is a very significant addition to the bill and confirms the government's commitment to ensuring the recognition of the equality of status of both official languages.
In light of this important change to the fourth paragraph, the amendments we proposed to subsection 4(2) and section 5 of the bill are no longer necessary. I accordingly expect the minister responsible to take the necessary measures to create an environment conducive to the equitable participation of members of both official language communities in Canada's sport system. This is one of the changes that we recommended last June.
[English]
The second amendment we propose concerns clause 6, which deals with a vital component of Canada's sport system. It authorizes the minister to provide financial assistance in the form of grants and contributions to any person. Under this provision, the government provides funding to a large number of national sports organizations that support activities in most sport disciplines and greatly contributes to the development of top athletes of both official language communities.
In accordance with the Treasury Board policy on grants and contributions, pursuant to Part IV of the Official Languages Act and its spirit, ministers must include language-related clauses in contribution agreements for the delivery of services and communications in both official languages. Our 2000 study and the two studies mentioned earlier pointed to problems with the implementation of these provisions by several national sports organizations. The minister's responsibilities with respect to granting financial support should be clearly set out in the act. This would help clarify the minister's role as regards the accountability of organizations benefiting from such support.
It is accordingly essential that clause 6 be strengthened to remind the minister of the need for contribution agreements to reflect Part IV and Part VII of the Official Languages Act. Reference to Part VII, which deals with the promotion of English and French, would be appropriate because it strengthens both the importance of contribution agreements for the promotion of English and French and the importance of measures pursuant to section 43 taken under these agreements to encourage national sports organizations to provide their services in English and French and to foster the recognition and use of both languages.
We therefore recommend, once again, amending the wording of clause 6, so that it reads as follows:
For the purposes of this Act, the Minister may provide financial assistance in the form of grants and contributions to any person, in accordance with Part IV and Part VII of the Official Languages Act.
The third amendment we propose concerns clause 7 of the proposed legislation.
[Translation]
Moreover, given the prominent role played by the provinces and territories in the field of physical activity and sport, we recommended amendments to section 7, which deals with the agreements the Minister is authorized to enter into with the provinces and territories. Since agreements with the provinces and territories must reflect the needs of official languages communities, we must once again stress the need to add a third subsection to section 7, providing as follows:
In developing contribution and policy implementation agreements, the Minister shall take into account the needs of the English-speaking and French-speaking minorities, in accordance with the Official Languages Act.
I am pleased to see that the creation of a Sport Dispute Resolution Centre will help find extrajudicial solutions to disputes, including language-related disputes.
During my appearance before the Subcommittee on the Study of Sport last June, I suggested that the Official Languages Act should apply to the Centre as though it were a federal institution.
The explanations provided to the subcommittee in June by representatives of the Department of Canadian Heritage and those we have obtained since then demonstrate the difficulty in making the Centre subject to the Official Languages Act for jurisdictional reasons.
I appreciate that since my appearance, the government has considered my concerns and has taken additional measures by clarifying paragraph 17(1)g), to ensure that the official languages policy to be developed by the Centre include provisions regarding the use of English and French as languages of work, as well as a method of resolving complaints relating to the policy's application.
Similarly, paragraph 35(1)a) would provide for monitoring by the minister responsible to ensure that the Centre adopts the administrative regulations intended in paragraph 17(1)g).
In itself, the enactment of this law will set in motion a blueprint for society with repercussions for the well-being, and particularly the health, of Canadians.
Both communities must therefore be treated equitably and the new legislation must not allow for any ambiguity regarding the language obligations it imposes.
More than once, history has shown that in the absence of clear legislative provisions Canadians' language rights are not necessarily upheld.
I would like to remind the committee that, according to data presented at the National Summit on Sport, over 90 per cent of Canadians consider that sport strengthens the sense of belonging, at both the community and the national levels.
In the January 2001 and September 2002 Speeches from the Throne, the government clearly affirmed its commitment to protecting and promoting our two official languages and to the long-term development of English and French minority communities.
This means that in this country, all Anglophones and Francophones will be on equal footing when it comes to participating in sport. Encouraging physical activity and sport is a way of fulfilling this commitment.
The amendments made to the bill clearly demonstrate the government's desire to follow through on this commitment. The amendments I have proposed are intended to have this commitment reflected in the new act.
I shall now be pleased to answer questions.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Adam.
I would like to take questions now.
Senator Callbeck: You mentioned the study published by your office in June 2000 that showed that francophones were under-represented in high performance sport and that they were concentrated in only a few sports. In that study, did you come to any conclusions as to what the causes are for that?
Ms. Adam: The study was very thorough. I have a copy of it. We have 16 recommendations which are mostly targeted to Sport Canada because, as you know, although there are many players involved in the Canadian sports system, many of them are not under federal institutions and are therefore not subjected to the act.
Sport Canada has a responsibility to ensure that, through the support they provide to the system, that players are at least serviced equally. Some of the conclusions recognized that not all services were offered equally in French and English in our training centres, et cetera. Therefore, many of the recommendations are targeted toward Sport Canada and the necessity to ensure that their agreements with different organizations or federations contain linguistic clauses, et cetera.
Senator Callbeck: My understanding of this bill is that the board of directors of the alternative dispute resolution centre will have the authority to make bylaws regarding the principles governing the implementation of official language policy with regard to French and English. Are you happy with that? Do you have any concern that the board has that authority?
Ms Adam: With respect to the dispute resolution centre specifically?
Senator Callbeck: Yes.
Ms. Adam: As I mentioned, we have no problem with the bill as it stands.
Senator Kinsella: Commissioner, my prejudice in reading the act is that I would like to see a guarantee that the act would be subject to the Official Languages Act just as any machinery of government legislation is subject to the act. What is your view on that?
Ms Adam: The bill, as introduced during the last session, did not make appropriate reference to the Official Languages Act. At that time, we proposed a number of amendments, some of which were retained, some were not — particularly those relating to the centre.
Today we are proposing that the grants and contributions agreements contain clauses that make clear reference to the relevant sections of the Official Languages Act. Should your committee and the Senate accept these proposed amendments, the act would then certainly provide the minister with the mechanisms he requires to ensure accountability in these matters.
Senator Kinsella: Would you not think that if the act was far more rigorous in requiring universal compliance, not only with the letter of the Official Languages Act but with the sprit of the Official Languages Act, that that would be better than these amendments?
I prefaced my remarks by saying that I speak from a biased position. Would it be better to rewrite the act — the honourable senators can do so if they have to will — and make it very clear that the Official Languages Act covers the whole thing, rather than finding a piece here or there? As the Official Language Commissioner of Canada, would you say that would be preferable?
Ms Adam: There is a problem. We have our own legal counsel. One part of the act creates a centre for dispute resolution. It seems that the federal government has the jurisdiction and the power to incorporate such an organization. However, our legal counsel has advised us that the nature of the dispute resolution centre would fall under provincial jurisdiction. This is where the problem is for us.
