Debates of Jan. 27th, 2003

Criminal Code

[Jeannot Castonguay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to complete my colleague's question. The question that he asked in the House at that time was clear. I will even take the time to read it, “How dare the federal government interfere in the management of health care across Canada when it is not even able to properly manage what comes directly under its jurisdiction?”

I will certainly inform the member of our position with regard to health care. I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to his question. He has suggested that the federal government wishes to intrude upon the proper business of the provinces and territories in managing and planning health care delivery. The facts do not support the assertion that the federal government is, or has any intention of, micromanaging the health care system.

We have received the report of the Commission on the Future of Health Care, and our first response has been to sit down with the provincial and territorial health ministers to discuss the recommendations made by Mr. Romanow. We are looking to find common ground and identify the priority areas that are important to all the provinces and to the federal government and on which we can reach an agreement with the provinces and territories. This has always been our intention and this is the goal that the health ministers and first ministers are striving to achieve.

Again, we stand ready to make new investments that will assist the provinces and territories to continue to develop their health care systems to meet the present and future needs of Canadians.

We firmly believe that pointing fingers at one another will lead us nowhere and that we need instead to work together toward common objectives. That is what we intend to do and that is what the first ministers will be discussing when they meet on February 4 and 5 of this year.

We believe in the importance of partnership. Gone is the time when every jurisdiction was just looking out for itself and pointing fingers. I can assure the member that we do not intend to micromanage the health care system with the provinces. However, Canadians want to know how investments in health care will be used. I believe that we all have an obligation, whether at the federal or provincial level, to be accountable to Canadians, and we will do that. I am sure that, working with the provinces, we will succeed in reaching our goal.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that my hon. colleague opposite took much of his inspiration from the Romanow report. However, I would like to know if, in his opinion and that of his party, and in the spirit of the recommendations in the Romanow report, they will respect jurisdictions.

Does he agree that the provinces are the ones administering health care and that the Government of Canada does not need to impose conditions, with regard to future federal government expenditures, obliging the provinces to spend health care funds in those sectors identified by the federal government? Clearly, the provinces know what the health care needs are. The federal government should restore the transfer payments. It has budgetary surpluses.

I would like to know if, in the spirit of the Romanow report, it will respect areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

[Jeannot Castonguay, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am a federal member, but I also worked in health care for more than 26 years. I believe that there are also people at the federal level who know what Canadians need.

That said, it has always been our intention to collaborate with the provinces. As I mentioned earlier, we will continue to do so, to collaborate and to try to establish common goals together. I repeat what I said earlier. We do not intend to micromanage or to meddle. However, we will have to be accountable to Canadians about how the money invested in health care is being spent. I want to reassure the hon. member that we will do this. I am convinced that the first ministers will reach an agreement on common goals and on the importance of being accountable to Canadians.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Canadian Alliance, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the member will have the answers for my questions but if he cannot provide the answers, perhaps he could provide an undertaking to provide the answers.

The questions are about the Canadian Olympic program. We are talking about our elite athletes and the remuneration they receive by way of payment and free accommodation, room and board and so on. What is the CCRA's position in regard to the tax treatment of those benefits?

The other question I would like an answer to is whether the CCRA decision to tax Saskatchewan junior hockey league teams is going to be applied to all 130 plus junior A hockey teams across the nation.

The Saskatchewan junior hockey league is an old and strong tradition in Saskatchewan. I began following the league in the mid-1950s, which kind of dates my age. There were some pretty good players back in those days: “Mr. Goalie” Glenn Hall, Rod Berenson, Terry Harper, Dave Balon, Orland Kurtenbach, Marshall Johnston who later became the general manager of the Ottawa Senators, Autry Erickson, and many other players.

Over the years the league has evolved. It is no longer a major junior hockey league. It has become a small market developmental league that emphasizes education and development of hockey skills.

The important relationship in that league is the relationship between the parents who entrust their sons to league teams on some pretty clear understandings.

The first is that players will be billeted into solid homes in a community and the teams and billets will become the parents and guardians of those boys while they play hockey in that community.

The second understanding is that there is a strong emphasis on education, schooling and skill development in hockey.

