Debates of April 13th, 2005

Budget Implementation Act, 2005

[The Deputy Speaker]

The time for questions and comments has expired. Unfortunately, the five hours in which we have 20 minutes for speeches and 10 minutes for questions and comments following has also expired. We are now into the period where we have 10 minute speeches without any questions or comments following.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to the 2005 budget implementation bill, Bill C-43, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget which was tabled in Parliament on February 23.

As chair of the Standing Committee on Finance, I am making it my duty to insist on having this bill passed as soon as possible in order to be able to respect the wishes expressed by Canadians.

The finance committee in its pre-budget consultation report entitled, “Moving Forward: Balancing Priorities and Making Choices for the Economy of the Twenty-First Century”, made 33 prebudget recommendations to the Department of Finance when it tabled its report in December 2004.

This report was prepared based on the testimony the committee heard from individuals, groups and associations from across Canada. The report was not based on my personal views, nor the members' on the committee, but a collection of views of different industries and sectors. Budget 2005 includes many of the committee's recommendations, and I would like to speak on a few of these.

For example, the budget implementation bill would create a $700 million trust for the provinces and territories to invest in early learning child care programs and services. This amount is the 2004-05 and 2005-06 portion of the $5 billion over five years committed in budget 2005. This was similar to the committee's recommendation 27.

I will not go through all the committee's recommendations, but I want to highlight how many of the budget implementation items were recommended by the finance committee. Again, the finance committee's recommendations were based on all-party agreement by members.

The budget implementation bill also would increase the guaranteed income supplement benefits for low income seniors by $2.7 billion over five years. That recommendation was similar to recommendation 29 in the prebudget report.

The budget implementation bill would also provide $600 million in federal gas tax revenue sharing for 2005-06 for municipalities to support environmentally sustainable infrastructure projects, which was similar to the committee's recommendation 9.

The budget implementation bill would also establish a new agency under Environment Canada to manage the $1 billion climate fund which will provide incentives for the reduction and removal of greenhouse gases, which was similar to the committee's recommendation 8.

The budget implementation bill would also increase the amount that Canadians can earn without paying federal income tax. That was similar to the committee's recommendation 24.

The budget implementation bill would also increase the annual limits on contributions to registered retirement savings plans and other tax deferred retirement savings plans. This was not a committee recommendation, but was included in the Liberal portion of the report.

The budget implementation bill would increase the child disability benefit supplement to the Canada child tax benefit. This was similar recommendation 28 of the committee report.

The budget implementation bill would allow for a longer period for the existence of and contributions to a registered education savings plan in certain circumstances where the plan beneficiary would be eligible for the disability tax credit. This was similar to the committee's recommendation 28.

The budget implementation bill would increase the maximum refundable medical expense supplement. This was similar to the committee's recommendation 28.

There is a clause for emergency medical services, which I think is a slight technicality, that we did not address in committee. The tsunami relief was not an issue when the committee held its consultations.

The budget implementation bill would eliminate the corporate surtax and reduce the general corporate income tax rate. That was similar to the committee's recommendation 12.

The budget implementation bill would extend the scientific research and experimental development tax incentives to SR and ED performed in Canada's exclusive economic zone. This was not exactly pinpointed to what the committee recommended, but it is very similar to recommendations 17 and 18 in its prebudget recommendations.

We have the air traveller's security charge. We did not address it because we left that up to the transport committee.

One that is interesting is the budget implementation bill would address the phase-out of the excise tax on jewellery. This was addressed in a separate report on two occasions, one in the last Parliament and one in the last session before the House broke for its Christmas break. The finance committee again tabled a separate report in which it recommended exactly what the finance minister has proposed on the excise tax on jewellery. Therefore, we need to have this budget implementation bill approved and adopted.

Another area that the budget implementation bill would provide for would be to extend the application of the 83% goods and services tax/ harmonized sales tax for the rebate for hospitals to government funded non-profit entities that provide health care services traditionally performed in hospitals. This is very similar to what the committee recommended in recommendation 30. We recommended any type of help that health institutions could be given, they would take it. This one was very well received by the health care service people.

The budget implementation bill would amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to facilitate the future addition of greenhouse gases to the list of substances under the act. This would allow the Minister of the Environment to regulate emissions and implement the proposed large final emitter regime and emissions trading system.

The budget implementation bill also would establish a technology investment fund to provide companies regulated under the proposed large final emitter regime with a compliance mechanism that encourages investments in greenhouse gas mitigation research and development.

It would also provide an additional $300 million for the green municipal funds, $150 million of which would be used to help communities clean up and redevelop brownfields, abandoned sites where environmental contamination exists. This is very similar to what the committee recommended in recommendations 7 and 8 and also what the Liberal Party highly recommended in its separate report.

The budget implementation bill would also introduce a new employment insurance rate setting mechanism under which the EI commission would have the power to set the premium rate, taking into account the principle that the premium rate should generate just enough premium revenue to cover program costs. This was one of the recommendations the committee made in recommendation 25.

There are other areas that the budget implementation will address and that is the offshore agreements with Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, which were signed on February 14. The committee did not address this because it happened after the committee tabled its report.

There would be a transfer of $100 million to the province of British Columbia to battle the mountain pine beetle.

The last item I have on my list is to create a $100 million trust to help the territories meet the goals of the northern strategy, a joint initiative between the Government of Canada and territorial governments aimed at improving the quality of life of northerners. I do not think any member of the committee would have been opposed to that.

If I go through the list of recommendations, I have a list of 33 recommendations. If I go quickly through the list I can say that of the 33 recommendations of the finance committee, 7 recommendations from the committee were not addressed in the budget. Again, the finance committee is made up of members of all parties. The report was not dominated by only the Liberal members, but all members of the House.

The government is one that wants to govern. It has shown the openness and transparency to govern. If I am asked how, I would say by listening to what Canadians wanted.