My initial recommendation to the House of Commons committee was to treat this centre as a federal institution. The federal government could not do it because they would be out of their jurisdiction. As the centre is part of the act, we would have problems with it if we were to subject it to the Official Languages Act. There would be a problem with jurisdiction.
Senator Kinsella: Let me ask my question from a different perspective.
As the Official Languages Commissioner of Canada, do you have concerns that the mechanism or the dynamic of experimental expectancy comes into play sometimes? If a standard is not the standard, but rather is a pragmatic or workable standard, then the bar and expectations are lowered. There is a fair amount of evidence in the literature on ``experimental expectancy'' or ``self-fulfilling prophesy'' in the social sciences that it is whittled away. Does that not concern you?
Ms Adam: Senator, we have the same biases. Over the past three years, our experiences with the Official Languages Act have indicated that the objectives must be very clear. We need regulations that ensure that our institutions will comply and behave according to what is expected of them. They need to be reminded constantly; we need a commissioner to take complaints and remind our institutions collectively of their responsibilities under the act.
We have studied the proposed legislation. We come today before you to say that this piece of legislation is not perfect.
Senator Kinsella: Honourable senators, the commissioner is telling us it is not perfect. Our responsibility under the Constitution is quite different from that of the other place.
Our responsibility includes the protection of minorities. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms articulates some of the minority rights. The official languages rights are well-defined and predicated uniquely with other rights of Canadian citizens. Canadian citizens have certain linguistic educational rights. We have the right to vote and the right to leave or enter Canada. Our linguistic minority rights are very special in Canada.
The Senate has the responsibility to always have our eye on the minority rights question. As we examine this bill, we should be mindful of that special responsibility, which is different from the other place as far as the Constitution is concerned.
When you testify before us that this is not a perfect bill, I am very uncomfortable and want to make it a perfect bill because that is my job. I think you would be very helpful to us if you could say that we could take the time to make this a perfect bill. Can you help us do that?
Ms Adam: You have already three amendments that I proposed that would certainly bonify the bill.
Senator Kinsella: Why just bonify the proposed act? Why not make this a radical principle of the act — not just leave it ``okay''? This is a fundamental principle that goes through this proposed act, as we want it to go through all other machinery of government acts.
Ms Adam: I can review the different options that we may have, However, the legal advisers tell us that because the bill contains the dispute resolution centre, it prevents us from introducing other dispositions that would otherwise be matter of course under a federal jurisdiction.
I would certainly accept the invitation to make it a perfect bill from the point of view of the Commissioner of Official Languages, but it may be that the bill might be very different in terms of what it would contain — perhaps it would then not meet the other objectives of the proposed legislation.
[Translation]
Senator Gauthier: I have several questions to which you may have already provided answers. From a jurisdictional standpoint, you stated earlier to Senator Kinsella that amateur sport, indeed sport in general, are a joint provincial- federal responsibility. Correct?
Ms. Adam: That is correct.
Senator Gauthier: There is both a health aspect and a recreational aspect to sport. As I recall, responsibility for these areas falls to Health Canada and Heritage Canada respectively. Do you have any recollection of an amendment put forward in the House of Commons that would have assigned responsibility for both aspects to a single minister?
Ms. Adam: As I recall, no such minister was appointed.
Senator Gauthier: I was told that a motion had been introduced in the House of Commons, but that it was not adopted on third reading. Would it be preferable to have one minister, or two ministers each responsible for different areas?
Heritage Canada already has a fairly broad mandate. If we tack on responsibility for recreation, the department's workload becomes even heavier. What is your opinion on the matter?
Ms. Adam: I have not given this any thought. You are asking me if it would be preferable, given the importance assigned to sport in Canadian society, for the government to create a department that would be independent of Heritage Canada?
Senator Gauthier: Getting back to the concept of duality, I am in a minority situation. I have no desire to find myself in an awkward situation with it comes to health and recreational sport. As a Franco-Ontarian, I want to know which department I should turn to to exercise my right to linguistic duality. I would like the bill to include a reference to linguistic duality and that is what you are suggesting as well. Correct?
Ms. Adam: That is correct.
Senator Gauthier: Then is it possible to actually do that?
Ms. Adam: Our first amendment in fact calls for a specific reference to that duality, not merely to Canada's bilingual character, but to linguistic duality and to the equal status of the two languages. In our view, this reference is critically important.
Whether or not the sport and physical activity portfolio is handed to a separate minister or not, the important issue is to have legislation that enables that minister to achieve the desired objectives, namely that members of Francophone and Anglophone minority communities are treated equitably.
Senator Gauthier: At present, approximately 20 per cent of young Canadians are involved in high level competitive sports. Unless I am mistaken, that is below the level of youth representation as a percentage of the overall population. That representation stands at about 25 per cent.
Ms. Adam: The last study conducted in 2000 showed that francophones accounted for 18 per cent of all elite athletes.
Senator Gauthier: As I recall, you have already done research or carried out studies on the participation of young Canadians and the obstacles they face. Coaches are not often able to speak the young athlete's language. Language barriers are a reality.
For instance, is all federal documentation concerning sport available in both official languages?
Ms. Adam: The term ``federal'' needs to be defined. The study revealed that agencies responsible for training our athletes are professional associations as well as provincial and national sport federations.
The study showed that in a number of cases, the coach or coaching team lacked the bilingual capability to support athletes in both official languages. Often, material in French was not available or was inadequate. Problems were also noted with the team of professionals, such as doctors and sport psychologists, who work with the athletes.
It has been recommended to Sport Canada that it takes pains to ensure national federations and provincial associations receive the tools they require to give athletes equal opportunities to compete and excel.
Senator Gauthier: Some of the people I spoke to expressed certain reservations about creating a new federal institution. I was told to stop flogging a dead horse. Can the Commissioner's Office tell me if I should insist on having this new organization recognized as a federal institution? Am I wasting my time or should I persist in this endeavour?
Ms. Adam: Are you referring specifically to the new Sport Dispute Resolution Centre?
Senator Gauthier: Yes.
Ms. Adam: The Commissioner's Office maintained that the Centre should be subject to the provisions of the Official Languages Act much like any other federal institution or like Air Canada, even though it would be privately operated.
Under the new Air Canada legislation, the corporation is fully subject to the provisions of the Official Languages Act, much like any federal institution. Other agencies are subject to similar constraints.
Apparently, according to the legal experts — and since I am not a legal expert, I will defer to the experts —, the federal government can add this stipulation when it is a matter under its sole jurisdiction, such as air transportation, university research, and so forth.
It would appear that the federal government would have the power to incorporate the centre. Yet the centre would handle the type of activity that does not fall under federal jurisdiction. Thus, the authority of the federal government to subject the centre to the provisions of the Official Languages Act would be limited. I defer to the legal experts on this matter.
Senator Gauthier: Who will fund the centre's operations?
Ms. Adam: As far as I know, that would be the federal government.
Senator Gauthier: And if not the federal government, then who? Why spend the money if we have no control over the centre's operations?
