Debates of June 7th, 1999

Supply

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Madam Speaker, I hope that simply rising in this House will not make the member for Bourassa feel persecuted.

I would like to remind him that he is the king of personal attacks. He has not stopped talking about members of the Bloc Quebecois. Maybe he has not heard my speech, so I will remind him that I said clearly that the Bloc Quebecois is not against professional sport. Far from it. We just want to remind the government opposite that it must place amateur sport at the heart of its concerns. I too made a little tour, as did the member for Bourassa. I know there is determination on the part of the athletes.

There is one thing I would like the member for Bourassa to explain to us. During the subcommittee hearings on October 29 the member for Bourassa expressed his indignation. Here is what he said “I will ask him (the Commissioner of Official Languages) to investigate and make sure that any problem of accessibility is settled, whether it has to do with documents, translation or services”. Can the member for Bourassa tell us if he followed through on that commitment made at the subcommittee hearings? He was talking about Jean-Guy Ouellet. Can he say a few good words about him?

I would also like to remind him that the colleague who worked with him for a year is from the riding of Broadview—Greenwood. It would be good for him to keep that in mind.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is extremely easy for me to praise someone like Jean-Guy Ouellet, who dedicated his whole life to amateur sport and who worked tirelessly including—and this is for the information of the member for Longueuil—in university volleyball. He was also a referee.

We discussed these issues. Instead of going on tours, I deal with the issue. When we worked together, including at the Canadian university volleyball championship, we discussed this sort of thing.

I did indeed apply pressure regarding official languages. These are issues. However, contrary to members opposite, I looked for solutions and alternatives.

By contrast, what members across the floor decided to do—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

the poor martyrs opposite are whining. If only they listened, it would help them.

What I have to say is helpful to me also, because it will help Canadians see who is serious about this issue. I will simply say that yes, we do think there is a language issue here.

Yes, we also think there are all manner of problems, but that is no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water.

We are aware of what they are up to as compared to what we are trying to do. We really want to work toward solutions and solve problems. From the start, they have tried to use personal attacks and demagoguery. They have tried to say that the sport millionaires contribute to slush funds. I do not know what funds they are referring to, or which sport millionaires. Answers to those questions are needed.

For us on this side of the House, what is important is to work together and to continue the good work. Of the 69 recommendations, 53 have been accepted. Looking at all of the parliamentary committees, this was a relatively inexpensive one, costing only $15,000, yet it attracted a great many people and triggered a public debate. That is what is important to us.

There are some people over there who have been carrying on about this, like the hon. member for Témiscamingue, who has been at it for some time now, telling us that we do nothing but speak of professional sport. Unlike the people on the other side, I have no need to backtrack on what I have said. Right from the start I said that we needed to focus on amateur and professional sport, because this is an industry that brings in $9 billion and is responsible for 260,000 jobs and 1.1% of the gross domestic product.

We are not going to put our heads in the sand, not like Lucien Bouchard. At one point he said “It is unthinkable that we would help the Expos, but, on the other hand, maybe it is a good thing because now the federal election is over. So, when it comes down to it, we will put in $160 million”. People will be in a position to judge who has the greater credibility in this matter.

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

Madam Speaker, usually the member for Bourassa makes me laugh. What he says often has to be taken with a grain of salt. Today, however, I do not find it funny at all. Amateur sport is a very important issue and the member for Bourassa is trying to give the debate a type of levity I do not really care for.

First of all, things have to be said in all honesty. If the member for Bourassa really complained to the official languages commissioner—we have checked and it does not seem to be the case—then I would ask him to table his letter of complaint.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is not the first time that I complain. Way back when I talked to the commissioner. If the files do not reflect that, that is another matter, but I will check.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to debate this particular topic. I would like to completely change the tone of where we have been.

I would first like to recognize the dedication of the member for Broadview—Greenwood to this particular topic and commend him for having made the effort to bring focus to the issue, which is indeed a very important issue here in Canada.

The member made an intervention earlier and he is correct when he states that the report does examine all aspects of sport. He will also recall that as the heritage critic for the Reform Party at the time, I chose to boycott the hearings. Unfortunately, the reason I chose to boycott the hearings, has been borne out. I say this in all sincerity, but I never believed there was a commitment on the part of the Liberal government to do anything with the report.