Canadians told us what they wanted during the prebudget consultation when we prepared this book. The book was very detailed and provided the finance department with details of what Canadians told us. The finance department did a good job of listening to us. We owe it to Canadians to vote on Bill C-43, get it to committee and get it back in the House so the people of Canada can benefit from budget 2005 adopted by the finance minister.

The House resumed from February 3, 2005, consideration of the motion that Bill C-285, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (exclusion of income received by an athlete from a non-profit club, society or association), be read a second time and referred to a committee.

Income Tax Act

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of Bill C-285, which will have a major impact on all elite or developmental athletes.

My speech will, essentially, address three points: the situation facing current athletes, the positive impact of Bill C-285, and the funding of amateur sports in Quebec and Canada. It is important, however, to consider the situation facing our athletes in this country.

Developmental or elite athletes in Quebec or Canada must go to great lengths to find the funds they need to train and improve their performance.

In my opinion, sports provide a learning experience that helps each individual in our society grow. Unfortunately, playing a sport in Quebec or Canada remains a privilege because of the cost. Playing a sport, particularly at an elite level, requires an athlete to invest many thousands of dollars. To reach the top, athletes need their parents' support for their development. Parents have to make sacrifices and major investments to pay for travel expenses, competition entry fees, training and many other things.

For years, these parents have made the same sacrifices as their children, having to get up for the early-morning practices before school and on weekends.

The problem worsens as the young athletes move up, because then parents are often unable to afford the cost of travel so that their children can compete further afield. The children have to drop out when the money is not there. Despite the lack of assistance to parents, I do feel that implementation of Bill C-285 would be profitable to the people of Quebec and Canada and would have direct impacts on society as a whole.

This is why the Bloc Québécois is very much in favour of this bill. I repeat, the situation of our athletes must be improved if they are to remain competitive, not only nationally but internationally as well.

The impact of this bill would, moreover, be beneficial to the community in a variety of ways. True, there is no money being provided directly to the 1,400 or so athletes targeted by this bill, those at the elite and developmental levels, but passing this bill will be a step in the right direction.

At the moment, an athlete who receives contributions from his or her regional association or any other non-profit body, up to a total of $8,000, is taxed at a rate of 16%. If this bill is passed, that athlete will have an annual tax saving of $1,280.

Clause 2 of this bill provides retroactivity. This means that, for the past five years, an athlete with an income in excess of the marginal tax rate of $8,000 would get back $6,400.

Needless to say, implementation of such a bill would cost Quebeckers and Canadians several million dollars. However, the positive impact for athletes and the population as a whole must be considered.

When our athletes distinguish themselves at international events, the impact is felt in the community directly. There is a feeling of pride that contributes to people's sense of who they are.

Athletes become role models for young people and have an influence on the way sport is played.

I would also like to put forward other arguments. In fact, implementing such a bill is only a start—it should be only a start, because there has to be more help for athletes.

Our athletes need more grant money and financial assistance in order to compete internationally. Despite the increase in the amounts allotted to the athlete assistance program, there is a long way to go yet.

As I mentioned earlier, even though the bill does provide a tax exemption for athletes, more must be done for them.

The Canadian government must provide more support for athlete development. This financial help must not go only to athletes at the top of the pyramid, but to athletes at the bottom of it, too. How can we expect to develop athletes if we do not promote this group and encourage more people to participte in sports?

This bill renews the entire debate on funding for amateur sports. The athlete assistance program is unable to meet the needs of various Canadian and Quebec athletes. Currently, the program gives precedence to elite athletes over developmental athletes.

It is important to know that the maximum monthly stipend for developmental athletes is only $900. Some will say that this is a huge sum to meet all the needs of such athletes. However, given that athletes at this level must train extensively, up to 30 or 40 hours per week, there is not a lot of time left for them to work for a living. As a result, many young athletes must abandon their training, because they can no longer pay for food or housing.

Even with the recent announcements by the Minister of State for Sport on increased monthly stipends for carded athletes, elite athletes receive 70% of the funding, while developmental athletes receive 30%. Fewer athletes at the top are sharing 70%; more athletes at the bottom are sharing 30%. Only 30% of athletes receiving stipends are at the developmental level.

In Canada, many athletes receive funding only once they have obtained top results. Many companies then want to be associated with the winners. So this is a major problem that needs to be addressed.

In closing, I want to reiterate my support for Bill C-285. This is an excellent initiative to develop our rising hopes, as well as the values we want to instill in our society and our communities.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure, being from Saskatchewan, to speak to this issue. I thank the Bloc members for their support on this bill. I see a unity being built around this issue. Hockey is important in Quebec and it is important in Saskatchewan. Hockey is our national sport and very much a part of the culture of this nation, so anything that would promote amateur sports, especially junior hockey, would be a plus.

I would like to express a concern about government policy on athletics. Canadians rightfully, after an Olympic event or whatever, are concerned that maybe the lead athletes are not competitive, that we did not receive enough gold or silver medals and that we should have done better. The government approach seems to be to put more money in the elite programs.

I think it is too late at that stage. We will have elite athletes when our amateur athletic programs are strong at the grassroots. That will produce the high quality athlete and that is where the focus should be. I am not saying there should not be funding for lead athletes, but we should not lose focus. Lead athletes come out of very strong grassroots programs. The government, in this case, is not giving any support to grassroots junior hockey in this country. It is doing the exact opposite. It is trying to tax it out of existence with questionable applications of tax law.

The bill has wide applications. It deals with not for profit associations that are directly involved in amateur sports. It allows them to expend $8,000 per participant or team player under that umbrella without bringing on the wrath of the federal government and its tax collectors.

Somebody said $8,000 sure sounds like a lot of money. Let us apply it to the Saskatchewan junior hockey league. The Canada Revenue Agency, in its wisdom or judgment or whatever one wants to call it, has deemed a $100 a month allowance per player, players who are 17 or 18 years of age. They have left home, their parents are not paying an allowance, and they are under the guardianship of their junior hockey team. They are billeted into really good homes. The parents want that for their kids. They want to make sure they are in good homes. They get paid $300 a month. They eat that up in the first two weeks of the month, but the tax department says that is a taxable benefit. It assesses Canada pension, unemployment insurance and income tax deductions even though these players are never going to be eligible for the benefits that they are assessed.