Ms. Adam: That is the reason why we stress in the other two amendments that parts 6 and 7 of the bill be amended, to avoid jurisdictional problems. The federal government would then be assured of an accountability framework. Organizations and corporations that receive funding would be accountable in terms of complying with linguistic duality and language requirements.
Senator Gauthier: When Air Canada was privatized, I heard the lawyers tell us that a private corporation could not be forced to comply with the Official Languages Act. Yet, the company was made to comply. Section 10 of the Air Canada is very clear on this point. As I recall, the legislation was recently amended through Bill C-26. I fail to understand the legal position involved. Could the chair advise me?
Ms. Adam: I will let my legal expert answer your question.
Ms. Johane Tremblay, General Counsel, Director, Legal Services: To use your example, Air Canada is a federally regulated air carrier. Rail companies are also subject to federal regulations.
The federal government has the power to set out language requirements and to compel companies under federal jurisdiction to comply with the provisions of the Official Languages Act.
In this particular instance, the mandate of the centre is to resolve disputes between private parties. Given the nature of these activities, this is clearly an area that falls under provincial jurisdiction. If the centre was engaged in other types of activities, perhaps it would be different, but as matters now stand, its activities primarily come under provincial jurisdiction.
The federal government enters into contribution agreements with a number of organizations under provincial jurisdiction. These agreements spell out obligations in terms of providing services in both languages. Departments are required to include language clauses in these agreements to ensure that the Canadian public is served in both official languages.
It is worth noting that the provision to which Ms. Adam alluded, namely clause 35(1)(a), provides for the dissolution of the centre by the minister under certain conditions. Specifically, according to clause 35(1)(a), if the Centre has failed to make by-laws respecting language policy within one year of coming into existence, the minister shall be responsible for ensuring that the centre adopts administrative regulations in accordance with paragraph 17(1)(g) and, through contribution agreements, shall ensure that the Canadian public and athletes who turn to the centre for help are served in the official language of their choice.
The centre shall make bylaws to ensure that the public is served in both official languages. Mediators and arbitrators appointed to resolve dispute are required to provide services to the clients of the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre in their preferred language. Of course, no system is foolproof. As the honourable senator noted earlier, the criteria are not excessively stringent. Nevertheless, there are certain criteria in place and this accountability framework will ensure that services are provided in both languages.
Senator Gauthier: Since the centre is not politically bound by the Official Languages Act, there would be no follow up in the event a member of a francophone or anglophone minority community turns to it for help.
Ms. Adam: The centre would not be subject to the provisions of the Official Languages Act. Therefore, it would be obliged to put in place a policy for receiving complaints. However, there would be no access to the Commissioner or possibility of resorting to external processes, as is the case with other federal institutions.
Senator Gauthier: There would be no access to the Commissioner. However, through the minister, the client would have access to the Official Languages Act, since the minister is subject to this legislation's provision.
Ms. Adam: That is correct.
Senator Gauthier: But the centre is not. Correct?
Ms. Adam: No, it is not.
Senator Gauthier: I do not understand. Unless I heard incorrectly, Ms. Tremblay stated earlier that the minister would encourage the centre to put in place a language policy.
Ms. Tremblay: That is right.
Senator Gauthier: However, the centre is under no obligation to do so.
Ms. Tremblay: It will be strongly encouraged to institute such a policy. Clause 35(1) is clear on that score:
The Minister may, by order, dissolve the Centre
(a) if the Centre has failed to make by-laws in accordance with paragraphs 17 [...]
Mention is made of paragraphs 17(g) and 17(i). Clause 17(i) makes provision for the establishment of procedures for resolving disputes and imposes the obligation of establishing mechanisms for selecting the language in which the parties wish to be heard and the decision rendered.
Therefore, the centre will be required to establish these kinds of arbitration procedures to ensure that athletes will have the dispute resolved in the language of their choice, and the decision rendered in that language as well.
Clause 17 does not look like much. However, it virtually spells out a client's right to the extent that it ensures the centre will take the appropriate measures so that its very existence is not called into question.
[English]
Senator Kinsella: Commissioner, I would like to make another analysis, which I believe is my responsibility as a senator from the Province of New Brunswick.
I have to look at any proposed legislation in light of section 16 and the bilateral constitutional amendment made a few years ago. Madam Tremblay, do you have that with you perchance?
Mr. Tremblay: The Charter? No, I am sorry I do not have it.
Senator Kinsella: I am referring not only to the exigencies of the Official Languages Act but to also the constitutional requirement and right of the equality of official languages communities.
Your proposed amendment at clause 7.(3) reads:
In developing contributions and policy implementation agreements, the Minister shall take into account the needs of the English-speaking and French-speaking minorities in accordance with the Official Languages Act.
The other standards for me are the provisions of section 16 of the Charter.
Further in your brief you indicate that during your appearance before the subcommittee on the study of sport last June, you suggested that the Official Languages Act should apply to the centre. You note that the explanations provided by representatives from the Department of Canadian Heritage demonstrate the difficulty in making the centre subject to the Official Languages Act for jurisdictional reasons.
Let us examine that. I accept that there are both provincial and federal jurisdiction and activities involved. The Parliament of Canada that is being called upon to enact this bill. We have to determine the minimum standard that will satisfy the federal jurisdiction and all of the provincial jurisdictions, including the Province of New Brunswick.
The minimum standard for Senator Léger and me is section 16 of the Charter. There must be equality of community, and sport is a very important part of community. As a former deputy minister and administrator, I am looking for a common standard so that I can manage this thing.
If you met the New Brunswick constitutionally required standard, it would be a higher standard, but everyone would be covered. Would you agree with that?
Ms. Adam: Yes.
[Translation]
Senator Gauthier: I have a supplemental question. Getting back to the relationship between Sport Canada and national bodies or federations, should a ``language dispute'' arise between these parties, could they turn to the Centre for conciliation or arbitration services?
Ms. Adam: In the case of a dispute between one of the federations and Sport Canada, or in other words, the federal government, the Centre does not have a mandate to resolve this particular type of dispute. Its mandate is to settle disputes among athletes.
Ms. Tremblay: Or between agencies.
Ms. Adam: Exactly.
Senator Gauthier: Would you like to see the centre have this mandate as well?
Ms. Adam: That is an interesting question.
Senator Gauthier: Could you provide me with a more detailed response?
Ms. Adam: You want to know if the Sport Dispute Resolution Centre should also be mandated to resolve disputes pitting certain associations or federations against Sport Canada?
Senator Gauthier: That is correct.
Ms. Adam: We did not look into that, but we certainly could do that and get back you with an answer.
Senator Léger: I agree with Senator Kinsella. A perfect piece of legislation should demand the same standard from both levels of governments.
Does Bill C-12 set out an enforcement framework, or should we look to the Constitution for that? I am not a legal expert. My question concerns the application of Bill C-12. Although English and French have enjoyed equal status for the past 33 years, we all realize that it is unrealistic to expect specialists, trainers and coaches to become bilingual overnight. Should Bill C-12 provide for some other arrangements?