The report itself is an excellent report. The work of the people involved in generating the report is good. The determination of the member to make this happen was also good. Unfortunately, there never was a commitment on the part of the heritage minister or on the part of the government to ever do anything with the report.

At the time, I called it the hockey report because I predicted, unfortunately correctly, that it would deteriorate into a discussion about the NHL and about hockey. It has deteriorated into a worthy discussion about taxes, particularly taxes as compared to U.S. jurisdictions. Indeed, all Canadians and all businesses are looking for relief from the government at some future point in time for at least a recognition of how the Canadian tax level puts us at such a severe disadvantage against the U.S.

I note that the Minister of Industry is going to be proceeding with a summit of the mayors and all the people involved with the NHL teams in Canada, I believe in the next couple of weeks. Certainly that side of the issue has received the high priority that I predicted it would receive.

There have been some good suggestions. Ron Bremner, the president of the Calgary Flames, has suggested that there are lotteries that relate to the scores that happen in the NHL. He wonders why the NHL cannot get some proceeds from those lotteries. That is worthy of consideration.

I note that when the Edmonton franchise was in deep trouble it ended up giving $2 million of concession fees; that is, earnings from concession sales in the Northlands Coliseum to the new group. That, by the way, was just fine by me because the Edmonton Ice, the junior team that was there at the time, was looking for a home. They ended up in my home in Cranbrook, B.C. and are now the Kootenay Ice. So there was a concession there.

One of the things that was not covered, which was because it was an all-encompassing report, was that it would have been helpful to have noted that the NHL Players' Association also gains great revenue with tens of millions of dollars of merchandise sales that goes into the players' association pocket. There is a lot of money within the system as it presently sits.

I also note that the issue of taxation is not just a federal taxation issue. The Molson Centre, as I understand it, is hit with a bill of some $12 million annually in municipal taxes. That is more than all the other franchises pay in all of the United States.

Finally, there is the Canadian exchange rate which, of course, is another function of how the government continues to mismanage the Canadian economy vis-à-vis the U.S. economy.

The point is that this was, unfortunately, all predictable. Hockey is a high profile issue. It is, after all, our Canadian sport. I cannot think of another country where there is as much attention paid to any individual sport as there is here in Canada as far as ice hockey and the NHL are concerned.

What is missed and what is essential in the report is the whole issue of a discussion moving toward a commitment by the government to coaching programs and to facilities. I look at the Canada Games as being a good thing that the government is continuing to carry on. If the Reform Party was government, we would carry on the whole idea of the Canada Games because that is where we are involved with facilities, national organizations and national coaching programs.

An unfortunate fact of life and politics is that all these things end up leading inexorably toward things like the Olympics and very high profile issues like that which again become a financial commitment from the government. There seems to be a lack of understanding on the part of the government that it is the amateurs and amateur sport that ultimately feed into the Olympic program and, for that matter, even into the NHL.

I believe, and I know my party believes, that it is very important for kids to be active in amateur sport. This is a way in which kids can be focused. This is a way in which we can build our society. This is a very healthy outlet for young people today.

We have to re-establish our priorities for amateur sports without a doubt and I have indicated the two areas. Number one, because of the high profile of the NHL, we knew that it was going to fall off the track and become a hockey report. Number two, because of the high profile of international sports like the Olympics, again we end up focusing on events like that.

There does not seem to be any recognition of the travel expenses or any kind of tax relief for people who are involved in making sure that their kids have an opportunity to take part in sports or, for that matter, in cultural events. There is just a total lack of recognition, a complete void of any attention to the many, many dollars and hours that parents, guardians and team adults put into amateur sports.

In that respect I agree with the motion of the Bloc. I agree that there has to be more attention. As I said at the outset, I have already commended the member for Broadview—Greenwood for having brought forward this report, but where is the commitment of the government to the report? Where is the commitment of the government to enact the necessary things that are required in the report?

Unfortunately, we may have to re-invent the wheel. In other words, at a time when the government finally gets serious about amateur sport, about seeing tax relief and support for parents and guardians, and the community, who are attempting to support children who are involved in sports or in cultural events, at that point, unfortunately, although this report will act as an excellent template, an excellent starting point, I would see it probably being done all over again. That is really unfortunate considering the amount of hard work that the member and the committee put into it.