Third, the players will retain their full amateur status with the hope of receiving a full athletic scholarship to a major American university or college.

It is also an understanding that teams will provide the room and board and the expense money that the players would normally receive if they stayed at home to receive their schooling with their parents in their home communities.

In the history of the league the CCRA has never treated that relationship between the teams, the players and the parents as some sort of employer-employee relationship. By adopting this position now, the federal government is undermining the special relationship that exists between the parents, the teams and the players. The decision, in addition to casting doubt on the eligibility of the players to receive athletic scholarships, undermines the hockey dreams of these people.

The Saskatchewan junior hockey league is about dreams. Hockey is Canada's official national sport. The decision of the CCRA is all about destroying a whole host of dreams and a Canadian institution, amateur junior hockey.

The government should be about promoting Canadian dreams and not about destroying them. In this case--

[The Speaker]

Order. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I should explain to the hon. member through you that as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport for crown corporations, I was specifically asked to respond since the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue was not available. That is why I am standing.

I will speak to two issues. First of all, it was my understanding that the issue we were discussing in the late show had to do with the Saskatchewan junior hockey league, not with the Olympic team. That is a new wrinkle the member has put on the table. I would suggest to the member that he could file an order paper question or perhaps deal with his own caucus to arrange to ask the questions in relation to the status of the Olympic team players in question period. I simply do not have that answer available now.

In relation to the answer about whether we are treating all teams across Canada the same, absolutely. There is no question.

I want to point out to the member that while I respect the fact that he is concerned about the condition of junior hockey in his province and the concerns the member might have about the dreams that he talked about, one of the most fundamental problems in dealing with an employer-employee relationship is the nub of the issue here. Are those young people employees when they are paid in one way or another, in kind, in room and board or in money in whatever way? Are they employees? If they are employees, then the employer has an obligation to make sure that they have full and complete access to all of the protection that any worker is entitled to in Canadian society.

Let me provide an example for the member. If a player was hit from behind and injured during one of the games and if the employer, the hockey team, was not paying the Canada pension contribution, then that particular employee, that player, would not have access to any kind of a disability pension. It might be small given that the player is a young person with a fairly short employment history, but this is a cumulative situation where we all pay into Canada pension and employment insurance over a number of years.

The member is suggesting that if CCRA were not to recognize these hockey players as employees, then in fact they would be treated differently than perhaps another young person who has a job working in some other industry. It could be in Saskatchewan or anywhere in the country. I think that is highly inappropriate. In fact it is kind of dangerous given the nature of the sport of hockey.

My wife and I had a junior player living with us for a season, who was playing for the Mississauga Ice Dogs. It is exciting and terrific, but it is a very violent sport and it is very easy to be injured.

Anyone who is a fan of the game would know that our good friend Don Cherry has started a program where stickers of a great big stop sign with the word “stop” are going to be put on the back of all hockey players' helmets. The hope is to eliminate the checking from behind that has become so prevalent and such a serious problem. We have seen youngsters wind up crippled and in wheelchairs. That is why we recognize these players as employees, so they can be protected.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Canadian Alliance, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would still like the undertaking on the Olympic program because the very points the member raised apply to anyone involved in the Olympic program as well. I would like to know the answers to those questions. They participate in amateur sports, are receiving remuneration, accommodations and so on. I want to make sure the government is applying these rules fairly and equally across the board.

I have just one final comment. Government should be promoting Canadian heritage and dreams, not attacking them. The decision of the CCRA could seriously drive a lot of the teens in the Saskatchewan junior hockey league, the communities that support them and the people involved in it into a bankruptcy situation. A Canadian tradition and heritage will be killed by that. This league has survived for many decades without the CCRA being involved. I really do not see the need for it to become involved in this situation or harass a Canadian institution.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, although I do not necessarily feel obligated, I will undertake to get the answer on the Olympic side. It is a fair question.

Let me point out that the CCRA does have a fairness policy and is quite willing to provide relief, if it is appropriate, in terms of penalties or interest. Neither the government nor the CCRA is looking in any way to tarnish the dreams of young people or to hurt the great Canadian game of hockey. Think about how ridiculous it would be for any government to undertake that.