There is a difference between sports and Air Canada. Air Canada has a mandate to serve customers. In this particular instance, we are talking about physicians, specialists, athletes, coaches and the like. I know for a fact that all of them will not become bilingual. Should that be the aim of the bill? How should its provisions be applied?
Ms. Adam: The Canadian sport system is highly complex. Many players are involved, including volunteers, national and provincial professional associations as well as the government. Indeed, the federal government is merely one of many players. When considering a federal accountability framework to promote the involvement of Canadian athletes, whether Francophone or Anglophone, and to provide them with equal opportunities regardless of their language, we observed that certain services were essential in order for the athletes to succeed.
For example, in Quebec, athletes will receive services in French from their associations. However, at the federal level, Francophone athletes do encounter some obstacles.
Although sport bodies and associations do not come under direct federal jurisdiction, the federal government does play an extremely important role in the funding of training facilities and of many associations. If sport was a field that fell strictly under federal jurisdiction, then legislating would not be a problem. In view of its funding authority, the federal government does have the power to compel associations or individuals who receive funding to meet certain language requirements. Not only must it ensure that administrative regulations are adopted, as is the case with the centre, the federal government must also ensure compliance with its own linguistic policies and regulations, and, if problems arise, seek the appropriate recourse.
We are proposing that when the federal government enters into agreements with associations or other autonomous groups, that is groups not under federal jurisdiction, that obligations be clearly identified, as well as the consequences of failing to meet these obligations, because the issue here is one of accountability. The federal government can demand accountability from associations that receive federal funding. That is our objective in putting forward these two amendments concerning agreements and contributions.
Senator Léger: I like your comment about the many players involved in sport. Bill C-12 will apply to matters under federal jurisdiction. My concern, however, is that we will not be able to find all of the specialists we need.
Ms. Adam: When we look at an athlete's entourage, rarely do we see only one coach. Usually, athletes work with a team of coaches, medical experts and so forth. We are not asking that all team members be bilingual, just as we do not require all federal public servants to be bilingual. On the contrary, our aim is to ensure availability of bilingual services and to have the team take steps to obtain the funding needed to translate manuals, just to give you an example.
Senator Léger: At that level, it is possible. It is up to us to make the effort.
Senator Kinsella: Over the past decade, the Government of Canada has introduced a number of bills in Parliament calling for the establishment of new foundations, centres, independent agencies and so forth. Are you concerned about the fact that a number of these new foundations do not come within the purview of the Commissioner of Official Languages?
Ms. Adam: We have several concerns about this fact, many of which are shared by the federal Auditor General. We are talking about many millions, perhaps even billions, of dollars over which the Canadian Parliament and its officers have no control. However, many foundations and agencies are subject to the act's provisions. We will need to be considerably more active than we have in the past in pushing for linguistic audits (and that is why we have requested additional funds) because these foundations and agencies are not complying with Treasury Board requirements either. Therefore, we do not know for certain how the act is being applied in many of these organizations.
Senator Kinsella: That is a problem.
Senator Gauthier: Speaking hypothetically, supposing the committee decides to include a provision that makes the Centre bound by the provisions of the Official Languages Act, as is the case with Air Canada. What kind of problems do you foresee this creating? As the saying goes:
[English]
``He who pays the piper calls the tune.''
[Translation]
Ms. Adam: As you most likely know already, that was one of my recommendations or proposed amendments to the bill tabled in the House of Commons last June. We consulted our own as well as outside legal experts. As I see it, Senator Gauthier, you are wondering if the horse is not in fact truly dead!
Senator Gauthier: The Preamble to Bill C-12 clearly states the following:
Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to promoting physical activity and sport, having regard to the principles set out in the Official Languages Act.
If this is stated in the Preamble, why then does the legislation not include provisions for achieving this objective?
Ms. Adam: There are no such provisions in the act which creates the centre. I will ask that you be sent a legal opinion spelling out the problems. We can send you one, and I am certain the Justice Department can as well.
Senator Gauthier: Then I will await your legal opinion. I am not at all convinced.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: You can be sure he will hold you to it.
I thank all of our witnesses for appearing before the committee today.
I would like to welcome our next witnesses from the Alternative Dispute Resolution for Amateur Sport, ADRsportRED. Mr. de Pencier, please proceed.
Mr. Joseph de Pencier, Member of the Steering Committee, ADRsportRED: I am the Director of Sport Services and General Counsel at the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport. Today, I am appearing as a member of the steering committee for the current interim Alternative Dispute Resolution Program for Amateur Sport, ADRsportRED. Unfortunately, the chair of our steering committee, Mr. Gordon Peterson of London, Ontario, could not be here today. He sends his sincere apologies.
[Translation]
With me is Benoît Girardin, Executive Director of ADRsportRED. I will be presenting the Steering Committee's brief to you. Mr. Girardin will answer your questions about the operations of our interim sport dispute resolution program and how those operations anticipate the proposed Sport Dispute Resolution Centre to be created by Bill C- 12.
[English]
We thank the senate committee for the opportunity to appear and present our views on the proposed legislation.
The interim ADRsportRED program is funded by Sport Canada. It was conceived to serve the immediate needs of Canadian athletes and sport-governing bodies and to prepare for a legislated system of sport dispute resolution. Being most interested in the dispute resolution provisions of Bill C-12, the steering committee would like to provide you with some background on the resolution of sport disputes in Canada, and comments on some of the merits it sees in the proposed legislation.
Bill C-12's Sport Dispute Resolution Centre will develop a system for resolving sport disputes that will replace the current interim program. Our hope is that the new centre will build on the experience and the features of the interim program, continuing the good work that has been done while the federal legislation for sport dispute resolution has developed.
I will not inflict upon you my reading of our entire brief. It is late, however, I would like to draw your attention to certain parts of it as we move along.
The Deputy Chairman: Thank you.
[Translation]
The desirability of dispute resolution tailored to the needs of amateur sport and its participants has been recognized for many years. Historically, there has been a lack of consistency of approach for dealing with sport disputes, inherent conflicts and questionable outcomes.
[English]
Traditional litigation using the courts — and I speak as a litigation lawyer originally from the Department of Justice — is often a costly and time-consuming process and, particularly in sport, it can destroy relationships and take a huge personal toll on those involved.
Team selection disputes, in particular, have frequently been the subject of litigation. Every time we have a major game, we read about them in the press. Even when handled outside the courts through the internal processes of sport organizations, there has been a wide variance in the expertise of adjudicators and the procedural fairness for the parties involved.
In the mid-1990s, the now defunct Canadian Sport Council developed an alternative sport dispute resolution system. Unfortunately, it withered with the demise of that umbrella organization. However, the need remained, and that was expressed during the national sport consultations in the late 1990s, referred to by Senator Mahovlich when he moved second reading of Bill C-12 in the Senate.
The brief continues and gives you a little more of the history. I will speak to some of our views on the bill.