Canada is a compilation of all of us, all of us in the House and the people watching this debate; all Canadians. Part of who we are is how we interact with and react to each other. Amateur sport plays a very important part in how we relate to each other. It brings us together in good, healthy competition and camaraderie around events. I would commend to the government of the day that it take another look at this whole issue and finally get serious about enhancing amateur sport in Canada.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have a very brief question for the Reform member for Kootenay—Columbia with respect to tax breaks. He has talked about tax breaks for Canadians. In the recent federal budget we saw a tax break for the very wealthy individuals in this country. For example, if a person is making $1 million a year in the current fiscal calendar year, he or she will receive a tax break of about $8,000 for that million dollars earned.

As a matter of fact, there are 650 hockey players in the NHL who are paid, on average, $1.187 million U.S. per year, which translates into about $1.8 million Canadian. I am wondering whether my Reform colleague would agree with the Liberal tax break for these very wealthy hockey players who, in this calendar year, on the basis of those wages, will receive a $13,000 to $14,000 tax break, when in effect those in the middle and lower income groups will receive maybe $150. What does he think about that? Does he support that? How would he rectify the situation if he does not support it?

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is certainly a very thought provoking question. The reality is that as a percentage of their income the people at the high end of the income scale receive a significantly smaller proportion as a percentage of their income.

The problem that we are faced with and the problem that is an immovable object is the fact that if I am playing hockey for the Calgary Flames or the Vancouver Canucks or the Toronto Maple Leafs, the tax scale against me in Canada is significantly greater than it is if I am earning that money in the United States.

I happen to think that $1.8 million is a grotesque amount of money. I cannot imagine earning that kind of money in the first place. I really seriously question, as do many Canadians, that level of income for professional athletes. Nonetheless, it does bring us to the point that the difference in the tax rate for people in Canada versus the tax rate for people in the United States is a good 10 to 15 percentage points. That is too big a difference.

[An hon. member]

Do you support the tax cuts?

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Yes, I do support the tax cuts.

If nothing else, the point that has been drawn out is the fact that we have to have more of a level playing field between ourselves and the United States, which shares our markets and is our biggest competitor.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member stated in his comments that he boycotted the committee. However, because he spoke today he obviously read the report. He knows that 68 of the 69 recommendations in this report dealt with the amateur sport fabric of the country. He knows that 53 of those 69 recommendations were accepted almost immediately when the minister announced the response to the report three weeks ago.

Why does the member persist in saying that this report is only about hockey? Why does he not acknowledge the 53 decisions that the government supported and that only one of the 69 recommendations concerned hockey? The House is about dealing in hope. Why does the member repeatedly say things that he knows are not factually correct?

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, very briefly I will say exactly what I said in my speech. Yes, 68 of the 69 recommendations in the report had nothing to do with the NHL. My prediction was that, unfortunately, this report would end up dealing with NHL issues.

The industry minister is not having a meeting about amateur sport with people across Canada. The industry minister is having a high level meeting with mayors and people involved with the hockey industry. The member for Broadview—Greenwood makes my point, which is, what was the point of preparing the report if it is simply going to receive lip service from the heritage minister?

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to join in the debate this afternoon. I support the Bloc motion, which states:

That, since the government ignored most of the recommendations by the Subcommittee on the Study of Sport in Canada, a subcommittee 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 would like to congratulate my colleague, the member for Broadview—Greenwood, for having chaired this committee. I was a member of the committee for the last three months. My colleague in the New Democratic Party caucus, the member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, sat on the committee on behalf of our caucus for a number of months prior to my arrival. Both the member for Broadview—Greenwood and my colleague from Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys did a fair amount of work, particularly in promoting the growth and development of amateur sport in this country. I wanted to acknowledge that because it is very important.

As a citizen of Canada I have participated in a number of amateur sport activities. I have coached soccer, T-ball, hockey and curling, which most members know is a big sport in Saskatchewan. In essence, what I am saying is that athletics and amateur sport are very important cultural activities in our country. In particular, amateur sport promotes a very positive mental attitude and physical well-being. It promotes physical fitness. It provides skills in personal achievement and motor skill development. It is a very healthy focus for competition. It also teaches young people and adults the very significant value of co-operation and working with each other to achieve a common goal. It provides a sense of belonging and camaraderie. It enhances communication and interpersonal development for our youth. That is why I support initiatives with respect to the amateur sport recommendations in this report.

As an aside, I want to say that I co-sponsored a bill in the House of Commons, which was passed, which made hockey our national sport. The member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys moved the bill. I co-sponsored the bill and I am very proud of that because it is an indication, in my view, that I represent a number of members of parliament in terms of saying that sport is a very important activity and a very important value in which we all can participate.

