Finance Committee on Feb. 8th, 2007

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

The Saskatchewan Roughriders.

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

Yes, the Saskatchewan Roughriders. That's right.

I think you tighten it up here by restricting the people to under 21 years of age. But you just said junior A teams versus major junior.... How do you define it? It doesn't necessarily say that in the bill. If it's non-profit, it's non-profit. I think some of the junior teams are also non-profit organizations.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

The vast majority of the major junior teams that I know of are privately owned. The owners are wealthy. They're real money-makers, so they would not be eligible for this program.

There may be some major junior teams that are quite comparable to the junior A teams, in the sense that they're in very small markets and they don't have deep pockets. They might get the benefit of it, but it would be a very small fraction of them.

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

In comparing the amount you requested last time--I think it was $8,200, versus $4,200 now--what happens if somebody is actually paid more than the $4,200? Take me through that. If somebody receives more than the $350, how does that work?

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I would say anything over this amount, Massimo, would be subject to the tax rules.

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

I guess this is a question for the financial officials. So they'd still be determined to have an employer-employee relationship and not a coach-organization-player relationship?

[Edward Short]

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.

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

Okay.

Does this bill protect the allowance from not being considered part of CPP and the EI? CPP may have a $3,500 deductible, but it's still going to have a $700 difference if somebody gets to $4,200. Does the $3,500 exemption kick in after the $4,200, or does it kick in from dollar one, including the allowance?

[Edward Short]

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

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

So the allowance would be considered--

[Edward Short]

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.

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

In the bill, Brian, you have the “taxpayer is registered during the year”. Does that mean he has to be registered for just one day and then he qualifies for twelve months? You're paying the allowance on a twelve-month basis.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I think “registered” would mean they're an active, full-time player with the hockey team. If they get cut from the team, they would no longer be part of the team. I don't know why the team would be worried about somebody who isn't there anymore. If they get cut, they move back to their communities. The team isn't going to provide room and board for them. It's the organization that gets audited and assessed; it's not the individual. That's the difficulty with this arrangement. They just don't have the money.

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

I don't know if you're aware, but in Saskatchewan you have pretty good junior football. In my riding there's a pretty good football team, but they don't get paid at all. I think out west some of the junior football players get paid. Is that going to affect that?

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I think their cut-off age is 22, so they'd be ineligible unless they change their rules. Most of the junior players--the Saskatoon Hilltops, and the University of Regina Rams--are attending university. They're living in Regina or Saskatoon as full-time university students, and this is something they do with their schooling. It's not much different from playing football for Laval or the University of Saskatchewan Huskies. I don't really think it would be a concern.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you very much, Mr. Pacetti.

Thank you very much to our panel. We appreciate your time very much, and the time you gave to come here to be with us today.

We'll proceed now. Committee members, I'll explain how we structured the meeting today, and of course I'm open to the will of the committee. We've allowed 40 minutes for each of the bills and then 40 minutes to deal with clause-by-clause on the bills. If it's the will of the committee to continue the discussion, then we won't have time for clause-by-clause, and we'll have to move to another meeting to deal with the clause-by-clause.

I should emphasize to the committee that we have the Bank Act to review. We have until the third week of April to do that. We also have a maximum of about seven weeks to deal with that, plus all the other work of the committee.

It's the will of the committee that I'm here to serve, so if the committee wants to continue the discussion.... No? Okay.

We're going to move to the next bill now, and I'll invite the panellists to come forward.

Mr. McTeague, you're welcome to come forward now.

Thank you, again, gentlemen.

Mr. McCallum.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Perhaps I could save time by doing it in the transition period here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

That'd be great.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

As committee members will know, we received thick documents from the finance department, none of which were at all useful, all of which were already in the public domain, and half of them, I believe, were post-announcement submissions that obviously had nothing to do with the fact that's leading to the minister's decision, which was the request. I think this is a mockery of the committee and the principles of accountability.

Mr. Chair, I'm suggesting two options. If the committee were unanimous, we could simply request one document from the finance department--this blacked-out document that I referred to--within, say, 48 hours. They have it? It's already there, but blacked out?

If there's not unanimity on that, then I'll have to bring in a motion for the next meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Is there unanimity to proceed as Mr. McCallum wishes? No, there isn't, so you can present a notice of motion if you wish, Mr. McCallum.

We'll move to Mr. McTeague now.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Who said no?

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Mr. McTeague.

We don't have unanimous consent. Order, please.

Mr. McTeague, I've invited you to begin your presentation. Five minutes.

On a point of order, Mr. Pacetti.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, Mr. McTeague is not part of the committee. We didn't hear unanimous consent--

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

No. My job is to continue to conduct the committee in an orderly manner, and I'll do that in spite of your insistence that we don't.

Mr. McTeague, you may begin your presentation on your private member's bill now.

Monsieur St.-Cyr, did you have a point of order?

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

It concerns the same point of order. You said there wasn't unanimous consent. I simply wanted to know who had objected.

As a committee member—