[Translation]
ADRsportRED has been designed and implemented with the conscious aim of preparing for a permanent sport dispute resolution system established by legislation.
[English]
Our brief addresses some of the features of our current system and the excellent arbitrators we have managed to recruit, including such notable Canadians as Charles Dubbin, the former Chief Justice of Ontario; Yves Fortier of Montreal, who needs no introduction; and Richard McLaren of the University of Western Ontario, one of the leading sport arbitrators in the world. We mentioned the use of one of Canada's best commercial arbitration centres — the one in Quebec — to act as our court office. Our brief mentions the code of procedure that we have been using, which has proven to be valuable.
ADRsportRED also aims to head off disputes. Progress is now being made on the creation of a resource centre of information and models for sport organizations and their participants. The steering committee feels that access to better information and to models for internal decision-making will prevent disputes from occurring, or provide a means of settling disputes early and internally before they escalate to requiring meditation or arbitration.)
The brief goes on to talk a little bit about the steering committee and its composition and work. We also mention that we have provided the committee with copies of an interim report we presented to the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport just six weeks or so ago. This document details the work we have done so far, the first set of disputes, some lessons we learned from those early disputes, and some of the improvements we are making to our own system, improvements that we hope that the permanent centre will inherit.
[Translation]
In the view of the Steering Committee, ADRsportRED has serviced athletes and sport organizations well, has proven sensitive to opportunities for improvement and provides the proposed Sport Dispute Resolution Centre with a solid foundation for a permanent sport dispute resolution service.
[English]
I should add that we provided those services in both languages. Athletes have received those services enthusiastically in both languages. We believe we have done a good job in that regard, and we believe that the new centre, once it is up and running, can continue that work.
We have made particular observations about the bill at the end of our brief. Let me make it clear that the steering committee supports Bill C-12 in its current form. We echo the positive comments that were made to you about the proposed legislation by Sport Matters and by Athletes Can on November 6.
We might just add a number of points. We acknowledge Sport Canada's consultations on the bill and the government's openness to suggestions from the sport community that have improved the proposed legislation.
The steering committee is pleased that the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport has signalled that Sport Canada could agree to referring disputes in which it is a party to the new Sport Dispute Resolution Centre. The current Canadian Policy on Doping in Sport and Canadian Doping Control Regulations already bind Sport Canada to dispute resolution provisions of our domestic anti-doping program. These provisions are likely to be moved to the new centre once it is ready for them.
We think that the proposed legislation strikes an acceptable balance between the public accountability and the independence of the proposed Sport Dispute Resolution Centre — both very important principles.
The steering committee has the skills, the expertise and the experience needed to assist Sport Canada and the Government of Canada with the selection of the board of the new Sport Dispute Resolution Centre, including the development and operation of the guidelines for choosing the board described in clause 14 of the bill. As Sport Canada knows, the steering committee is ready and able to help and believes that it can make for a smoother and more efficient creation of the new centre.
Finally, the steering committee will do everything in its power to ensure a smooth transition from the interim sport dispute resolution system to the permanent regime to be conducted by the new centre. As the implementation committee hoped, the interim ADRsportRED program has much to offer to the permanent centre. ADRsportRED's current and planned programs can be adopted and adapted by the new centre to get it up and running and providing dispute resolution services to athletes and sport organizations — the services they want and need — as quickly as possible.
The Deputy Chairman: Mr. de Pencier, I asked this question when we were last looking at this bill. Do you feel that constituent groups will have enough input to ensure that the board of directors properly reflects the community they are serving and that they can deal with the complexity of the issues that they will be faced with in this new body?
Mr. de Pencier: We believe that the process chosen through the preparation and issuance of guidelines and the consultation that Sport Canada plans with the sport community should ensure that. Of course, the sort of expertise that might be represented on the board will not be limited entirely, perhaps, to people who know sport. The board will need people who know disputes and dispute resolution. I am sure there will be a good opportunity to find people with both. It is interesting that, for the steering committee, we managed to find a pretty good cross-section of people, and there has been no suggestion that the eight or nine members of the steering committee do not provide an adequate representation to all constituents across the country.
The Deputy Chairman: Those constituents have input into the process readily available to them?
Mr. de Pencier: Yes, they do, through our own meetings, through the other presentations that we make and the meetings we attend — for example, the Athletes Canada Forum in Ste-Foy about six weeks ago. We had tremendous input from athletes and coaches who were there. We have attended many other such meetings to ensure that people know about our services and feel that these are services they want. If change is needed, that they can tell us what needs to be done.
Senator Callbeck: You have been operating since January 2002. How many cases or disputes have you settled, or how many are you working on?
Mr. Benoît Girardin, Executive Director, ADRsportRED: We have had 12 cases since January 20002. More specifically, we had 10 selection dispute cases regarding Salt Lake City Games and Commonwealth Games, and we had two ``ordinary'' cases regarding a carding issue.
Senator Callbeck: Have you turned any cases down, or are you required to take every case?
Mr. Girardin: One condition for using the ADRsportRED program is a mutual agreement by both parties. When they require the service of ADRsportRED, they need to submit that arbitration or mediation agreement. We never refuse a case when we have an arbitration agreement or a mediation agreement. However, we have to inform the parties that they do need that kind of agreement to obtain our services during the interim program.
Senator Callbeck: You say you support this bill in its present form, yet I believe when you appeared before the House of Commons you expressed concern that Sport Canada that was not caught in the legislation. I do not believe the legislation has been changed to address that concern,. Is that still a concern?
Mr. de Pencier: No, senator, it is not. You are, of course, correct that it was a concern that we expressed, as did others in the sport community. However, the Secretary of State has given us assurances that Sport Canada could be bound. For example, as I mentioned with respect to doping matters, when they move over it will have to be bound in any event. The Secretary of State referred to this in the third reading debate in the other place and articulated again the assurance that Sport Canada will move ahead and recognize the system and make use of it. I think everyone we have talked to in the sport community feels quite comfortable with proceeding on that basis.
[Translation]
Senator Gauthier: Does your centre have the capacity to operate in a bilingual mode?
Mr. Girardin: Yes, the centre is fully bilingual from an operational standpoint.
Senator Gauthier: Have you settled disputes involving francophone athletes? Of the 12 cases the centre has dealt with, how many francophones were involved?
Mr. Girardin: If my memory serves me well, four francophone groups requested a hearing in French. In two instances, a request was made for a hearing in both languages. Every day, we field inquiries in both languages from athletes, referees, administrations and federations about typical arbitration procedures.
Senator Gauthier: Who funds your organization?
Mr. Girardin: The program is funded by Sport Canada through a contribution arrangement with the CCES which, for now, has jurisdiction over the interim program via the Steering Committee.
[English]
Senator Gauthier: You are subject to the Official Languages Act since you are a creation of Sport Canada, and the minister is subject to the Official Languages Act.
