Debates of June 7th, 1999

Supply

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to finishing my remarks as they pertain to the Bloc motion before the House for debate.

I was at a point in my remarks where I was emphasizing the importance of recognizing not only the contribution that sports make in terms of the effect it has on providing children and youth with an activity, but the downside of not putting financial resources into that aspect of Canadian culture and the effect it will have on the other end. If there is not sufficient emphasis put on activities such as this there is a social cost to pay with respect to our criminal justice system.

I think the report highlights the importance of putting emphasis on Canadian sport. Another aspect that is somewhat intangible and somewhat difficult to quantify in terms of how much money should go in is the aspect of Canadian culture and the sense of pride it gives to Canadians in having competitive sporting teams, not only at the professional level but at the amateur level as well.

I also believe that the report, under the guidance of the Chair, highlighted the cultural aspect and importance of sport in the country to give Canadians a sense of pride and to give them something to unify them and cheer for collectively at times of international competition, such as the Olympics, and regionally at the Canada Games.

I have a constituent in Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough named John Brother MacDonald who has been a fierce competitor, a tireless supporter of amateur sport and, later in his years, a coach and referee. He epitomized this concept and this psychology that sport makes many contributions at many levels. He used to say, sometimes jokingly, “f you cannot be a good sport, you can at least be an athletic supporter”.

The debate taking place today is certainly one of great importance. It should not just be focusing on whether we give tax breaks to the NHL. That is an obvious issue of great consternation and it is an issue that will continue to plague the national hockey league in the country because of the economic issues that surround it.

It also comes down to priorities. Do we as a country, specifically as a government, decide to allow an industry, which professional hockey has become, to be subsidized when we know there is a huge surplus in the players' fund that is untouchable and untaxable? We also know there are markets, particularly in New York and in Florida, where Canadian hockey clubs cannot be competitive, cannot return the revenues and do not have the market to accumulate revenues like those teams? Sadly, we have seen, and it has been noted, the loss of teams in Winnipeg and Quebec and some of our clubs are currently in jeopardy of moving south of the border.

I congratulate the Bloc for having the foresight to bring the matter forward again. I would suggest, on the specific issue of subsidies for professional teams, that it comes down to one of priorities. Canadians, for the most part, have said quite clearly that it is not palatable at this time to offer tax breaks when we still have huge problems with unemployment, health care, and other sectors of our economy. It is simply a matter of choosing priorities and singling out where the money is most needed and will be best received.

I again put forward that the Progressive Conservative Party's position is in support of the motion. I would suggest that we have an opportunity here to single out and look separately at the issue of professional franchises and their subsidization, but we should be encouraging and implementing the other very important recommendations.

I wish we had time to expound on one other aspect, that of gambling and the huge revenues that are generated both legally and illegally. We know that the provincial and federal governments have stepped into this area with respect to professional and sometimes amateur sport. However, I suggest there is more we can do in terms of having a return from the aspect of gambling that stems from sport.

We have to develop sound fiscal policy that is consistent with the development of amateur sport and the preservation of professional sport in Canada. With this in mind, I and the Conservative Party support wholeheartedly the motion put forward by the Bloc. I would once more put forward a request for unanimous consent to we make this a votable item.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent that the item be made votable?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

No.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what the member had to say. I know he was on the subcommittee and has studied this matter in great detail. I regret to say that although I have had a lifelong interest in sports, being actively involved in sports, chairing the Ontario Summer Games and things of this type, I am not as well informed as he is.

I cannot help but notice that the Bloc motion mentions something about an emphasis on professionalism as distinct from the support of amateurism. It is my understanding that the federal government spends roughly $60 million a year on sports. I know about the seven national sports centres. I know about the Canada Games. I have been involved with those. It is a wonderful device for bringing on young people and for encouraging sports in the regions.

I know that a great deal of the money goes directly to our international athletes and that they get support of various types. I also know there are special initiatives for women athletes, for athletes with disabilities and for first nations and Inuit people.

I have a question concerning the motion. Could the member give me some idea as someone who was not on the subcommittee how much of this expenditure is going to the professional sport mentioned in the motion?

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I have always felt that he was a very good sport.

My understanding of the intent and the spirit of the Bloc motion is one of setting a priority between any commitment of fiscal responsibility on the part of the government toward professional sport coming subsequent to the issue of a firm commitment to amateur sport and the development of our programs on an amateur level. That is my reading of it.

As for any concrete dollars or any figures that permanently attach, I am afraid I am not familiar with them, even having sat as a member of the committee. The chair of the committee might be able to provide that information. As far as the dollars go, I know one figure that was mentioned here. That was $1.3 billion in terms of revenue returned to the economy as a result of the contribution of professional sport in Canada.