It does not stop there. The $8,000 is needed for a whole lot of other reasons too. Let us use our imagination. If the expenses and billeting costs are taxable benefits, what about the transportation costs when they are on the road? What about the meal costs when they are out of town? We travel to Flin Flon. That is 200 or 300 miles away. Some of the teams travel 500 miles away. They have to eat on the road and the teams pay for their meals.

There are hotel expenses when they are on the road. They have hockey sticks and uniforms to buy. The list is endless. It would not take much of an imagination before everything the hockey team is doing is a taxable benefit. I raise these concerns. I almost think the $8,000 is too low, in my view, but it is a good start.

A team in my league was the first to be audited. The government got it up to $65,000. I know how that team operates. It is non profit. Seventy per cent of its revenues are derived from ticket sales, raffles and bingos. It is a community event. It is not a big community and the team has to put in as much sweat equity as it can to make the books balance. Along come our federal tax collectors into this community and they say the team has to pay $65,000.

Our national sport is a truly amateur production. They are killing the hockey dreams of these players. Most of the players came to that team with one objective and that was to hopefully continue their schooling, attract a scholarship from a major American university, and get a full scholarship to a university in the United States. The parents are behind them 100%. They are hoping that their kids' dreams will become their dreams.

The people in the community, from all walks of life, in January go out to the hockey rink to cheer their team on. Everybody in the community, every class of person we can think of gathers together to cheer their team: farmers, labourers, professional people, business people, the aboriginal community, low income people, high income people, and retired people. That is the culture in rural Saskatchewan communities.

What does the federal government, through its tax policies, want to do? It wants to destroy that; it wants to undermine that. I would remind the members opposite that in the last two major Olympic events or international competitions that Canada has had, our of the 20 players on the team, we had four players from the Saskatchewan junior hockey league alone. These were players who came up through the development of that league. There were four NHL hockey coaches only a few years ago who cut their teeth in that league.

What is the federal government's attitude for promoting amateur junior hockey at the grassroots level? What is its policy? Hammer them with taxes. If excessive regulations do not kill off something, let us bring in a whole bunch of government taxes. Maybe some day they will come back to the Liberal government on bended knee and ask, “Is there a foundation that can hand us out a grant or something so we can carry on?”.

That seems to be the government's mentality, to create a dependency in this country where nobody wants a dependency. They say, “Just get out of our lives, leave us alone and let us be amateur athletes”. However, that is not the Liberal approach. It is more taxes, more regulations, and more interference in the lives of day to day Canadians. In Saskatchewan it is killing something that is very important in Saskatchewan: junior A hockey.

Government members should really be ashamed of where they are at. I am hopeful on this point that logic will prevail and that government members will see the wisdom in supporting amateur athletics in this country by making grassroots amateur sports in this country strong and healthy, not weak and dependent on government.

The Saskatchewan junior hockey league has a long history. I got interested in hockey back in the fifties. That kind of gives my age, but I remember the Regina Pats were in the Saskatchewan junior hockey league and the radio station covered them. Bob Turner, whose obituary I just saw the other day, played with that team. He played with the five Stanley Cup teams of the Montreal Canadiens. The players on that team, Red Berenson, Billy Hickey, Terry Harper, Ted Greene and Dave Balon went to the Memorial Cup. There was a whole slug of really great players from Saskatchewan who were on that team. They played the Montreal Canadiens dream superstar team, the Ottawa-Hull Canadiens. For four or five years they were together on that team with Ralph Backstrom, J.C. Tremblay, Bobby Rousseau. It was a great series. This is the tradition we have in that league in Saskatchewan. There was Gordie Howe and Red Berenson, great hockey players.

What is the Liberal position on something that is so much part of our heritage and culture? The government spends millions of dollars through the Department of Canadian Heritage and it spends millions of dollars on elite athletes, but here it is going to send its tax collectors out to kill something that has a very rich legacy in this country.

The Minister of Finance prides himself on being born near Father Athol Murray's college in Notre Dame: the Hounds of Notre Dame. I knew Father Athol Murray, and if Father Athol Murray was around here today he would have the Minister of Finance chased around the block 15 times on this issue alone. There is nothing to be proud of on the government's approach to dealing with junior hockey in Saskatchewan. It is a disgraceful record.

I want to close on a positive. By making this one simple change in the law we would be helping every grassroots amateur sports association in Canada from coast to coast, right at the bottom. With the Liberal government's elite athlete programs, it is like trying to take somebody at 18 or 19 who cannot read or write, and start spending money on them to teach them how to read and write. It starts in grade one, it starts in kindergarten, it starts from the grassroots with a solid program.

I would ask Liberal members to please support the bill because it is a good approach to building a really strong, healthy amateur sports regime in the country.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased, on behalf of the NDP, to join in the debate on Bill C-285 and to hopefully build on the comments of some of my colleagues.

We too feel very strongly that Bill C-285 is a good bill. It speaks to the very direction that we should be going in trying to promote more young people to go into sports, whether it be at the highest level or at the lowest level, in neighbourhood hockey rinks or soccer fields.

As my colleague said, Olympic athletes, the high level athletes, have to start somewhere. They do not start at age 25 to seek to be a medal winning Olympian. They start at knee-high to a grasshopper, and that is when they need encouragement.

Bill C-285 is an example of a way we could use our taxation system for a number of things such as paying for necessary services. We could also use it to nudge people in the direction we want them to go and to steer them away from things we do not want them to do. For example, we put heavy taxes on cigarettes because we would rather people did not smoke.

We could also use positive taxation measures to encourage people to do things for their general well-being, for their health and their happiness and for the sake of our health care system which is already burdened with a generation of people who are less than healthy.

Bill C-285, put forward by my colleague from Cypress Hills--Grasslands, in some small measure recognizes the fact that we could encourage amateur athletics with our taxation system, with a very modest proposal.