There are many positive things in the report that I want to briefly touch on because my time is limited. I support, as does the New Democratic Party caucus, a number of issues. For example, we support the Government of Canada undertaking a sports facility infrastructure program which would improve and increase the number of facilities, in particular in communities that do not have adequate facilities. We support the eligibility for charitable tax deductions to be extended to qualified provincial and territorial level not for profit sport organizations.

I might add that in Saskatchewan we have gone one step further. About 20 years ago we turned over the lottery proceeds for Lotto 649 and other lottery revenues to the sports organizations in Saskatchewan so that they can fund amateur sport, and they do that very well. They are in charge of marketing and selling the tickets and gathering the revenue, as well as paying their share of the taxes to the provincial and federal governments. They also play a very important role in developing the sports organizations in our province.

We are also very supportive—and this is something that I personally recommended—of examining the possibility of creating a non-refundable tax credit for annual fees that parents pay for their children taking coaching, officiating or first aid courses, as well as deducting some of their fees for sports, up to about $1,000, because it becomes very expensive when there is more than one child. I know people who have three and four children who all want to get involved in sports. That costs money. How do we facilitate these youngsters getting more experience in the sport world? Perhaps we could provide tax deductions for them.

The member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys recommended a millennium sport bond. He called it a sport bond, but the committee enhanced it by calling it the millennium sport bond. This would be a mechanism which would allow individuals in this country to invest in bonds, and the revenues and interest from those bonds would be shared with the investor and with those sports organizations which issue the bonds. We think that would be a good opportunity to broaden financing for the sports world.

As the New Democratic member on the subcommittee I issued a minority report. I did not agree with all of the recommendations because there were some which I felt I was unable to support. For example, one of the recommendations was to look at further tax considerations for professional sport.

Let us take hockey, for example. There are 650 professional hockey players in the NHL. The average income is $1,187,000 U.S. or $1,800,000 Canadian. That is the average income of the 650 players. This is an example of perhaps going the other way in terms of expenditures for hockey. Prior to issuing salaries, the owners received money which was for their benefit and that of their families. Now it is being spread out to the hockey players and their families. It has gone the other way in the sense that some salaries are $4 million, $5 million and $6 million U.S. per year for particular hockey players.

That is competition, but it is hurting Canadian hockey teams. Our concern with respect to the subcommittee report is that we are looking at providing them with additional tax breaks before they deal with their own problem.

For example, in the Canadian Football League there is a pooling arrangement. All cities pool their revenues and the weaker markets are subsidized by the wealthier markets. For example, the Saskatchewan Rough Riders, which play out of Regina, which has a population of 200,000, subsidize the Montreal Alouettes, the Toronto Argonauts and the B.C. Lions. We are a small community, but we make money in our community with our football team and we pool with the bigger communities. We do not have a problem with that.

The NHL does not do that. For example, before they sell one ticket, the New York Rangers get about $50 million U.S. off the top from American Cable Systems Corporation, the company that owns them. That is cash they have to play with in terms of paying for expenses and salaries. That drives up the salaries of players like the great Wayne Gretzky and others which is good as they deserve to be paid well, but it is a disadvantage for every other hockey team market.

In Canada it is the same time situation. The Montreal Canadiens pay $11.2 million a year in property taxes. Should this be a responsibility of those provinces and cities that do not have an NHL team or should it be the responsibility of the the Montreal urban governments? They are the ones charging the taxes. If they have a problem and the Montreal Canadiens cannot pay the taxes, maybe they should reduce their taxes. I would support that.

Why should Saskatchewan, Manitoba or the Atlantic provinces support additional tax breaks for these franchises when their municipalities are jacking them around in terms of high taxes? I say let the municipalities address the issue. The Montreal Canadiens pay more in property taxes than 21 U.S. franchises combined. Do we want the Canadian taxpayers to subsidize Montreal further? I and other Canadians think not.

We have a few other issues here. Should they get tax breaks? In the budget the Liberal government which is are so supportive as it says of low income people, gave the millionaire hockey players on average $14,000 a year in tax cuts. People making $50,000 a year got $200 in tax cuts. What a fair system that is. It is unfair and we should look at this situation.