The crux of the matter, as the member is aware, centres around the issue of offering some form of subsidy or financial incentive to our current franchises. This is what we are at a sticking point on.

Do we put that priority ahead of the other priorities that were set out quite clearly in this report, that we should be putting money into amateur sport, the development of Olympic programs, the development of community sport and all the very positive benefits the member has pointed out which flow from that level of sport as opposed to professionalism?

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on the motion moved by the member for Longueuil.

The motion reads as follows:

That, since the government ignored most of the recommendations by the Sub-Committee on the Study of Sport in Canada, a Sub-Committee of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, the House demand that the government place amateur athletes at the heart of its concerns and make a commitment to placing their interests before the interests of professional sport.

I am delighted at my colleague's initiative because, since the report of the Sub-Committee on the Study of Sport in Canada was tabled, there has been no initiative from members opposite except the April 28 announcement by the Minister of Industry, who said he was calling the first meeting of all professional sports stakeholders to try to find out the status of hockey club franchises and Canadian teams here.

What does the report say? It says no to any additional funding for amateur sport, but yes to any activity that will ensure the federal government's visibility, and maybe to professional sports demands.

Let us take a look at professional sports, particularly the hockey millionaires who are doing nothing to help their teams survive. These millionaires play well one year and gather impressive personal statistics and then they completely forget about their teammates.

We can take, for example, the most arrogant of all players, the star of Colorado, who hit pay dirt and recently criticized his teammates following a defeat. For most of these millionaire hockey players, there is no loyalty to their team or to their fans, no commitment to the community, except for some rare players—and we all remember the unfortunate incident with the Ottawa Senators' No. 19. The owners give in to their players' every whim. They build huge sportsplexes and then come to Ottawa to complain about being broke.

Let us talk about the wages. In 1970 the earnings of a hockey player were four times those of an ordinary worker; in 1980 they were eight times; in 1990 ten times; and in 1996 38 times those of ordinary people. No serious business granting these kinds of salaries to its employees would stand a chance of surviving. It would be doomed to bankruptcy.

We all know what is going on in Pittsburgh. Tampa Bay is short $20 million. Most of the handful of Canadian teams, including the Sainte-Flanelle, otherwise known as the Montreal Canadiens, are losing money.

These people come to Ottawa to complain about their situation. Then we have to listen to the hon. member for Bourassa, who buys the principles of this false crusade. In fact, the hon. member for Bourassa takes part in numerous radio sports hotlines in Montreal and Quebec City, where he only talks about professional sports and completely ignores amateur sport. His behaviour is unacceptable.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have no problem debating ideas in this House, but we have heard too many personal attacks and falsehoods since the beginning of this debate.

Yes, it is true that I often talk publicly about professional sport, but I always talk about amateur sport as well. I ask the member to withdraw his remarks because he said that I only talk about professional sport.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It seems to me that this is a matter of debate and not a point of order, but a representation has already been made. The hon. member for Lotbinière may address the representation made by the hon. member for Bourassa in his remarks.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think these are points for debate, and if the member for Bourassa is uncomfortable with what he told sportscasters, it is not my problem.

A few moments ago, the member for Bourassa—and this is true since he was in the House—bragged about having met with each of the federations, but he forgot to mention that he has also met with the majority of hockey club owners in Canada.

In fact, the member for Bourassa feels a lot more at home in the front rows of professional hockey club arenas than in the front rows of those who defend amateur sport. This is understandable since two hockey clubs contributed directly to the Liberal Party of Canada's election fund in 1996-97: the Calgary Flames contributed $4,433, and the Ottawa Senators contributed $6,235. And at the Molson Centre—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege. The member for Lotbinière has insinuated that certain people contribute to campaign funds and this reflects on me. This is a question of honour and I ask that the member withdraw what he said.

If we had to start looking at all the money spent by the Bloc Quebecois, we would have plenty to say. I raise the question of privilege because it is unacceptable to say things like that. They are not only indulging in petty politics at the expense of athletes but they do not even know the issues they are talking about.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I did not hear the remarks attributed to the hon. member for Lotbinière. I heard him referring to numbers which were not about contributions, election campaigns or anything of that kind.

The hon. member for Bourassa will have the opportunity, during questions and comments, to make clarifications. We can wait until then.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that it is the member for Bourassa himself who made the connection and who asked us for evidence. I brought this evidence here this afternoon. Two hockey clubs have contributed to the electoral fund of his party, the Liberal Party of Canada. I do not understand why he does not feel concerned about the situation, because he is a member of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Now, let us talk about the Molson Centre, which received half a million dollars to put the maple leaf on the ice. This is another nice gift from the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Under the circumstances, it is really degrading to see how these people are defending amateur sport.