I notice the bill is only one page long. In fact, it is only one paragraph long. It says that an individual could deduct income up to $8,000 donated to an amateur athlete from a non-profit club, society or organization. In other words, if the Manitoba Speed Skating Association donated $8,000 to a champion like Clara Hughes to subsidize her training, then Clara Hughes could write that money off. The $8,000 would not be viewed as income. It would be an acknowledgement by the federal government that it would be in all our interests to encourage Clara Hughes to continue making Winnipeg proud of her.

A world-class speed skating oval is in the heart of my riding of Winnipeg Centre which is heavily subsidized by volunteers, non-profit organizations, charity clubs and community centres. Imagine on a crisp cold Winnipeg night of -20° or -30° the sound of those long blades cutting into that flawless ice. To stop for a moment and watch somebody of the calibre of Clara Hughes carve that ice in that long track speed skating is a thing of beauty. I myself do not grace that ice because I would not want to spoil it with my clumsy efforts. However, there are people in Winnipeg who make us very proud.

If we reach our Olympic goal in the 2006 Winter Olympics of 25 medals, I am will say right here and now, and I can be quoted on this, that 10 out of those 25 medals will be won in speed skating. I also believe that seven out of ten of those medals will be awarded to Winnipeg speed skaters because where I come from we take that seriously.

The only thing holding amateur sports back in this country is the lack of financial support. In the absence of any real commitment to comprehensively subsidize amateur sport, the government should at least consider measures such as Bill C-285 which would put a bit more money in the pockets of our amateur athletes who struggle for their craft and art in spite of overwhelming financial adversity and sacrifice and who continue to maintain their craft and make Canadians proud.

An hon. member asked me when I skate on a skating rink, if I skate to the right or skate to the left. One has to be creative or else the ice wears out. We could view this as a metaphor for the political arena. If we only skated in one direction, we would wear a path or a rut in the ice. It would not be effective and we might trip and fall, so we try to balance things from where I come.

This is a type of creative measure. I should recognize that my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore has a very similar private member's initiative saying that all money spent on amateur sport should be tax deductible. He thinks that if $100 is spent for one's child to play soccer, then it should be deductible. I would go that far, too. I would support my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore. We know we have a generation of kids who are not as healthy as even we were when we were playing freely outdoors.

I know young parents now will not let their kids just go out and play on the front street the way we used to, or run around until dark, horsing around in the neighbourhood. They have to be supervised for their own safety. I do not think they get the same amount of physical activity that we did in our schools.

I have talked to family doctors who have said that they have 10 year old and 12 year old children coming in overweight with high cholesterol. Imagine a 10 year old or 12 year old child whose arteries are clogged with cholesterol because of their diet, lifestyle and lack of physical activity. Not only can we pretty well count on those people not being a medal winning Olympic athletes, but the quality of their lives are going to be jeopardized throughout their entire lives. Kids who cannot participate in sports do not enjoy life as much and do not become such well-rounded children.

If this in any way helps our amateur athletes to carry on with their first love, the sport that they have chosen, or in the case of someone like Clara Hughes, the two sports that she has chosen, and then won Olympic medals in both I should point out, then for heaven's sakes those of us in the House of Commons should be willing to entertain it at least to the point of passing it at second reading and getting it to committee where we can do a careful analysis and perhaps some messaging to ensure that it is practical, feasible and realistic.

I believe this measure could be costed out fairly accurately so we would know the cost to the Government of Canada in terms of lost revenue. I do not suspect it is a huge amount of money. I know the Government of Canada plans on spending a fair amount of money on amateur sport. It does not want to be embarrassed at the 2010 Winter Olympics, which we are hosting in Whistler, B.C. However, it could factor into its overall subsidization of amateur sport perhaps the cost of this measure, which is a realistic way to put money back in the hands of the athletes.

It also is a motivation for non-profit fundraising organizations to raise more money for amateur sport, knowing that the money they give to the athlete will not be taxed. In other words, if we raise $1,000 to subsidize Clara Hughes in her speed skating efforts, we would know that the whole $1,000 would go to Clara Hughes. I think it is more of a motivation for people who donate money if they know the money will not be gobbled up in administration or, God forbid, be taxed back by the federal government.

There are a multitude of benefits to the bill. We would be wise to look at it . If we listen to the amateur athletes across the country, they are telling us they can do it if we support them. They say they can deliver, make us proud and affect a whole generation in terms of health.

I suppose one thing we cannot ignore is the benefit it would be to our public health system. As we know, it is creaking under the strain of aging baby boomers who are putting unbelievable stress on the system. If can create a generation of young people who are healthier, they are going to be happier. They will not be the burden on our health care system. In other words, it is a penny wise and pound foolish situation. If we can find a way to promote amateur sport, we will all benefit in the near and distant future.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Speaker, we certainly are having a good debate tonight. The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands has brought to the House a situation that we have heard from Saskatchewan in the past. I know Mr. Bailey, when he was from that area, encountered this and discussed it with many of us in the House.

I know all members certainly want to assist, encourage and promote amateur athletics. In Canada we not only have the very good athletes, but we also have a great number of other people who benefit from not for profit organizations that sponsor and provide the infrastructure and activities in which young people are able to participate.

The House is aware of the granting formulas, the granting activities and support that our government gives to elite athletes. I believe the money offered to them is tax free. The point before the House this evening deals with another matter. Probably before the debate is concluded, we will first attempt to determine what exactly is income, in terms of the Income Tax Act. Second, we have to look at the fact that every Canadian, regardless of activity in obtaining employment or income that is regarded as employment, has a basic level of $8,000 which is tax free.

The bill recommends an additional $8,000. We know this is a significant amount. However, those who are out there trying to develop their skills, the money they may need to travel and to participate is a tremendous cost to individuals and families.

It is true not only in athletics. Families and parents support their children in many different types of activities. It may be somewhat lacking in the bill, but we have children involved with ballet, with art, with music and families invest a lot of money in the development of these skills. From the point of view of the bill, we mainly are dealing with amateur athletes.

