Rodger Cuzner

[Doping in Sport, April 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in this debate tonight. I wonder if Baron de Coubertin who termed the Olympic motto of “swifter, higher, stronger” thought at the time whether or not he would ever have to come back years later and add the word “cleaner” to it? In fact, what we are seeing and faced with now is a significant challenge in cleaning up sport.

As parents in Canada we continue to encourage our children and our young people to take part in sport. We see merit in taking part in sport. It adds to a young person's physical, mental, emotional, and even spiritual development as they grow up and take part in sport and compete. It is a great way to meet and learn some of the intrinsic benefits that competition lends itself to.

There is a great challenge out there now. When we watch our newscasts or open the sports pages of any of the big papers, it is certainly not uncommon to see one of the lead stories being that of some high-paid athletes somewhere who have used a performance enhancing drug, a steroid, so that they can gain an advantage over others.

I respect the comments made by my colleague from Perth—Wellington when he mentioned the undertakings of the Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame. It is trying to sell the game as a positive experience and something that young men and women should take part in over the course of the summer months. But there is this elephant in the bed, being major league baseball, and this circus that is major league baseball that is going on with congressional and senatorial hearings into the use of a performance enhancing drug in that particular sport.

What probably should have been a heyday and a very special time for major league baseball last year was when one of the players in major league baseball passed the all time home run record. Barry Bonds, in doing so during the whole run up, was under that cloud of whether or not he used a performance enhancing drug.

It certainly took away a great deal from that great accomplishment. I think what we will always see is that record will be identified in the record books with an asterisk. I think that is certainly of concern. It reflects that it is not exclusive to professional sports. It is certainly not exclusive to major league baseball or professional sports.

Probably one of the greatest sporting events in the world and certainly the greatest cycling event is the Tour de France. In recent years 20 participants in the Tour de France have been charged with using performance enhancing drugs.

The 2006 champion, Floyd Landis, the winner of the Tour de France, was stripped of his title and barred from competing in the Tour de France for years to come. A great toll has been taken on these athletes who use performance enhancing drugs.

The use of performance enhancing drugs is not exclusive to the guys. Marion Jones, the U.S. track star in 2000 in Sydney, Australia, captured five Olympic medals, three gold and two bronze. After being examined and denying that she used steroids, she came clean last October. She admitted that she had in fact used performance enhancing drugs. She was seen to have perjured herself during two federal inquiries. She is in a great deal of trouble right now.

The lure is great because if someone is successful as an athlete, whether professional or amateur, everything is amplified. There are the endorsements, the appearance fees and the competition. That lure to be the very best is great and it is significant, but it is wrong.

We are not excluded from it. We Canadians are not squeaky clean. Everybody shared in the shame and the hardship that was the folly of Ben Johnson in 1988 in the Seoul Olympics. He won the 100 metre sprint, but the drug test proved that he was using a performance enhancing drug. That will follow Ben Johnson for the rest of his years. That headline plastered across every newspaper in this country, “From hero to zero”, will be his moniker as he goes forward in life. That is a terrible price to pay, but it was certainly a mistake on his part to embark on this in the first place.

Great strides have been made, but I caution members that the fight is not complete. It is ongoing. In 2005 it was estimated that 25% of elite athletes who competed in international events used some type of performance enhancing substance. It is a continuing battle. It is something that all nations of the world have to work together to combat. That is what we are speaking about today in this legislation.

This motion will be supported by me, by our critic and I would think by most members on the opposition bench. It is very significant. We want to remember that Canada was one of nine countries that developed the original convention and one of the first countries to ratify it. It gives us a legal framework that is both binding and universal. It states clearly the list of prohibited substances that would be deemed illegal, with the exception of some medical instances. This is going to be universal, so that is indeed a positive step.

In passing this motion, Parliament will direct the Government of Canada to undertake a number of steps, and I would like to read them into the record.

The Government of Canada will take steps at home to undertake public education to warn of the effects of doping. It will give training, education and support regarding doping to our athletes, coaches, trainers and medical personnel.

The Government of Canada will take the responsibility to ensure proper conduct, the principle of fair play and the protection of health to those who participate in sport. It will work with local, national and other sport NGOs and other organizations to give them the information and tools to achieve the elimination of doping in sport.

It will promote the research, detection, prevention and understanding of the use of substances that enhance athletic performance and share that research internationally. Finally, the Government of Canada will contribute financially to assist other states that are unable to ensure the provisions of their convention.

I think that is notable. This past November, I attended the World Anti-Doping Agency convention in Madrid, Spain, with the Secretary of State for Sport. It was somewhat of a celebration at that time, as our own Canadian, Dick Pound, was outgoing chairman of the agency. He has done an incredible amount on the anti-doping scene internationally. He deserves a great deal of credit and recognition. Certainly what I sensed from that conference over those two days was the great respect for his work and certainly for that of other Canadians and for the contribution they have made with respect to this problem globally.