Mr. de Pencier: We are certainly financed largely by Sport Canada. Indeed, one of the attractions to athletes in sport organizations is to have a system that does not cost them an arm and a leg.
However, we are not officially under the act. Clearly, in the milieu in which we operate we have to provide services in both languages. The Commissioner of Official Languages recited some of the reasons why that is the case.
Our services would not be acceptable to the sport community if they were not offered and accessible to those regardless of their official language. Again, we have had a good track record in that regard. All the athletes, regardless of language, have come forward and said in public fora that they felt well served by the system.
Senator Gauthier: If I hear you clearly, you are not subject to the Official Languages Act.
Mr. de Pencier: Yes, that is correct. We are not subject to the act because we are not that type of federal institution. We are an arm's-length institution that happens to be largely funded by the federal government.
It is much the same way as my own organization, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport. We receive over 50 per cent of our budget from the federal government, but we operate at arm's length.
However, our services are offered in both languages, despite my own linguistic failings. Luckily, I have colleagues who far more articulate than I in both French and English.
That is an example of a national institution, which we are, funded in large part by the federal government that must, and does, provide services in both languages equally. We are confident that the interim program does that, and the new centre could do that the way the bill is structured.
Senator Gauthier: Who else finances the organization? I understand is that you are partly funded by Sport Canada.
Mr. de Pencier: I should say that we are largely funded by Sports Canada. There are some nominal fees, but we are largely funded by Sport Canada.
Some of the participants may have to bear their own costs. For example, one does not need to have a lawyer to participate in our dispute resolution, but athletes or sports organizations may choose to do so. They will have to pay those costs themselves unless the arbitrator makes a particular order to the contrary.
It is fair to say that the interim program is largely funded by sport Canada.
Senator Gauthier: Basically, you are an arbitrator, not a conciliator. You talked about mediation. I make a distinction among those three terms. You are not into conciliation?
Mr. de Pencier: Conciliation certainly has happened informally. We have resolved disputes in fewer than 24 hours through processes that really are not arbitration in the sense of going to a hearing room and having formal presentations and questioning of witnesses, which often happens in arbitration.
We accomplish this through the work of the arbitrator or mediator who gets the parties together in an appropriate way. He or she may do some shuttle diplomacy back and forth to get them talking to each other and to find common solutions. That has happened.
On the other hand, we have had disputes that have required a more formal type of hearing. We often have such hearings over the telephone for the convenience of the participants. Again, it is something that looks more like arbitration as practitioners generally recognize it.
We are flexible. We try to accommodate the needs of the parties and the time frame. Sometimes these disputes come up at the last minute. The team may be getting ready to get on the plane. You do not have weeks to sort things our; you have hours. We have been able to help in those cases.
Senator Gauthier: Do the provinces participate at any time in this process?
Mr. Girardin: No, they do not. It is only national members or national sports organizations.
Senator Gauthier: You were here when I questioned Ms. Adam a few minutes ago. I see two aspects to this problem: one is strictly a health concern, in that exercise will help you increase your life expectancy. The other aspect is the recreational value of sports.
I was asking Ms. Adam if one minister would be sufficient for the centre, or would there be a requirement for two heads? Should there be one head for the health aspect of sport and another for the recreational value of sports? You do not have any difficulties with that, yet you support the bill.
Mr. de Pencier: The current bill speaks of the minister, who will be identified at a later date. We are quite comfortable with that arrangement. It will, of course, depend on the Government of Canada's overall approach to amateur sport. We think that we can operate regardless of which minister is chosen to be the person responsible in the bill.
Senator Gauthier: You would favour one minister?
Mr. de Pencier: Given the way in which the bill is designed, it would have to be one minister. However, if the government chose a different path, certainly the interim program could live with that. Looking ahead to the permanent centre, I do not see it as necessarily being the obstacle to the provision of services to the sport community, which, from our point of view, is most important.
Senator Gauthier: My last question. I have been asking, Ms. Adam in particular, about the possibility of putting the centre under the Official Languages Act by declaring it as a federal institution. If it were declared a federal institution, it would be subject to the Official Languages Act.
I do not believe you are subject to that act currently. The proposal that we have before us does not make that a federal institution. Do you have any comments on that?
Mr. de Pencier: Sir, we see this at a level where the rubber hits the road, so to speak. We see it from the point of view of providing a particular type of service to a community that has always wanted it and needs it. We have a mundane perspective — a day-to-day perspective.
To be successful in offering those services, we have to do it in both official languages. That is what we do now. That is what we presume the centre will do and we will certainly throw our weight behind making sure that that happens.
Whether or not the new centre falls under the Official Languages Act is a higher level question that is, perhaps, not really of our concern. We are more focused at this lower level of the provision of the services and ensuring that francophone athletes and anglophone sports officials and francophone sports officials and anglophone athletes all get access to the same service in the same way.
[Translation]
Senator Gauthier: You stated that of the 12 cases mentioned, four involved francophone groups and two had been settled. What of the other two cases?
Mr. Girardin: As I recall, four hearings were conducted in French. All four culminated in arbitration awards. Two of the cases were heard in both languages and accordingly, the decision was rendered in both languages. The adjudicator presided over the proceedings in both languages, moving from French to English, and back, for the benefit of the parties. The decision was handed down in both languages. Therefore, in four cases, the decisions were rendered in the preferred language of the parties.
[English]
Senator Léger: To continue what Senator Gauthier was saying, the ADRsportRED is guided by goodwill or understanding while you are there. It is understood the bilingual approach is fine, but if you leave and someone else comes in, there is nothing to oblige the centre to provide services in the two languages?
Mr. de Pencier: I do not agree with that, because the sport community, which the centre is supposed to serve, will and does demand that these sorts of services be offered in both languages. There would be an enormous hullabaloo if there were any suggestion to the contrary. Although our sport community at times can be a little weak and fragmented, when it decides to make its voice heard, it can and does. I am sure my colleagues at Sport Canada would vouch for that.
Frankly, that is the best protection that one has, even if the Official Languages Act did apply. That does not necessarily guarantee, again, that when the services are being offered, they are really being offered in both official languages. That is what we are concerned about. We will provide those services in both languages regardless of the legal regime that applies to us.
Senator Léger: I come from New Brunswick, as Senator Kinsella was saying. My experience has been that there is a difference between the law and its application. The law can help us or protect us, even if we do not apply it, but at least we have something to debate and fight for.
In your position, it seems as if that would not happen, however, it is my experience that it certainly can. Bill C-12 would be a protection. It would not make things different, but it would simply protect.
Mr. de Pencier: Again, senator, if this is any help to you, the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport has an even greater arm's length from the federal government than the new centre would have under the act. Yet, it has been quite clear to us from the day we opened our doors that we had to provide services to all Canadian athletes, and we do. Our clients demand it and the athletes we serve demand it. There has never been any doubt that we will do it to the best of our ability. The new centre will have the same forces working on it and will respond, I suspect, in the same way. That Bill C-12 has, in a number of places, requirements that the centre so operate can only make it better and lessen the even remote possibility of a problem in this regard. Certainly, that is our view.