I am not sure how we would define an amateur athlete, but we do know these amateur athletes must be getting some remuneration from, as the bill says, a not for profit club or organization. They give them a weekly or a monthly cheque.

We know we have to question just how Revenue Canada is applying the concept of what is income. Is income money that these amateur athletes have to spend on a weekly or monthly basis or Is it the support for board and lodging that they may have as they are accommodated in different communities?

I know even in the House we have amateur athletes. Not too long ago we had our two hockey teams here. I do not think they were that professional, but somehow the Conservatives hockey team thought they were almost semi-pro. They were amateur, almost above amateur. I am not sure if their organizations are paying them an income, but they are having a lot fun. I know members from both sides of the House enjoy those competitions, as the various parties put together what I would call amateur teams.

Therefore, we should try to define what an amateur is. Does it have an age limit? Does it have a concept in what that club or organization is trying to do? I know we have to look at a very broad scope. However, my concern about the bill is this. It would need to better define income. Perhaps the member could better define that when he puts before us the concept of increasing the basic exemption from $8,000 to a total of $16,000 for amateur athletes.

I want to salute tonight all those who are sponsoring these types of activities.

Next week back home in my riding probably 500 or 600 aboriginal youth from all across Canada will come to compete in hockey at the aboriginal games. Those activities will last for nearly a week.

It is very important to us as Canadians that we encourage our young people to participate, to develop team skills, to develop skills of cooperation and above all, to develop their athletic prowess and to maintain a healthy lifestyle.

In terms of this bill, even though the idea is good, even though the concept seems very palatable to a lot of us, I would hope that we could reach a better solution than having a very broad, undefined concept. Someone said it is only page; in fact, it is only a paragraph, and better definitions of what this is are certainly needed in that paragraph.

In fairness to all Canadians, whether they be people who want to become involved in athletic activities, whether they want to become involved in various types of social activities, music, drama, ballet, whatever it might be, I believe that we cannot give special consideration to only one group of people within our society.

We have to recognize also that part of the problem with hockey is that much of the money in hockey is absorbed by too few people. In terms of our professional hockey organizations and salaries, there is a strike going on right now. Professional hockey players are demanding $2 million, $3 million, $4 million, $5 million a year. At the amateur level, people are very short of money and the clubs rely on a lot of volunteers and a lot of help from people within the community.

It is a very good idea but it is lacking somewhat in terms of what the House and the government can accept. I certainly commend the member for bringing this issue to our attention, but hopefully we can address it through other means.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to a bill which very much is part of the proud Canadian tradition of supporting hockey. It is not about supporting hockey just for hockey's sake, but doing it because hockey is important to our culture, to our people, to the people of Saskatchewan and to the people of my riding of Saskatoon--Humboldt.

When we look at this bill it is important to understand the history and the reasoning as to why it was put together. The history goes back not that many years, just a couple of years. This could very well have been a very simple issue.

Only a couple of years ago we would not have needed this legislation. The tax department, Revenue Canada, was reasonable. It realized that the stipend, the money given to people for taking care of amateur junior hockey players who played for non-profit junior hockey teams really was not income.

However a couple of years ago something strange happened. The people at Revenue Canada, the government's tax people, began to look around and noticed that there was more money to be had. They decided to do something about it, but they did not do it across the whole country. They decided to pick on one province only, my home province of Saskatchewan. They decided they would go after the SJHL, the Saskatchewan Junior Hockey League. They decided to go after those players and those teams and not just change the rules for the future, but to back tax them and make assessments.

For the House to understand just how absurd the government's position was with respect to this and how absurd Revenue Canada was, Revenue Canada did not even go after all the teams in the SJHL. It just went after the ones inside the boundaries of the province of Saskatchewan. For the record I am not arguing that the Flin Flon Bombers, the one team outside, should have been taxed. I am just noting the hypocrisy of it all.

To give credit to the current member for Prince Albert, he immediately started to get involved. The former member for Souris--Moose Mountain, Mr. Roy Bailey, got involved. They began to deal with the issue.

Having talked with members who have been in the House longer than I, what began to happen was a typical story of government ping-pong, “It is not my fault; it is someone else”. They talked with the revenue minister. They were told that no, it was with finance. They talked with finance and were told that no, it was with revenue. It was back and forth and back and forth. It was a classic case of dithering. There was absolutely no decisiveness, no leadership, no ability to stand up and make a decision on something as easy as hockey. It was just “It is not my department, not my fault”.

A couple of the members from the province of Saskatchewan began to take leadership. I wish to congratulate the member for Cypress Hills--Grasslands for taking that initiative and dealing with this after two years. It has become a bit of a national issue.

I will even note for the people watching on TV that I was not a member in the House when this issue first came up. I read about it in the newspaper. I watched Coach's Corner and saw Don Cherry, Mr. Hockey himself, stand up and speak for the SJHL and speak for fairness.

We are not talking about players who get out there and play for big dollars. These players do it for the love of the game. This affects smalltown amateur hockey teams, such as one of my favourite teams, the Humboldt Broncos, a team with a great history.

The government does not seem to worry about small things. We watch how it spends and wastes money. It did it with the gun registry. It is now doing it, as we are seeing in painfully excruciating detail, on the sponsorship program. It does not really seem to care about the little people, the things that impact and make a true difference to people in Saskatchewan and people all across the country. The government just seems to ignore it.

This is something that has a real impact on the town of Humboldt. It will have to raise money, and the amount could vary from $10,000 to $15,000, or depending on how the rules are, an extra $20,000 a year. That is money going from my community to Ottawa, money that has to be raised either through raffle tickets, or in whatever ways that amateur hockey teams do it.

The Humboldt Broncos have a proud tradition. Every little bit of government tax, every element of government assault on them makes it harder for them to do it.

In fact, the Humboldt Broncos are one of the best junior level tier two teams in the history of the league as it has been developed. In 2003 the Broncos won, I believe for the second or third time, the national championship. It is harder to win than the Memorial Cup because there are more teams and leagues involved.