I can imagine the disappointment of the chairman of the subcommittee when he saw his report put aside, after having worked for weeks and weeks on the issue of amateur sport. Unfortunately, the heritage minister did not listen to him.

The only thing he has learned is that while the Canadian heritage minister was abroad her parliamentary secretary tabled, on April 28, 1999, the government response of the report and forgot all about the contents of the subcommittee's report.

I know a lot of members opposite cringe when they are told the truth. It rubs them the wrong way. Maybe they will have more to say to sports fans tonight, but I do not need these fans to speak my mind in the House.

When the heritage minister asked the Canadian Olympic Association to postpone the announcement of the city that would be the Canadian candidate for the Olympic games in 2010 so as not to hurt Mr. Charest's chances in the last Quebec election, she broke the Olympic charter. And I know what I am talking about, having worked with the organizing committee of Quebec City for the 2002 Olympic Games.

The Liberal Party and the hon. member for Bourassa have become experts in political and media manipulation, in propaganda campaigns and misinformation every day, every month. They are at it again today.

In conclusion, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to make the motion of my colleague from Longueuil votable.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to make the motion votable?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to see the true face of the Bloc. People will notice that, apart from personal attacks, no solution was brought here. Besides exchanging the flag of Canada for a fleur de lys, not much was said since the beginning.

I have a question to ask based on a quotation. In the Saturday, March 13 edition of Le Soleil there was a report entitled “Quebec Games, a Flag Flap. Quebec prefers to pay rather than accept Ottawa's partnership”. Apparently, the Government of Quebec had paid the tidy sum of $200,000 to prevent the federal government's presence during the Quebec Games in Trois-Rivières.

This was not revealed by a politician but by the games' director general, Mr. Réjean Tremblay.

These lackeys are playing holier than thou and claiming that members on this side are big bad wolves, but from the beginning they have been levelling personal attacks against us.

I would like the very famous member for Lotbinière—who, perhaps this time will know what he is talking about—to comment on the statement made by the Jeux du Québec's director general, Mr. Réjean Tremblay.

Does he agree? Is he happy to know that the mother house in Quebec City decided to buy off the games in order to keep out the maple leaf?

Is he in agreement with this decision?

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am not familiar with the memorandum of understanding that was in place between Quebec and the Jeux du Québec organizers. However, knowing the honesty and objectivity of the Government of Quebec, it certainly did not propose a propaganda protocol of the type the other party has become a specialist in.

A maple festival was held in my riding. Plessisville had a Canada Place tent imposed upon them. That is propaganda.

The government is a propaganda specialist. That is all I have to say to those on the other side of this House. They are not familiar with the issue. They do not know what was in the memorandum of understanding between Quebec and the Jeux du Québec organizers. Before they rise to speak they ought to get their facts straight.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a preliminary comment in order to set things straight after the speech by the member for Bourassa.

A number of my colleagues have risen to speak, and one of the very concrete things suggested to this government was to put more money into the various federations. Some are not getting a cent at the present time. That was even one of the recommendations of the subcommittee. If the member for Bourassa has amnesia, that is not our problem.

I would like to ask a question of my colleague from the greater Quebec City region.

How did they make the choice of candidate cities for the Olympics when some ministers in the Liberal government openly supported Vancouver and the supposed staunch defenders of Quebec in cabinet remained totally silent? How did this lack of support go over in the Quebec City region?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would remind this House that the Quebec caucus, yours truly among them, supported Quebec's candidacy. I did so publicly on CHRC.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Once again, I do not believe this is a point of order.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that Quebec City was very disappointed. However, given the operating style of the government, which does not honour its objectives and which meddles in Olympic matters, it was not surprised to lose its candidacy.

What proved that it would be lost was the intervention by the Minister of Canadian Heritage a few days before the ballot to prevent the release of the results. This was the definitive proof that they already knew Vancouver would be the candidate and it was out of fear of losing votes in elections in Quebec—Quebecers are very proud—that she hid this information. This is the way the government works.

Quebecers are not fools. They know the government. They accept the decision, but they know where the Liberals come from.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, seing the behavior in this House, I am not sure I am pleased to rise this afternoon.

I wanted to speak about the Mills report, which was very well done, a job the member should be proud of. However, it was with regret that I noted that the Minister of Canadian Heritage trashed the recommendations of the report on amateur sport in Canada.

In fact, on April 28 the Minister of Canadian Heritage turned down all of the recommendations calling for additional money for amateur sport. She said yes to every activity that would ensure the visibility of the Canadian flag. With the help of the Prime Minister, she passed the recommendation concerning professional sports on to her friend the Minister of Industry.

Amateur athletes were horrified. I would like to quote at least three statements by athletes and by directors of federations on the Mills report and what the minister said on April 28.

