Debates of May 19th, 1995

Winnipeg Jets

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the member is mistaken. There is no direct assistance for the Jets.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, pardon me if I laugh. Answers like that are a laugh for everyone.

Yesterday, the President of Treasury Board confirmed having found funding for the Winnipeg Jets with the cancellation of a $35 million highway contract. In the meantime, however, the Prime Minister was stating in this House that the funding had come from the cancellation of a series of small projects worth $3 million, under the infrastructure program.

My question is simple and straightforward and, I am hoping for an answer from the Deputy Prime Minister. Would she tell us clearly which projects were cancelled to pay for the government's $20 million subsidy to the Winnipeg Jets?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the very specific project that was referred to was a $30 million overpass near a CN mainline, and the member will know that the overpass project was opposed by many constituents. I personally received letters as Minister of the Environment in opposition to the project. The decision was made by the local community not to proceed with it.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the owners of the Winnipeg Jets will decide next Thursday whether the franchise will remain in Winnipeg. The federal government, for its part, yesterday agreed to pay $20 million toward the construction of the new arena the Jets need.

Would the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether the federal government's funding is conditional on the Jets' remaining in Winnipeg or whether it will still be provided to build a 22,000-seat arena even if the Jets leave Winnipeg?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, in putting the infrastructure system in place, we gave municipalities and provinces the option of making their own decisions.

We do not agree with the comments by the Leader of the Opposition, Lucien Bouchard, who has a hard time believing that Ottawa would spend public funds to refloat a hockey team. In his opinion, the federal government would be wrong to invest in Quebec City or in Winnipeg.

We do not agree with this approach, because we feel that, if the mayor of Quebec City chooses a project, he should be entitled to proceed with his choice. This is why we agreed to fund the infrastructure program in Winnipeg, just as we did in Quebec City.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Deputy Prime Minister.

The Deputy Prime Minister of Canada seems to be the only one not to know that she has just given the Winnipeg Jets $20 million. The premier of Manitoba and the mayor of Winnipeg both are not hiding the fact that they want to save the Jets franchise.

How can the Deputy Prime Minister put $20 million in a 22,000-seat arena for the Winnipeg Jets, without any business plan, whereas, last year, the attendance figure per game was 12,500 on the average and the team has lost $30 million over the past four years?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, we did what people in Winnipeg and Manitoba wanted, just as we did when we decided to fund the congress centre in Quebec City, at the request of Mayor L'Allier who said, and I quote: "The congress centre has been a regional priority for the past ten years. Economic spin-offs are proven. We cannot sideline the centre which, year after year, employs thousands of people in the hotel and catering industry, for some infrastructure this area does not need, but which is needed by one company to survive here. This is the reason why I cannot support Marcel Aubut's approach". This is exactly what the mayor of Quebec City said.

We respect Quebec City's decision to spend money on a congress centre, just as we respect the wish of people in Winnipeg to spend infrastructure money on an arena.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Mr. Speaker, why is the Deputy Prime Minister refusing to admit that the federal government uses double standards when it deals with Quebec? Indeed, when asked to come to the rescue of MIL Davie-the industry minister knows this well-and its thousands of workers, who do not skate for one million dollars a year, the government demands to see a business plan, but when it comes to the Winnipeg Jets, the money is paid without conditions or guarantees.

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, we respect the will of cities to make their own economic decisions. Quebec City chose a congress centre and received $25 million from the federal government.

Similarly, Winnipeg chose to build an arena to promote economic development; this is why we are giving this city its fair share, just as we gave it to Quebec city for its congress centre, the first project awarded under the infrastructure program.

Infrastructure Funding

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hockey fans and businesses in Winnipeg deserve a great deal of credit. They have come together and are well on their way to keeping the Jets in Winnipeg and in Canada.

What I have to question, however, is why infrastructure money is being used to build luxury boxes and to subsidize a professional hockey team. This program was supposed to improve sewer systems and make Canadian highways safer. Instead, it is going toward boccie courts, the Calgary Saddledome millionaire club, and the Peter Pocklington bottom line. The infrastructure program is a failure.

How does the Deputy Prime Minister justify Manitoba's reallocation of infrastructure funding?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

In the same way we justified the decision by the city of Calgary to finance infrastructure funding for the Saddledome.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister is quite right that it is up to the province or the city and they make their request. However, the issue is why the infrastructure program is designed in such a way as to make hockey arenas, museums, and other sports facilities a legitimate expense.