The subcommittee on sport has made some very positive recommendations with regard to amateur sport. The Liberal government has failed to act on those recommendations. I urge the government to revisit those particular recommendations in the report, those issues that will support our young people and will support the development of amateur sport in this country. Because farmers in western Canada are facing a financial disaster, the lowest income since the depression, because health care is being cut back at the federal level, because our social safety net is being butchered by the Liberal government opposite, maybe the government should look at those as priorities before it looks at the wealthy hockey players and the wealthy owners of the hockey teams.

I support the motion of the Bloc. I seek unanimous consent to make the motion votable.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The hon. member seeks unanimous consent to make this a votable item. Is there consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre for his great contribution to the subcommittee. His insight and his own family experience in terms of working with young people and bringing that knowledge to the subcommittee were sincerely appreciated by all members on all sides.

I have to go back to the member's comments on the professional side of this debate. We will repeat this many times today. In our report there was only one recommendation called the sports pact which dealt with the professional sports systems. It would have been very easy for us to say let us forget about the professional stuff because it is going to create too much controversy and criticism because all Canadians will do is focus on the salaries of the multimillionaire players.

It is very important for us to let the House and Canadians know the reason we took on that very tough decision of signalling to Canadians that we have a problem on the professional side. The NHL alone over a five year period contributes $1.35 billion to all levels of government. That money goes into the treasuries.

These NHL teams are not being subsidized. They are sending huge sums of the money to the various treasuries in Canada, those of the municipal and provincial governments and even the national government. Canadians in the end will decide. I think it is very important that as we criticize the high salaries of the players, we should also be well aware of what the treasuries in Canada are receiving from the professional sports industry. I think $1.35 billion over five years is a substantial amount.

We know that our smaller market teams are facing difficulties. We know there is a strain because of the exchange rate of the dollar and the disadvantage to our tax system. We did not say the government should absolutely deal with tax fairness, but we did we have a problem and it is a debate for all Canadians. When we have this debate, let us not refuse to acknowledge the great contribution made to the treasuries by the professional teams.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Madam Speaker, the member makes an interesting point.

It is one of the issues I did not raise because I ran out of time. I am glad he has raised this point and I can raise it now. We obtain revenues from the professional franchises. However, a $120,000 box in a hockey arena costs the taxpayers of Canada between $27,000 and $30,000 a year. That is the amount the company gets to write off against its income and that is a loss of revenue to the federal treasury. I do not know what it is provincially but we can add another 30% or 40% to that. Tens of millions of dollars subsidize the hockey teams now through subsidizing the boxes. If a business buys a set of hockey tickets at $5,000 or $6,000 a ticket, $10,000 for a few tickets for the business and public relations, guess who subsidizes that.

I am not saying it is wrong. I am just saying we should put the facts on the table and make sure that Canadians know how many millions of dollars are subsidizing professional sports already so we can have a fair debate.

We did not have an opportunity to obtain that information from Revenue Canada. I hope at some point the minister will table that information so we can see exactly how many millions of dollars subsidize these hockey teams to the tune of taxpayers' loss to tax expenditures.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like some clarification about the question that was asked by the member. The only member who answered no was not in his seat and popped out from behind the curtains like a Jack-in-the-box.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I have to say to the hon. member that I heard more than one no.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of the Bloc motion.

It is my pleasure to say that I was part of this debate from the beginning with respect to the subcommittee that was headed by the hon. member for Broadview—Greenwood. I congratulate him on the effort and passion he brought to that subcommittee. I know the work of all the members was appreciated.

Members of the subcommittee on sport heard hours of testimony. We heard a passionate debate on both sides of the divide. We read hundreds of pages of documents which spoke of the benefits of active and well funded amateur sport organizations.

The most contentious issue was obvious. It is the same contentious issue which is before the House today, the issue of some form of subsidy for professional sport. Hockey is the sport that has been singled out most often, but it is fair to say other sports are being jeopardized as well. Here locally the Ottawa Lynx are under a very crucial time period with respect to their funding. The Montreal Expos have experienced problems. The CFL time and time again has been struggling to make budgets and payrolls.

I want to state quite clearly on the record that the Progressive Conservative Party supports all of the recommendations with respect to amateur sport in Canada. We are strongly in favour of the recommendations that encourage Canadians to engage in a more active and healthy lifestyle as well as those that promote the idea of ethics in sport, the integration of disabled persons into sports and their governing bodies and the support of parents and coaches in Canada.