First, here is what John Thresher, head of Athletics Canada, said, as reported in the Globe and Mail on April 29, 1999:

From the standpoint of G-7 countries, our Canadian athletes are second class citizens.

Quebecer Jean-Luc Brassard raised the following question:

Should we perhaps in the future march behind our sponsor's flag?

And, finally, here is the most bitter, which comes from Lane MacAdam, president of the Canada Games Council:

It is a black day for amateur sport. It would appear that the government has chosen hockey millionaires over the 1.3 million poor children who have no access to sports. Amateur sport has been cheated.

That same day, April 28, the Minister of National Revenue held a meeting with the mayors of the cities that have the main franchises in professional sport to find ways to help professional sport.

At that meeting, I believe the minister called another meeting, scheduled for mid-June, where he will ask mayors and provincial officials to provide means such as tax breaks, tax holidays, sales tax reductions or others to help NHL teams to the tune of at least $10 million. These NHL teams are playing in a small market.

However, we are still waiting for a definition of small market. Does it apply to cities such as Ottawa, Calgary or Edmonton, or does it also include Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver, when compared to an American market such as New York?

If the six NHL Canadian teams play in small markets, this means that the municipal, provincial and federal governments will have to provide $60 million annually to these teams, through all sorts of schemes. Over a five-year period, we are talking $300 million.

I am not saying that these teams do not need the money. However, the government's priority should be to put money into amateur sport, because it is amateur sport that is really suffering in Canada.

I have a few suggestions for the Minister of Industry. Before deciding to help professional sport, particularly hockey, as he said, the minister should ask himself the following question: Do Canadian taxpayers help fund professional hockey teams?

They do through tax deductions given to companies for entertainment expenses, meal expenses and the purchasing of tickets. Such deductions amount to tens of millions of dollars.

Before making a decision, the minister should ask himself another question: Should he give priority to the funding of professional or amateur sport? Personally, I think amateur sport should have priority over professional sport, which is experiencing serious problems.

Professional sport should first solve the problems it is facing, the first and most serious one being skyrocketing salaries. What gets professional clubs into trouble is players' salaries.

In fact, on February 16, 1999—not so very long ago—in an address to the Canadian Club in Toronto, Mr. Aubut, former president of the Quebec Nordiques, said “The worst threat to professional sports teams in Canada, and you all know it, is the meteoric rise in players' salaries”. That is what Mr. Aubut said and I think he is right.

The other problem plaguing our professional sports is the presence of the average spectator at games. In 1977 the average cost of a hockey ticket was $7.89. In 1994 it had jumped to $33.66. The increase in the consumer price index for the same period was 245%, while the price of tickets jumped 430%.

I could go on for hours about the national league's problems. Like my Bloc Quebecois colleagues, I think the government's first priority should be to fund amateur sport. Our millionaires in hockey and other professional sports are truly spoiled. According to a Southam News poll, the government should watch out because 71% of Canadians are not in favour of using tax dollars to help professional teams.

If assistance is provided for hockey, what about other professional sports, such as soccer, baseball, and football, which all have the same money problems?

Once again, I beg this government to spend money on amateur sport rather than professional sport.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles who just spoke that the motion he was supposed to speak to reads as follows:

That...the House demand that the government place amateur athletes at the heart of its concerns and make a commitment to placing their interests before the interests of professional sport.

The member spoke for 10 minutes and he used 85% of his time to talk about professional sport. He says he is very concerned about amateur sport and he wants the government to give priority to amateur sport, which it already does. As a matter of fact, the $57 million spent yearly by the Department of Canadian Heritage on sport in Canada goes entirely to amateur sport. Professional sport gets nothing. I do not know if he would like our priorities to be geared even more towards amateur sport. I personally hope that, in the future, we will be able to increase our support for amateur sport, but amateur sport already gets 100% of our funding for sport, so what more does the member want? How could we give amateur sport greater priority?

How can the hon. member explain the fact that his party has expressed its opposition to a recommendation—it is opposed to several recommendations, but I am talking about one in particular—regarding the creation of a department of sports and youth? Since the member himself wants everything to be done to help amateur sport, how can he explain the Bloc's position against the creation of such a department?

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to tell my hon. colleague on the other side, who will have a seat for life since he hails from a Liberal area, in Ottawa.

If he believes so much in amateur sport, why does he not want the Bloc Quebecois motion to be made votable?

It is true that in my speech I dealt mostly with professional sport, but I have always maintained that, before giving one penny to professional sport, we should do everything in our power to support amateur sport.

The chairman of the subcommittee who gave his name to the Mills report has done a remarkable job. The section of the report relating to amateur sport proposes many solutions to the problems, including the creation of a sport department. But what good would that do? We had a sport department when the Conservatives were in office. Patronage was rampant, as it is today. Friends were appointed to head the various federations. Things would be the same as they were then.