I am very proud of the efforts of the players on that team and what they did. It is something that needs to be continued and which we need to support. It is only fair. All we are asking for is a practical solution, to go back to the way it was in the 1990s. We have been forced to do this because of the intransigence of the tax department.

What are some of the consequences if this does not go through? I have already talked about how it will affect the financial situation of various teams throughout the province of Saskatchewan and across Canada. This will affect teams in British Columbia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, all across the country.

One of the more practical things that has not been understood by the government is the effect this could have on university scholarships for hockey players. Most of the players do not make it into the NHL. Some do, such as Curtis Joseph. He is a graduate of the Notre Dame Hounds, one of the teams of the SJHL. Some do make it into the NHL, and most of the players tend to go on to play university hockey in the United States. They get outstanding scholarships for an excellent education, an education which many of the players could not have afforded otherwise.

The NCAA has a rule that if someone is a professional and has been paid professionally, that person cannot receive a scholarship. The NCAA is currently looking the other way and is not really enforcing the rules with regard to Canadian hockey players. We are fortunate that it has used some common sense to realize that these are not professional players, but the Government of Canada's ruling has put those players in jeopardy.

There is the potential that if the NCAA enforced the rules, those players would not be eligible for university or college scholarships. This is very serious. It could harm the future careers of the players or the potential for these teams to recruit players in the future. It would have a severe and negative effect on hockey in the province of Saskatchewan.

This is something we have to think about and be cautious and cognizant of when we are debating this issue. We do not want our hockey teams destroyed. We do not want them to be put under this pressure. We do not want to have to find new ways to do this.

All we are asking is for things to go back to the way they were, very simply, that the government not tax what really should not be taxed. Unfortunately this is the only mechanism we have been able to find to do it. If it helps protect amateur sports in other leagues or all across Canada, so much the better. There is so much more we should encourage. We thank the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands for his foresight on this bill.

I have heard some criticism from the government. I have heard its members offer some irrelevant statements. They do not really comprehend the root of this issue or what really has to be addressed. I have not heard any real alternatives. I have not heard any other way to deal with it. I would be open to listening to them. I think the member's bill is absolutely outstanding but I would be open to other ways in order to get unanimous consent in the House and pass the bill.

I appreciate the support from the member from the Bloc who has shown real courage in the issue, as well as the members of the New Democratic Party. If we could get Liberal members to come on side, I would be most happy to work with them, but unfortunately, that is not to be the case.

In conclusion, why am I supporting this bill? It is about fairness. It is not really about anything extra or special. It is about fairness, about the way the rules used to be so that the Humboldt Broncos in Saskatchewan are not discriminated against.

With respect to support for amateur athletics, we have to walk the walk and not just talk the talk. This is an excellent way to do it. It is an outstanding way to look after our athletes at a level where it is important and without costing very much money.

If we are to be serious, we must support hockey in Canada. We must support amateur sports.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in favour of Bill C-285. This is to change the Income Tax Act, so that income for the year not exceeding $8,000 received by an athlete from a non profit club, society or association that is operated exclusively for the purpose of improving athletic performance and promoting amateur athletics is excluded.

In my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke we are home to a junior A hockey team, the Pembroke Lumber Kings. In fact, Pembroke, Ontario is known as “Hockey Town Canada”.

I want people to understand what exactly the tax department is doing. This may be localized right now to Saskatchewan, but it is considering the actual billeting of these students as income and, therefore, taxing the club and the students accordingly.

These are not professional athletes making thousands or millions of dollars a year. These are young men who have come from all across the world to fulfill their dream. They have been embraced by the community, giving them a home setting in which to go to school, and in their spare time live out their dream of playing hockey.

In addition to providing healthy entertainment and supporting a rich culture of Canada in hockey, they also participate in community services. For example, the Lumber Kings, together with Spectacle Lake Lodge, have put together breakfasts and have raised money for the United Way. On occasion the Pembroke Lumber Kings go into the schools and libraries to teach other students how to read.

We are not asking for money here for a sector of society. We are only asking that the tax department leave these students with the money that they have and not tax the people who are supporting them.

We have a problem in this country with obesity, for example, and encouraging active participation in sports should be emphasized right now.

We have the Olympics coming to Canada in the year 2010. We should be supporting amateur sports in any way possible. One simple way that is not going to cost the government any money is to support this bill put forth by the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be back again debating the second hour of the bill.

I want to take a little bit of time to thank some of the people who have been involved in the debate today. It was great to have the support from the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. He did a very good job in laying out some of the implications of the bill.

I want to thank the member for Winnipeg Centre who spoke in favour of the bill as well. Some of my colleagues who have been involved in it from the beginning were the member for Prince Albert; the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt, who spoke; and the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, who has been a big help in this as well. I want to thank the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke for her intervention.

I cannot forget Roy Bailey. He is not a member any longer, but he carried the torch on this for a long time. Other people have also taken up the cause, such as Don Cherry, and the member for Edmonton—Leduc, who sits near me, has made an effort to be here just so that he could contribute and support the bill.

I was a little concerned earlier when I heard the member for Miramichi debating the bill because the Liberals are in enough trouble now without also opposing amateur athletics in this country. One would think they would learn at some point, but they seem to continue in their imbalance.

I want to talk a little bit about the bill, and lay out once again where it came from and what is happening with it. There are approximately 130 tier two junior A hockey teams in Canada. The players have always been considered amateurs in these leagues. They receive room and board, and a small monthly stipend of $100 to $200. They play for fun. They are not playing for money, so they play hockey in the wintertime.

The allowances that they receive, both the billeting and the small expense allowance, were never taxable until 2001 when the tax department came thundering into Saskatchewan. It decided to audit some of these teams and make a determination as to whether or not these young players were employees. Unfortunately, that is exactly what the tax department ruled. It ruled that the small monthly stipend and the billeting amounts were to be considered as income.