Canada urgently needs an overall improvement to amateur sport. It bears mentioning that if we do not make those recognitions and contributions financially there will be a price to pay at the other end. I am talking about the criminal justice system.

I was raised in a small community in rural Nova Scotia. I participated in amateur sport, rugby, hockey, baseball and most sports on the go at high school and at the amateur level. I was constantly reminded by parents and coaches that I would stay out of trouble if I hung around ballparks and rinks as opposed to standing on a street corner and getting involved with drugs and criminal activity. Those are real facts and challenges faced by Canadians, parents and children alike.

I refer to some of the correspondence I received in regard to the issue before the House. I received a letter from Dal Bryant on January 14 which I will quote in part: “I am a parent of three athletes. My observation however was that unless you were very well off, your children would not even be provincially competitive and just plain forget the national and international levels”. This comes from a parent.

Charles Schafer wrote on January 7: “Amateur sport is a benefit to all communities at the grassroots level. These sports and athletes have been underfunded and often ignored by the media and politicians alike. This is where I would like to see my tax dollars directed”.

The final reference is to the Nova Scotia director of the Federation of Canadian Archers. Eric Mott wrote the following words: “Our national athletes receive zero dollars. We presently have several athletes who are in training at the National Archery Centre in Quebec, one of which trains eight hours a day and has to pay for her training to represent her country internationally. Imagine having to pay to train to represent your country”.

It is obviously not just professional hockey. It is not just any one sport we are talking about in the broader context of this debate.

I state again quite clearly that the Progressive Conservative Party does not endorse recommendations that would hand over subsidies outright to professional sports. This would be a failure to account for the actual overall costs of the subsidies and the effects they might have on those franchises.

Before the recommendations can be truly debated, there is a need for a full and proper examination of the concept of income sharing among professional organizations such as the NHL and a concrete plan for how any form of subsidy would benefit the greater overall community and promote greater community involvement.

No real assurances have been given from the league, the players, the owners, the associations. Mr. Wayne Gretzky has a bit of spare time on his hands now. Perhaps we could get some of his wisdom and insight because it is the wisdom of Solomon, and I am not talking about the previous speaker, that is required here. We need a real debate on how the effects of subsidizing sports ahead of important issues like health—

[The Speaker]

My colleague, I will interrupt you now. You still have half of your time left and you will have the floor when we return to debate if you so seek it.

It being nearly 2 p.m., we shall move on to Statements by Members.

International Year Of Older Persons

[Walt Lastewka, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to send a special greeting to everyone involved in a celebration of seniors at an International Year of Older Persons wine and cheese party taking place at the Heidehof Home for the Aged in my riding of St. Catharines.

The United Nations has designated 1999 as the International Year of Older Persons. This special year for seniors recognizes the world's aging population. For Canada the year holds special meaning because we have one of the fastest growing seniors populations in the world. Our national theme for 1999 is “Canada, a society for all ages”.

In this special year for seniors I join with the seniors and the organizers of the St. Catharines wine and cheese to promote and enhance understanding, harmony and mutual support across generations. Working together we can truly make Canada a society for all ages.

Cariboo—Chilcotin

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this summer I invite all Canadians to come and meet the friendly people of beautiful Cariboo—Chilcotin in central British Columbia.

Why not follow the Cariboo gold rush train up the Fraser Canyon and then head west through the Chilcotin for the ferry ride past dolphins and whales to Vancouver Island? While driving through this spectacular part of Canada, you will be looking for something to do. Drop in and see the good people of Lillooet. Then check out the Bo Beep Ladies Golf Tournament as well as the Only in Lillooet Days, the Begbie Revue and the Lillooet Gold Trail Triathlon. Then mosey into Ashcroft for the Ashcroft Hog Run or the 12th Annual B.C. Old Time Drags and Rod Run.

Stop by 100 Mile House and check out the Bridge Lake Cattle Drive and Rodeo and the Square Dance Jamboree or take part in the Magoo Memorial Funball Tournament.

While in Quesnel take in the B.C. Old Time Fiddling Contest, the Quesnel Club Horseshow and the Bill Barker Days Festival and then go into the historic Barkerville gold rush town site.

On the way to Bella Coola for the ferry, make sure to squeeze in the Williams Lake and Anahim Lake rodeos.

Once you have tasted Cariboo hospitality I promise you will be back for more. See you in the Cariboo.