Canada's sewers and roadways are deteriorating. It will cost taxpayers billions of dollars to replace them. Infrastructure that benefits the maximum number of taxpayers should be the goal, not political gain.

Where will the money come from for the real infrastructure spending that will be required?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I am amazed that the member for Calgary, the city that hosted the Olympics, and the world had an opportunity to see his great city, is now saying that infrastructure is a bad investment.

Infrastructure in sports is also about nation building. That is why I am sure he would not want to turn his back on the infrastructure spending that paved the way for the Calgary Olympics, nor would he want to turn his back on the infrastructure spending that made it possible for the Saddledome.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, true infrastructure spending is fine, but direct subsidies to the private sector are not fine. The taxpayers are against that.

We learned yesterday that the save the Jets group in Winnipeg is considering applying for charitable status. That would make every donation tax deductible, and then tax weary Canadians would be picking up even more of the tab. The Minister of National Revenue said it was out of the question. However, the Manitoba Entertainment Centre applied for charitable status six weeks ago. Since the Jets have received so much government money and will be receiving more now, they should consider renaming themselves the Winnipeg Challenger Jets.

Will either the Deputy Prime Minister or the representative of revenue and taxation assure the House and Canadians that the Jets and their supporters will not receive charitable status?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the member exhibits what I hope is an unintentional misunderstanding of the infrastructure program. He says there are direct subsidies. There are no direct subsidies.

What we have done for Winnipeg is exactly the same thing we did for Calgary at the request of the former mayor of Calgary, Premier Ralph Klein, who endorsed the Saddledome funding.

Frankly, I did not see the member for Calgary stand up and complain about the Calgary Olympics; he did not stand up and complain about the Calgary Saddledome. Heavens, he should not stand up and complain about the Winnipeg arena, which is going to permit a Canadian national institution to stay in Canada.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that $5 million out of the $20 million spent on saving the Winnipeg Jets came from the Pan American Games budget. Yet, no event featured in these games requires a 22,000 seat arena.

Since no event featured in the Pan American Games requires building a 22,000 seat arena, will the Deputy Prime Minister admit that, by taking $5 million from the federal contribution to the Pan American Games and giving it to the Winnipeg Jets, the government is in fact misappropriating public funds?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, just as we will accept the decisions made by the Québec 2002 committee as to the need for a renewed infrastructure, should that city be selected, we accept the decision made by the Pan American Games committee to set aside $5 million, precisely because it wanted to put in place the infrastructure required for future Pan American Games in Canada. We respect the committee's decision, just as we will respect those of the Québec 2002 committee.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's response makes no sense. This is appalling.

Since Winnipeg hosted the Pan American Games in 1967 and has just been selected as host of the 1999 games, in particular because it already has all the facilities required, why does the Deputy Prime Minister refuse to admit that the Prime Minister was the first to authorize the misappropriation of $5 million solely to serve the political interests of the human resources development minister, who is the person responsible for Manitoba and the member for Winnipeg South Centre?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, what I find unfortunate and dishonest-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Hamilton East, ON]

-about the opposition's stance is their claim that what we did for Winnipeg, we are not willing to do in other cases.

We simply respected Quebec City's decision, which was supported twice by Mayor Jean-Paul L'Allier, to build a convention centre in order to promote its economic development.

In the same way, we have accepted the request made by the City of Winnipeg and the Manitoba government, which feel that this infrastructure is important to Winnipeg's economic development.

If you agree with the principle that Quebec City is free to make its own decisions, why do you not accept it for other cities?

[The Speaker]

My colleagues, I must remind you that you should always address the Chair.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, to set the record straight for the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. member for Calgary Centre publicly denounced the government for the misuse of infrastructure funds on the Saddledome in Calgary. To bring him into it is absolutely unfair and uncalled for.

I want to continue to shed light on the Liberals' bailout of the Winnipeg professional hockey team. She did not answer the question. The Manitoba entertainment complex has asked for charitable status. Will she, on behalf of her government, unequivocally state that the government will not give the Manitoba entertainment complex or any organization related to this unconscionable bailout charitable status?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, there is no bailout.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask the question again. Will the Deputy Prime Minister unequivocally state on behalf of her government that there will be no special status, no further tax grab from the Canadian wallet?

Is there anything she does not understand about my question?