The Chairman: It seems that the centre will be governed by the cases that it receives. I share the witness's views. Obviously, if a case comes in and it is francophone, it is dealt with in French. If it is anglophone, it is dealt with in English.
Senator Mahovlich is sponsor of the bill. Do you have any questions?
Senator Mahovlich: No, I am just taking everything in.
The Chairman: I would like to thank you two gentlemen for appearing before us today on Bill C-12. I thank you very much for your testimony and for your report.
The next witnesses are from the Coalition for Active Living. Rick Bell is the chair and Guy Tanguay is a coalition board member for the Coalition for Active Living.
Mr. Rick Bell, Chair, Coalition for Active Living: On behalf of the national, provincial and territorial community organizations of our Coalition for Active Living, I want to thank you for the opportunity to publicly make comment on Bill C-12.
Our coalition submitted a brief to Mr. Dennis Mills, chair of the Commons subcommittee hearings, on May 8, 2002. Our brief today is presented with some amendments to Bill C-12 that I want to share with this committee as well.
Before proceeding, I wish to introduce Mr. Guy Tanguay, a member of our Coalition for Active Living board. He is also the executive director of the Canadian Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance.
I also want to introduce Ms Jane Arkell, executive director for the Active Living Alliance for Canadians with a Disability.
The Chairman: Welcome.
Mr. Bell: These two organizations are key members of our coalition.
Our members share the comments made by Senators Léger and Morin from your previous committee meeting. We think they accurately described the physical activity as a much broader and fundamentally important health issue for Canadians than is represented by sport. Yet, Bill C-12 is, by design and wording, primarily a sport bill, with physical activity perceived to be in a minor role. The coalition recognizes and supports a strong role for sport in Canada. However, it must be understood that sport is just one way that some Canadians choose to be physically active. I hope you will find my comments to be helpful in your deliberations on this important legislation before you.
The Coalition for Active Living is a collective of over 50 national, provincial and local organizations that cross many sectors, including health, transportation, education, recreation and sports, and city planning, to name just a few. Our members are listed for you in our submission to give you a sense of the community that I am representing before you this evening.
Our primary mandate is to advocate for policy development, to ensure that the environments in which Canadians live, learn, work and play support regular physical activity. This mandate strikes to the core of the complexity and cross-sectoral nature of physical activity that I will allude to later in my comments.
The coalition currently receives funding from Health Canada. From my meeting with Health Minister McLellan last week, I know she is well aware of the chronic underfunding of our community in light of the magnitude of the problem of physical inactivity in Canadians. To that end, the coalition submitted a brief to the Standing Committee on Finance in its 2003 pre-budget consultations to support a national physical activity strategy for the health of Canadians.
This submission included a request for funding equal to the funding that the tobacco strategy has received over the past number of years. The literature and the press releases, of which you are aware, recognize that physical inactivity is similar in magnitude to the problem that smoking is presenting to Canadians. However, the resource issue is a discussion for another time and place.
One year ago, the coalition conducted a national consultation of physical activity leaders to identify the key issues and needs. Without exception, our leaders expressed the need for a very strong, effective voice for policy development to support physical activity at all levels of government. Having this opportunity to influence the policies pertaining to physical activity within Bill C-12 is of fundamental importance to our mandate as a coalition.
As a cornerstone for public policy on physical activity in sport, Bill C-12 could play a critical role in shaping physical activity policies in Canada. Legislation for physical activity was last articulated in 1961 in the Fitness and Amateur Sport Act.
The Coalition for Active Living is fully supportive of the conceptual shift in the title of this bill from fitness to physical activity. Physical activity, we perceive, is a much broader concept than fitness was. In addition, the coalition supports the statements in the preamble section of the bill that clearly articulate the role of physical activity in Canada.
While this bill states a physical activity policy, it falls short in stating specifically how physical activity will be addressed. Bill C-12 is sport-dominated, particularly in clause 5 that outlines the objects and mandate for both physical activity and sport.
While there are general policy statements for both physical activity and sport in paragraphs (a) through (g), physical activity is not mentioned at all in the last nine items of this clause.
We request that the profile of physical activity be raised in Bill C-12 by making the following changes or amendments.
There is a founding statement relating to policy on sport in clause 4, but there is no such founding statement relating to physical activity in clause 3, which relates to the policy section. We would like to see such a statement developed for physical activity.
In clause 5, under the objects and mandates section of this legislation, given that there are two distinct policies referenced — one for physical activity and one for sport — the objects and mandate section should have similar statements for physical activity as well as sport.
Specifically, in clause 5, paragraphs 5(h) through 5(p), reference the coordination of initiatives relative to the encouragement, promotion and delivery of sport. Many of these statements are equally relevant to non-sport physical activities.
By way of example, paragraph (m) reads ``facilitate the participation of under-represented groups in the Canadian sport system.''
Of particular interest to Ms. Arkell on my left, we would respectfully submit that this clause be rewritten to state, ``facilitate the participation of under-represented groups in physical activity and the Canadian sport system.''
There are similar statements. The following paragraph (n) reads, ``encourage provincial and territorial governments to promote and develop sport.'' We would argue that an equally explicit statement should be referenced to physical activity so that paragraph (n) would be reworded to ``encourage provincial and territorial governments to promote and develop physical activity and sport.''
Throughout the document there is reference to the term ``Minister.'' In clause 2 ``minister'' is defined as ``person or persons.''
However, in the deliberations in your other meetings it is insinuated, if not stated, that this may revert to one minister. This raises the question: In which jurisdiction does physical activity fit within federal politics?
I am not here today as Chair of the Coalition for Active Living to resolve the issue of whether physical activity belongs within Canadian Heritage and the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport or in Health Canada. What I do want to describe to you is how our coalition members perceive the role that we play in Canada.
Physical activity has been identified in both the Speech from the Throne and the federal-provincial territorial ministers of health meeting when they identified a new agenda called ``The Healthy Living Agenda.''
Physical activity is also a key element in this committee's recently released report on the health of Canadians. Specifically, our community is linked to the population health approach to health care that is the subject of Senator Kirby's report in chapter 7.
We have submitted a foundation document to the Romanow Commission on revising Canada's Health Act in which we clearly identify the role of physical activity in health promotion and disease prevention. We anxiously await Mr. Romanow's recommendation regarding the balance of investment in health promotion and disease treatment.
Physical inactivity is one of the major risk factors associated with chronic diseases in this country — the leading cause of death in this country. The Coalition for Active Living has a seat on the board of the Alliance for the Prevention of Chronic Disease.
Clearly, physical activity is not a sport issue in the same way as it is a Canadian health issue. We have a primary role to play in the health portfolio and specifically within the upstream health promotion side of health care.
Previous presenters from the various sport organizations have articulated their views on physical activity in these hearings. We want to ensure an understanding that physical activity for the majority of Canadians goes well beyond either formal or casual sport. This bill and the resources that eventually support it must be inclusive of Canadians who hike in parks, who are members of active school communities and who ride a bicycle to and from work.