I am happy that this motion has come forward to the chamber. I look forward to supporting it when it is brought to a vote.

[Vince Ryan Memorial Tournament, April 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the organizers of the 19th annual Vince Ryan oldtimers hockey tournament held recently in my riding.

This year's event saw 160 teams compete in over 280 games. Teams from Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, Ontario and British Columbia were treated to an incredible weekend of hockey and fellowship.

An army of over 200 volunteers kept score, cleaned rooms, shuttled teams and made meals for the over 3,000 participants.

The Vince Ryan tournament has grown to be recognized as one of the premier oldtimers hockey tournaments in this country. It brings a tremendous social and economic benefit to our community. All profits go toward the Glace Bay High School scholarship fund.

To the Ryan family, who remain proud to celebrate Vince's memory through this tournament, and to the chairman, the incomparable Richie Warren, and his organizing committee, I express thanks on behalf of the people from Cape Breton—Canso for their commitment to this great event and wish them the very best of luck with the 20th anniversary coming up next year.

[Business of Supply, March 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, in the context of what my colleague was sharing with the House, I certainly agree with her. I do not disagree with tax cuts. I stand with the government that tax cuts are important, but they cannot be the only weapon that we use against this enemy of job loss and downturn in the economy. It is like trying to play a round of golf with only one club in one's bag.

Targeted investments in research and development are very worthy and important. Obviously that same view was not shared by the current government.

When we look at the recent announcement of the $17 million investment by the provincial government and the challenge that is being put forward by Ford, does my colleague believe that the current government is motivated to make that type of investment so that employees can have a brighter future in a sustainable industry and that something positive can come out of all this bad news in Ontario right now? What is her hope for the government to act on this?

[Business of Supply, March 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I believe my colleague has articulated very well what is actually going on in the country, especially in his province, where we see a significant number of people now unemployed and record job losses over the last number of months, since January 2006.

We have seen the enviable fiscal position that the government was left in dwindle and its ability to seize any kind of opportunity for investment and research development to help in certain sectors has been handcuffed.

We have just spent two weeks in constituencies. I know my colleague from Richmond Hill works his riding very hard and has his finger on the pulse in his riding. I want to ask him this. What are the people saying in his riding about the collective kick in the teeth that was received by the people of Ontario from the finance minister when he said that Ontario would be the last place investors would want to place their money? What kind of responses did he get about that?

[Questions on the Order Paper, March 31st, 2008]

With regard to the Department of Human Resources and Social Development: (a) what was the funding amount allocated, granted or contributed to the riding of Cape Breton—Canso for the years 2004 to 2007, inclusive, for the purposes of training, retraining or education; (b) within this department, how many federal programs received budget allocation within the riding of Cape Breton—Canso for the years 2004 to 2007, inclusive; and (c) how many student jobs were funded through the Canada Summer Jobs program for the years 2004 to 2007, inclusive?

[The Budget, March 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, there is a question I would like to pose to my colleague across. The common acceptance is that the budget was a mile wide and an inch thick. One investment that was made but fell far short of a promise the Prime Minister made was the $282 million to the veterans independence program, which is about half of what was needed to cover the promise the Prime Minister made to supply the veterans independence program to all widows of veterans from the second world war and the Korean war, to the widows of all veterans.

Does the member have some constituents who have fallen off the radar screen on this promise that was made by the Prime Minister but which was a shortcoming and just did not get delivered in the budget?

[The Budget, February 28th, 2008]

There you go boys. We have elevated the debate.

[The Budget, February 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, during the course of my presentation, it was interesting to note the heckling that was coming out of the cerebral cortex of the House, the aisle of sanctimony down in the corner, and the wisdom of the member from Hamilton Centre making meowing sounds and catcalls.

However, I thought it would have been more appropriate if he had made a barking sound like a dog because the NDP represent the proverbial dog chasing the bus. Those members could not drive it if they caught it, and Canadians know that.

NDP members can make those accusations and those unparliamentary gestures--

[The Budget, February 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, first I will give the member a little geography lesson. It is the provincial Liberals in Ontario who are calling for that and, being a Nova Scotian member, it is not as loud from the provincial Tories.

I have one other correction for my colleague from Windsor West. He said that the past eco-Auto rebate program had no impact on the industry. I would challenge that. I think it had an impact and it was a bad impact. It disadvantaged some manufacturers in this country. It had an impact on workers and closed plants. It was ill-conceived. I do not know where the member gets the idea that we supported that. We thought it was a bad program. We even pushed for years, while we were in government, to try to come up with something like that but it was so poorly laid out that it actually hurt the industry and it hurt workers in that industry.

[The Budget, February 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter into this debate. It is always difficult to follow the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, who is generally recognized as one of the most informed and hardest-working members of this Parliament, as well as one of the truly great orators to pass the curtains in a number of years. I can see the overwhelming sigh of indifference from the chairman of the human resources committee.

