John Solomon

[Main Estimates, 1999-2000, June 8th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask for unanimous consent to allow the government House leader to accept one more question, if possible.

[The Late Hugh Hanrahan, June 8th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of my leader, the member for Halifax, and the New Democratic Party caucus to pay tribute to Hugh Hanrahan, the former member of parliament for Edmonton—Strathcona. I was very saddened to learn that Hugh had passed away at such a young age, the age of 52.

We were both elected to the House of Commons in 1993. On occasion we had the opportunity to talk about certain issues and certain values that we shared. As a matter of fact we had the opportunity because we sat at the far end of the House of Commons where the Speaker could not keep track of us. We were able to share our common experiences.

Mr. Hanrahan was a teacher for 18 years in the Catholic school system in Edmonton. He taught social studies, economics and psychology. He was such a good teacher and such a fine gentleman. I could see why in his previous life before elected politics he was honoured with the teacher of the year award in 1987-88 by the Alberta Foundation for Economic Education.

Mr. Hanrahan not only loved Canada and Alberta, he loved Nova Scotia where he was born and educated. He often visited Nova Scotia and would talk about his visits there.

One of the things I wanted to raise with the House and his family is the fact that we would talk about why we came to the House of Commons. We also shared our various hopes and aspirations about Canada, in particular western Canada.

It is my view that Mr. Hanrahan sought elected office because he felt strongly about the good fiscal management that was necessary for our country. He was concerned about the problems of the national debt. He was also very concerned that we should be focusing our energies on building Canada as opposed to tearing it apart.

He was encouraged by young people to seek elected office. They energized him in his job throughout his duties and career as a member of parliament. He was somewhat discouraged and saddened by the fact that he could not seek elected office for a second term because of his illness. I shared his very serious thoughts in that regard.

On behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus and my leader, I wish to offer my very deepest sympathies to Mrs. Dianne Hanrahan, their daughter Margaret Ann, his brothers and other family members and friends.

[Supply, June 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier talk about amateur sport. He spoke about amateur sport throughout most of his dissertation.

The only conclusion one can draw from this is that here we have another Liberal example of words rather than action. We hear nothing but words from the government opposite when it comes to supporting a number of very key sectors in the economy.

When it comes to the farmers of Saskatchewan who are undergoing the worst agricultural period economically since the Depression, the government talks about helping them, but it does not help them financially. It is all words and no action.

We hear around the country about all the problems with health care. When $6 billion is cut back every year for five years, some $30 billion, and most of that from health care in terms of its responsibility, that is an action I think Canadians can relate to very well. It has taken a very bad action.

Today in the House we are talking about amateur sport and the lack of support by the government, the lack of action in response to the Mills report on amateur sport in Canada.

The member for Ottawa—Vanier referred to the Kanata Senators. All of a sudden they are the Kanata Senators when it is a tax issue. The Ottawa region charges the Ottawa Senators $4.2 million in property taxes and Montreal charges the Montreal Canadiens $11.2 million a year in property taxes. The $11.2 million is more than what all of the 21 U.S. based hockey teams pay collectively in property taxes. Even with the exchange rate it is more. We have a very serious municipal tax problem.

The member for Ottawa—Vanier has disowned the Ottawa Senators and has called them the Kanata Senators. Can he elaborate on the support the taxpayers of this country and the Liberal government are giving professional sports franchises now? Would he tell us how much it has cost us to give each of the 650 pro hockey players in this country a $14,000 to $15,000 a year tax cut in this year's budget? How much is that costing taxpayers?

How much is it costing taxpayers to subsidize the purchase of seasons tickets for all these pro sports franchises? For example, a sports box in the arena for the Ottawa Senators may cost $100,000 to $120,000. We are providing for the business that buys a box a tax subsidy of between $23,000 and $30,000 a year depending on the price of the box. In addition to the seasons tickets bought by businesses, how much are we subsidizing wealthy franchise owners, wealthy hockey players and players of other sports such as basketball players through the actions of the Liberal government?

Does he support the rollback of these exorbitant property taxes by the municipalities which benefit directly? Ottawa receives the benefits of tourism, jobs and all the economic activity that happens as a result of the Ottawa Senators being here. I like the Ottawa Senators. It is one of my favourite teams and I think it should do very well, but should all the taxpayers in this country continue to subsidize the municipalities that benefit from the property tax revenues?

[Supply, June 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my friend in the Reform Party, the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, made some good points with respect to amateur sports. He also indicated that professional sports franchises should not receive any more tax breaks, but that he supports tax breaks for everybody.

There are a couple of points I want to make. The municipal governments in the country, for example, Ottawa, benefits directly as a community from the Ottawa Senators through jobs, other taxes, revenues and fees. It also charges the Ottawa Senators about $4.2 million in property taxes, which is now burdening the Ottawa Senators and is pressuring them to move out of the country.

With respect to these municipal property taxes, which are extremely high, does the member think that all of Canada, including Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca constituents and those in Saskatchewan and Manitoba that have no pro hockey teams, should be asked to subsidize the municipality of Ottawa which is a charging these pro teams exorbitant taxes and is driving them out of the country?

Does he support the current tax situation for professional hockey teams? Let us look at a company that buys a big box in an arena for about $120,000. The taxpayers now support that box purchased by a business to the tune of $27,000 to $30,000 on the $120,000 through lost tax expenditures. Does he support this continued multimillion dollar support of pro franchises?

Does he agree with his Reform colleague, the member for Kootenay—Columbia, who said this morning that he supports the tax breaks given to the wealthy hockey players? There are 650 NHL hockey players, averaging $1.8 million a year in salaries, who have just been given a Liberal tax break in this budget of about $14,000 each on average. Does he agree with that?

[Government Response To Petitions, June 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was wondering if I could have unanimous consent to revert to question period.

[Prime Minister, June 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, when someone sells shares, the transaction is not finally completed until something of value has been received for the shares.

The Prime Minister's lawyer is still arranging the sale of the shares six years after the Prime Minister says he sold them to Mr. Prince who denies ownership because he never paid for the shares. The Prime Minister is not sued for default or breach of contract. Therefore he may still own them.

Will the Prime Minister clear the air today for Canadians and table the share transaction agreements and related correspondence to prove his innocence?

[Supply, June 7th, 1999]

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.

[Supply, June 7th, 1999]

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.

[Supply, June 7th, 1999]

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?

[Prime Minister, June 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that he sold his golf club shares to a Mr. Jonas Prince in 1993. However, Mr. Prince denies ownership of the shares and so does the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister's lawyer is arranging the sale of these shares which may have increased in value after millions of public dollars have been spent near the Grand-Mère Golf Club. Canadians want to get to the bottom of this.

Will the Prime Minister table share transaction agreements and relevant correspondence that prove categorically that he did not own these shares at the time the transactions with Mr. Gauthier were underway.