Although our community recognizes our primary role in health promotion, the fact remains that physical activity crosses into other ministerial jurisdictions. If the definition in clause 2 pertaining to ``minister'' is to be interpreted as one minister, this may simplify responsibilities and accountability; however, it does not take into account the cross- sectoral nature of promoting and developing physical activity in Canada. We, however, leave the issue of jurisdiction for you to determine.
In conclusion, our coalition members urge you to raise the profile of physical activity in Bill C-12 in light of the significant health problems associated with physical inactivity in Canada.
If Bill C-12 is the legislation that will model what other jurisdictions and other levels of government will develop with regard to physical activity, then care must be taken to ensure that the policy statements in Bill C-12 are clearly articulated.
I want to thank you on behalf of the Coalition for Active Living for this opportunity to share our views. We will be delighted to field any questions that the senators may have.
The Chairman: I could not agree more. I participate in a lot of physical activity — gardening and walking — but I never considered those as a sport. I think people in this country think of sport as sport. They think of it as hockey, soccer and so on. I must say that when I listened to your presentation, it mirrored some of the concerns that I had when I was reading through the bill. It seems to start off and then it falls off the table. I very much appreciate your presentation.
[Translation]
Senator Gauthier: The bill is entitled ``An Act to promote physical activity and sport.'' The first objective is clear, namely physical activity and the need for Canadians to become more physically active.
[English]
You said the bill falls short on how to achieve the objectives. Where do you get that idea that the bill falls short? The title is clear.
Mr. Bell: Yes, that is very clear, but in examining clause 5, which identifies very specific policy statements with regard to physical activity and sport, you see items (a) through (g) comprise equal statements for physical activity and sport, and we are delighted with that.
However, we have some concern with item (f) in that we think the statement should finish after ``coordinate federal initiatives relating to the encouragement, promotion and development of physical activity and sport,'' because the listing that occurs subsequent to ``sport'' only references sport.
I would refer you to the last nine items — paragraphs (h) down through item (p). We applaud the sport community for securing a position in this bill with those items, because they specifically state ``sport.'' Our concern — and where we feel this act falls short with physical activity — is in clause 5 and many of the statements in paragraphs (h) through (p) that should be stated for physical activity. That is the shortcoming.
Senator Gauthier: You have made your point very clearly with me.
Senator Léger: I applaud your contribution. I feel it is a very important contribution. You have made specific references. We must raise the profile, as you have said. We have received a very important contribution today.
The Deputy Chairman: When we deal with the issue of physical activity — and perhaps this is a communications problem for an organization like yours — we are dealing with obesity in children and inactivity in children, playing video games instead of being outside, how can you communicate to them? One of the problems is that they think they have to get out and participate in sports in order to be physically active. How do you communicate to them that there are other ways of being physically active and not actually participate in some type of organized sport?
Mr. Bell: Perhaps could I start with an answer, and my colleagues may be able to add some more substance to the answer. How do we communicate that to children? There are a number of ways to do that.
There has been the recent publication and delivery of the physical activity guide through Health Canada, which is a prescription for activity for children that identifies avenues for activity to meet the daily minimum requirements required to live a healthy life.
Certainly there is the role that physical education programs play within our school system. I realize, of course, that this is not a federal matter, but we perceive the leadership in promoting physical activity as a federal matter. The messages that children receive within our physical education programs should be providing a much broader avenue of choice than simply sport.
Getting to and from schools through our active school bus and the Go for Green organization, which is a transportation issue, is another way to promote activity within the school-age population.
Just getting out and playing as young children in community facilities and having access to those facilities — particularly for the poor of Canada — becomes a critical issue for parks and recreation access, which again is a part of our coalition story.
Ms. Jane Arkell, Executive Director, Active Living Alliance for Canadians with a Disability, Coalition for Active Living: I would like to concur that the community and the school are very important in creating a supportive environment whereby a child has success with physical activity. This is particularly important for the population that I represent, Canadians with disabilities. If there is not success and it is not a welcoming environment, it will not happen any further up the line, so there will be no sport development. Certainly schools and communities are key.
Mr. Guy Tanguay, Executive Director, The Canadian Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, Coalition for Active Living: What is important is that we are bringing forward a concept of ``physical literacy.'' Physical literacy is essential for the kids to be able to develop properly and holistically as well as being able to become Canadian champions in future sport endeavours.
The Deputy Chairman: I just worry that many young people feel they are not skilled enough, and sport gets put in a very defined box, and therefore they think that is not for them.
Senator Callbeck: I agree with the other senators who have indicated that you have made your point extremely well. I think recently you made a presentation somewhere where you listed 10 recommendations for a new physical activity strategy.
Does this legislation, as it stands, restrict or constrain any of those recommendations? I have not seen them, so I do not know what they are. I would like to have your comment.
Mr. Bell: The recommendations that I believe you are referring to, Senator Callbeck, were part of the brief that we submitted to the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance as a rationalization for the financial request that we were making. The substance of those ten items comes from our six-point action plan from the coalition that was derived from our national consultations.
These are in the brief that we have submitted to you. I will provide a quick summary. There is an item referring to physical activity within the school setting. There are items that relate to community access, or access to community facilities, to transportation issues, to a national communications strategy.
We do not see necessarily the general statements precluding that action plan to go forward. Again, I would like to reiterate, if by omission this bill does not specify in the policy statements specific statements with regard to physical activity, it opens the door for physical activity to not assume an equal footing with sport.
Senator Gauthier: I am intrigued. I looked up the membership of your coalition and found no one from Quebec. Do you not have members from Quebec or from the Maritimes?
[Translation]
Mr. Tanguay: Some of these associations are national in scope. Each has networks within the provinces. Take, for instance, Parks and Recs. It is affiliated with each province, just like the other associations listed.
Senator Gauthier: Of all the municipalities listed, not one is in Quebec. Is this merely coincidental?
Mr. Tanguay: No. Different associations at various levels are grouped together. The coalition may represent national associations, just as it may represent individuals or provincial associations. The national association, as you can see, has affiliates in each province and territory.
Senator Gauthier: Do you receive your funding from Health Canada?
Mr. Tanguay: Yes.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: Do you have another comment, Mr. Bell?
Mr. de Pencier: Not in relation to that, but before we close I would like to make another comment.
Senator Gauthier: Mr. Bell, do you support Bill C-12?
Mr. Bell: In its current form, I support it in part.
Senator Gauthier: Yes or no?
Mr. Bell: In the current form, partially; with my suggested amendments, totally.
The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Bell, please proceed with a final statement.
Mr. Bell: We received word late Friday afternoon of this opportunity to present to the committee. We extend the invitation to the Senate committee that, if input is required in rewording clause 5, to which I have alluded, the coalition would be happy to participate in those discussions.
The Deputy Chairman: On behalf of the committee, I thank you for appearing.
The committee adjourned.