There are a couple of things I want to focus on in my budget presentation. The first one is the lack of prudence. On the bigger scale, on the broader vision of this budget, when we look at it from 37,000 feet, obviously the lack of prudence in this budget is something that is stark and something that I think Canadians are going to become weary of as we go forward and the economy gets tighter.

In past Liberal budgets when we served on the side of the government, after slaying the deficit budget after budget, one of the first things to go in during the budget preparation process was $3 billion in prudence. It was essential to have that in. Before the surplus and before anything else, $3 billion annually in prudence went in.

If one thinks back to the years when we were on the government benches, there were some catastrophic events that took place during that time, i.e., 9/11, SARS, avian flu and mad cow. There was a very tough run. Each of those events really served as unexpected economic impacts, as economic shocks to our fiscal framework. Fortunately, we were there with prudence built into the budget, $3 billion worth, that allowed the government to take appropriate action, make investments where necessary and help Canadians where necessary. That is what is lacking in this budget.

We know that this year $2.2 billion will be the surplus. We know that next year $1.3 billion will be the surplus. Then it goes into the hundreds of millions after that. Those are probably realistic numbers, but that is if things go as planned. If one of those unexpected economic impacts or shocks comes up, then that is when the fiscal framework is truly tested. As a nation we are one bad news day away from going back into deficit.

We on this side of the House do not support that. We were the ones who took on the challenge to fix the economic well-being of this nation. There was a $48 billion deficit when we took over in 1993 and, with the cooperation of Canadians, we made those difficult decisions and tough choices. There were 45,000 employees who went home in 1995. That was no fun. Canadians worked so hard to make sure that they fixed the deficit situation that I do not think there is any appetite on their part to go back in. This budget certainly puts us very close to that edge.

I want to talk about some of what is in the budget and what people are saying. Some people commenting are certainly not Liberal-minded at all. One comment is from Don Martin of the CanWest News Service. He said:

It's a budget that borrows kinder and gentler ideas--the homeless, infrastructure and the auto sector packages are clear Liberal lifts....

That was from Don Martin, who is certainly not a big fan of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Bob Fife, the Ottawa bureau chief for CTV News, said:

He's stolen the Liberal idea on help for the auto sector. He's stolen the Liberal idea on job creation through infrastructure. And he's stolen the Liberal idea of making the gas tax for municipalities permanent.

With the crime bill just passing the Senate, the finance minister could get five to seven years of hard time for the theft that went on Tuesday during the budget presentation in stealing the Liberal initiatives.

I will tell this House what is tough and where things get a little rancorous. We all know the devil is in the detail and when programs are removed, modified or created, that is where the problems come in.

My friend and colleague spoke eloquently about finalizing the millennium scholarship fund. The government says that it is putting in $350 million for the new student grant program. All it is doing is re-profiling the money that was there for the millennium scholarship fund. There are very few new dollars. It was announced on Tuesday and already some of the best and brightest in this country are saying that it is just not enough.

Alex Usher, the director of education for the Educational Policy Institute of Canada, is saying that the bottom line is that the program needs $1 billion. The budget is only two days old and it is $650 million short already.

The government sort of slid in the ecoAuto rebate program, which is one that it cancelled. That program was in the last budget. We know that was a disaster. Since it was first announced, $160 million had no impact at all. It was a program that arbitrarily picked winners and losers. It gave an unfair advantage to some people in the auto sector and hurt many auto manufacturers in this country. A competitive disadvantage was inherent in this disastrous program and the government cancelled it. There is always concern when we hear that the government is altering programs. The devil is in the detail.

The one thing that frightens me the most is moving the EI program to the Canada employment insurance financing board. Red flags are going up all across the country. The government says that it is all about setting premiums. The one thing we know about the government is that it is not a big fan of the employment insurance program.

I served as chairman for the all party committee that put together recommendations on this program and only one party offered a dissenting report, the current government. It said at the time that it just wanted an in-out insurance program with no other benefits. It is saying that it will not play with the benefits but I do not have a great deal of confidence in that statement.

When we were in government, we brought the premium rates down. The contributions by employees and employers were brought down from the 1993 level. It was at $3 per $100 in 1993 and in the budget by Kim Campbell it would have gone up to $3.35. When we left government, the amount was down to $1.84. We brought it down each and every subsequent budget after taking power.

It is well within the purview of the government to set that rate. To help employees and employers, it should bring those premiums down.

I, however, am very concerned about the disrespect the government has for the EI program in general. I represent people who live and work in rural ridings in seasonal industries. They are not seasonal workers but they work in seasonal industries. If this is to be operated as a straight insurance policy, we will be losing workers from rural Canada. We will be losing workers in industries like the fishery, forestry and mining. The loss will be felt in any of those seasonal activities. The red flags are up on this.

We need to ensure that we keep the government's feet to the fire on the EI program because it is essential for communities outside the cities to know that the benefits will be there for workers when they need it. However, we know that it is not big on the agenda across the hall.