Finance committee  There's nothing in this bill that changes the relationship between the player and the team. If they are employees now, they will still be employees afterwards.

Finance committee  I'm not positive. I think it's after the $3,500.

Finance committee  Non-taxable. It would be non-taxable and therefore not income for the purpose of the pension plan as well. I believe that's the case, but I'm not certain.

Finance committee  As I said, because it applies only to employees of organizations in which the membership is limited to participants under the age of 19, this would not apply to a very large number of organizations. The wording otherwise is broad, but in fact there is not a large group that would

Finance committee  On the determination of whether or not there is an employee-employer relationship, employee-employer relationship is a question of jurisprudence. It's reasonably well settled, but the facts are always different in every case. So every case requires a separate analysis. Generally

Finance committee  If I understand the question, you were asking if we know which sports would be included. As the bill is drafted, it is not necessarily limited to the sporting activity. It could conceivably include remuneration paid to salaried employees. We would not expect that would likely be

Finance committee  If a player is travelling and is reimbursed for travel expenses, that is already not included as a taxable benefit. If they are boarding with a family, for instance, in the location where they are playing, in their home location, then that would be a taxable benefit. It is a taxa

Finance committee  As Mr. Fitzpatrick suggested, it appears to us that the real purpose of this bill is to reduce the amount of source deductions that are required by the teams--i.e., it is recognized that these players will not be taxable on this income in any event, because they don't make enough

Finance committee  We don't think the cost will be very high because few organizations will benefit under this act. Pardon me, but I have to change languages. There are a small number of organizations that would qualify under this bill, so we don't expect it would be very high cost. I think, as M

Finance committee  We haven't made an estimate. I'm not sure. It will probably be less than $5 million, or less than $2 million. Few organizations pay people to play or take part in a sport.

Finance committee  Certainly. The answer is that, yes, this would be over and above other deductions or credits such as the personal credit. In respect of pressures, I would expect that more than likely other non-profit employers would be asking for similar exemptions for their employees.

Finance committee  It's not unusual for a non-profit organization. It could be a community organization in support of some kind of community activity. They have employees as well. They're not athletes, they're employees--office workers, for instance, or people who work in playgrounds or something l

Finance committee  I think the right answer to that is that those organizations would already be covered by this bill. So a swimming organization, if it were to pay cash allowances to the swimmers, would then be exempt under this as well. I think the difference is that I'm not aware of any other sp

Finance committee  That's probably the case. There are some semi-professional teams that pay allowances or salaries to older players. The participants have to have other employment to supplement their income. This bill would not apply to them, because generally those organizations are not exclusive