The tax department was basically scared off the whole project because there was a real public outcry in Saskatchewan. It backed off on this and it had not really come to the forefront until just recently, when the revenue minister sent out a memo reasserting the government's intention to consider these hockey players as employees of the hockey teams.

That is actually where the bill came out of that. A number of us were very concerned about it and came forward with the bill. It is a very simple bill. I do not have a lot of time today to talk about it. It is just one paragraph that amends the Income Tax Act. It excludes income that is received by an athlete from a non profit club or association. That is all it says in the one paragraph. It excludes income for the year not exceeding $8,000 received by an athlete from a non profit club, society or association that is operated exclusively for the purpose of improving athletic performance and promoting amateur athletics.

The bill is pretty straightforward. It is not nearly as complicated as the member for Miramichi was trying to make it. He recognized that amateur athletes already receive a tax free stipend. As some of the athletes are already getting that, we are just trying to extend it a little bit further.

He also argued it is unfair because others do not get this break, but in reality others are not being crushed by the tax department. He talked about art, ballet and music. If young people in those areas were receiving a little bit of money, a stipend from some of their associations, and if the bill did not cover it, we would hope that the government would be willing to go along with an amendment that would include them. We have no problem with including them in this and they should be included.

I would like to thank the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord for doing an excellent job of breaking down the figures and pointing out that the average athlete pays about 16% income tax. This would save them all of $1,280 a year, which is significant for the athletes, but does not cost the government anything.

I would like to encourage members to support the legislation. It champions amateur athletics. We look forward to its quick passage in the House and to every member supporting it.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, April 20, 2005 immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to once again address the issue of the lack of a citizenship judge in Edmonton. I want to perhaps give a timeline and some background for the benefit of the House.

Edmonton has not had a citizenship judge since July 3, 2004. In September 2004 I wrote to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration explaining this problem and asking her to address it as soon as possible. The fact is that as a member of Parliament I never even received an acknowledgement or a response to that letter, so I wrote again to the new minister, the current Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, in January 2005.

I did not get a response to that letter, so I raised the issue in the House of Commons on February 4. That is the issue that I followed up with at this time, and the Minister of Public Works at the time did not know about the issue, but he said he would get back to me. Again, nobody on the government side got back to me with anything. There was more waiting and no appointment. I raised the issue again, this time in the House on March 7.

I want to point this out because I have tried to follow the legitimate process. I have tried not to make this a partisan issue. It is an issue of just appointing a citizenship judge for all the citizens of Edmonton, and obviously for those people who hope to become citizens of Edmonton.

I raised this again on March 7 and the minister answered with what I consider one of the most contemptible responses I have ever received in the House, basically casting aspersions on our political party, instead of actually addressing the issue of why there was no citizenship judge in Edmonton.

The written response came from the minister later that month, seven months after I had originally written to the previous minister of immigration. It basically said that everything was fine and that there was a merit process in progress. There is no reason why it would take eight months. It was also stated that many prospective candidates were being looked at. It was obviously an inadequate response for the people of Edmonton.

I do want to give some background here. Edmonton has been without a citizenship judge for more than nine months. There is a backlog of well over 2,000 people, and at some point there were perhaps up to 4,000 people waiting to officially become new Canadians. That is why the issue matters. We have people in line who have left whatever homeland they had to seek and to build a better life, and to become citizens of this great country. They should be welcomed with open arms when they pass through all the hoops to do so.

It is incumbent upon the government to make this appointment just from a question of basic competence. I would like to ask some very specific questions.

Why has it taken so long to make this appointment? When will Edmonton finally have a citizenship judge of its own? If the government could not make up its mind for nine months, why did it not choose to renew the contract of a previous judge, Judge Bhatia?

Judge Bhatia, frankly, did an excellent job. I have no idea what his political leanings were and that is the way it should have been. He was a true public servant. I attended many ceremonies with this individual. He did such an excellent job of welcoming citizens. I would stand beside him welcoming these people. He spoke a few words in about 27 different languages and he would spend a little moment with each person. It was such a heartwarming event.

He is of Sikh background and would give an excellent speech about what it means to be a Canadian, and the very multicultural fabric of our nation. He is just an excellent public servant. If the government cannot make a decision, it should certainly renew his appointment. I would like the government to answer specifically these very straightforward genuine questions.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member for Edmonton--Leduc. He has brought up a problem in his own area. It is certainly a legitimate one.

I want to give him some background and hopefully some faith that very soon this problem will be resolved, because I know it is a concern for him. I know he has brought it up many times in this House, very legitimately, and I certainly hope that we will be able to resolve this very soon.

We know, as the member said, that the backlog was quite large at one time. In fact, it was at about 4,000. Now, according to the member, it is down to about 2,000, which is certainly a move in the right direction. Is it perfect? No, it is not, but there are a couple of issues I would like to bring up that might shed some light on the reasons why this was taking place.

We know, interestingly enough, that the numbers of applications for citizenship and immigration have increased quite dramatically over the last few years. In fact, over a period of one year there was an increase of 40%, which put an excessive demand on the supply of the resources in the department. In January of this year, the minister went to Treasury Board and in fact secured an increase to the amount of resources of the department.

In order to try to resolve this, we have also taken some action. As I said, we have reduced the backlog by half. Part of the reason for that reduction is that we have brought in other citizenship judges from afar in order to process these people, who quite rightly have to be processed in short order. We have also started a merit process to try to get somebody to replace the previous judge. I hope that will happen in the very near future.

We are trying to get the backlog down. We have succeeded at doing that quite substantially in the recent past.

On the specific issue of getting a citizenship judge to replace the previous judge, the merit process is taking place and the assessments are taking place right now. I certainly hope, for the member and in particular for the people in Edmonton who deserve and must have a citizenship judge, that we will be able to get one very quickly.

I know the minister is very committed to doing this. I know the minister wants to get process done properly, quickly, fairly and transparently so we can get a citizenship judge in there in very short order and the people of Edmonton who are new citizens and who want to become new citizens will be able to have access in short order.

We all respect and appreciate the commitment and the contribution that immigrants have made to Canada. We welcome new immigrants to this country and recognize that historically, and for today and tomorrow, immigrants and immigration have played and will play a substantial role in the future of our country in a very positive way. For that, I think all of us here in the House are very thankful and grateful.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would just point out that I did not get any answers to the questions I asked, and they are legitimate questions.

As well, I would point out to the government that flying in judges from all over the country is not an answer. The simple answer is to find a qualified candidate and appoint him or her to be the citizenship judge. Instead of flying judges from Ontario and elsewhere across the country into Edmonton to do a ceremony, why not appoint someone from the community? Is someone from the city of Edmonton not qualified to take on this position?

I would renew the question again about the person who did the job. Judge Bhatia did an excellent job. If the government is having a tough time finding someone to replace him, why not renew his contract, at least for a temporary period, and put him in place to deal with the situation of this backlog?

I would like some specific answers to these specific questions. I do want to point out that this is certainly not also a problem with the department in the city of Edmonton. In the city of Edmonton, according to my office, the local citizenship and immigration office deals very well with these situations, but it needs some leadership in terms of a citizenship judge.

When will Edmonton have a judge? Why has it taken nine months? Why not renew the contract of the previous judge? These are three very straightforward questions.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, all I can say to the member is that we are engaged in a process right now. We have a number of applications. We are going through the process to review those applications in an open, fair and transparent competition so that the best person can be put forward for the people of Edmonton and then process those applicants who currently need to be processed.

We have done our best to get new resources. That has happened this year. We have applied those resources to the existing backlog. We have reduced that backlog by 50%. We will continue to work hard to try to make sure that the remaining people will be processed quickly and that Edmonton will have a citizenship judge forthwith.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this adjournment debate to obtain an answer from the Minister of National Defence to my question of February 7 on why members of the Canadian Forces residing in Ontario are being forced to pay the new Ontario health premium tax when they have no access to the benefit.

Military members in Ontario deserve to know why the minister, with the increased cost of rations and rent, continues to refuse to stand up and demand a full refund of the Ontario Liberals' health premium tax.

To add insult to injury, as of today the men and women who put their lives on the line for the service of their country still have not received the pay increase they were promised over a year ago; yet another promise made and promise broken.

As the minister is aware, on May 18 of last year, after campaigning on a promise to not raise taxes, the Ontario Liberal government introduced a controversial new tax called the Ontario health premium, with the claim that all contributions made by residents of Ontario would be funnelled directly into the Ontario health insurance plan, OHIP.

However, members of the Canadian Forces residing in Ontario are insured under the Canadian Forces health services plan and are specifically excluded by the Canada Health Act from the definition of insured individuals.

The Canadian Forces health services plan is a $450 million health care system that the federal government identifies as a direct federal contribution to total health care spending in Canada.

In turn, the federal government uses this figure in health care negotiations to reduce the amount it transfers to the provinces.

As a result, Canadians soldiers living in Ontario are being asked to pay twice for health care. That is wrong and it must stop.

It is important to note that similar health care premiums instituted by the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia specifically exclude members of Canada's military residing in these provinces because they are insured under the federal health care plan. Why is the federal government consenting to the Ontario Liberals' violation of the spirit and the law of the Canada Health Act when other provinces in Canada have acted to exempt the military from their health premium plans?

The Minister of Health excuses his decision not to take action and stop this appalling misuse of power by refusing to recognize that payment of the Ontario health premium is for the purpose of health care services in Ontario.

The fact that the Ontario health premium tax is called a provincial income tax and must be paid by all residents of Ontario, regardless of access to coverage under OHIP, ignores the stated purpose of this premium tax, that is, to pay for health care. The province of Ontario has been very clear that every dollar of the Ontario health premium collected will be invested directly in Ontario's health care system.

The method by which Ontario collects this health premium tax from soldiers is not the issue. The federal government should not be concerned with how the premium is being collected, but only that it is being collected.

The fact is, our soldiers in Ontario are being forced to pay for a benefit they have never received and will never be allowed to receive.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the member brought this issue up. I want to address some of the misrepresentations that she made in her speech about promises made. These promises have been kept and I will talk about them right now.

The first is the pay raise. The member knows that we had to wait because the pay raise had to be compatible with the public service. Normally, this process is completed by the end of the fiscal year and a pay raise is announced in April or June. However, the public service collective agreement was not ratified until January. Since that happened , we have ensured that our men and women in uniform will receive a pay that will be fair, equitable and, more important, retroactive.

I am pleased to announce that our members of the forces will receive that pay raise this month. I also am pleased to announce, in response to the member's query, that this pay raise will be made retroactive to April 2004. This significant pay raise is 6.6% for non-commissioned members and 3.3% for officers of the rank of lieutenant colonel and below. It will have a direct effect on their lives.

On the issue of the Ontario health premium tax and its effect on the Canadian Forces, I am glad the member brought this up also. She knows full well that the management of health care resides in the hands of the provinces. An exception, however, is Canadian Forces members.

In May 2004 the province of Ontario introduced this tax. The government immediately contacted the province to determine if Canadian Forces members would be exempt from paying the Ontario health premium, given that the Canada Health Act precludes our military members from accessing those services.

We received the following response, that this was a tax instrument which applied to all residents of Ontario. We are working on trying change this. As the member alludes to, and personally I would agree, we have to change it. I know the Minister of National Defence has approached the ministry of health. He has spoken to the health minister to try to reverse this charge for our Canadian Forces members.

In the meantime, we factored the tax for our Ontario members in something called a post-living differential. That basically is a cost of living allowance. If our members who live on Ontario bases receive a higher cost of living as compared to those in other parts of the country, their post living differential will be increased.

We have tried to accommodate and ensure that our CF members are not hurt financially. I think the member has to agree that the pay raises our members have received this year are generous and fair. They are in response to the deep and profound debt of gratitude that all of us here have to our Canadian Forces members and their families for their services day in and day out to our country.