At the same time we have an obligation to ensure that these young people, when cast as employees, receive due and proper protection. Their employers have an obligation. CCRA will meet with them and work it out. They have an obligation to make those payments and provide that protection.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, on December 11, in the House of Commons, I asked a question of the Minister of Transport concerning the announcement made by the Minister of Labour and reported in our region's newspapers. The minister had told two mayors of the region, the mayors of Bathurst and Bertrand, that she had liked the work that they had done and that $90 million could be provided for highways 11 and 17 in northeast New Brunswick.

She even commended them for the work they had done in a committee that had been created. Also, she said, and this was reported in the newspapers, that if they submitted a request to Ottawa, they could receive the $90 million. The Province of New Brunswick could also invest $90 million, which would amount to $180 million. However, the big surprise was that, the next day, the minister said that this was old money.

I do not know if the Liberals are used to making announcements three times on the same subject and saying: “Ask for money and you will receive it”. Yet, the next day, it went from $90 million to zero.

So, I asked the Minister of Transport if he was prepared to honour the promise the minister responsible for New Brunswick made in Belledune to the media and our people back home, including the mayor of Bathurst and the mayor of Bertrand, following the press conference about highway 11.

My predecessor described people back home as lazy and do-nothings. We live in a region where 20% of the people live on EI benefits and where the residents are interested in economic development. But again, we do not have the highway infrastructure required to achieve the economic development we need in Acadie—Bathurst.

I also remember that, at some point, Minister Valcourt travelled throughout New Brunswick and made commitments on behalf of his government. The Liberals, in the opposition at the time, ensured that the government kept the promises Minister Valcourt had made in New Brunswick.

My question is the following: Will he honour the promise made by the Minister of Labour and minister responsible for New Brunswick to people back home, namely that the federal government would invest $90 million for highways 11 and 17 if the provincial government were to match the federal contribution? These highways are needed to achieve economic development in our region.

My question is simple. We do not want to hear what the minister had to say the last time: “We have already handed out $6 million. New Brunswick received money and used it in the southern part of the province”.That is not what I want to hear. I want a clear answer to my question about the promise made by the minister. She made a promise. She said that my constituents only had to submit a request and the money was available. Is the government prepared to honour the promise made by the Minister of Labour and minister responsible for New Brunswick? Will it honour it or not?

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to my colleague, speaking for the first time in my capacity of parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport.

In response to the question by the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst regarding funding for highways 11 and 17, I would like to say that the federal government has over the years made significant investments in New Brunswick highways.

I will provide a brief historical overview, which I trust will satisfy my colleague's curiosity and provide him with some useful information for an understanding of this complex matter.

Since 1993, Transport Canada has had four different highway programs with the province of New Brunswick. Through these programs, the federal government has committed $525 million toward improvements to the highway system in that province. Approximately $39.7 million in federal-provincial funding has already been spent on various projects in the Acadian peninsula through these cost-shared agreements.

The province's priority, as well as the federal government's, is to complete the twinning of the Trans-Canada Highway. On August 14, 2002, the Prime Minister of Canada and Premier Lord of New Brunswick announced their commitment to complete the twinning of the highway in New Brunswick at an estimated cost of $400 million. The Prime Minister of Canada also announced an initial $135 million towards the federal share of this project.

Further, on September 13, 2002, the Minister of Transport signed with New Brunswick the Strategic Highway Infrastructure Program agreement providing an additional $29 million in joint funding to the province's national highway system.

Unfortunately, routes 11 and 17 are not part of the national highway system and therefore are not eligible for funding under this agreement. The only other program that remains is the highway improvement program, which was signed in 1987. At the end of this fiscal year, approximately $40 million will remain in this program.

Under this agreement, the province is responsible for submitting projects for funding. However, the province has already put forward other priorities for the remaining funds. Should the province wish to reallocate these funds to routes 11 and 17, Transport Canada would be prepared to consider its request.

I would also like to stress that highways are a provincial responsibility. Therefore, there is nothing stopping the province from improving highways 11 and 17.

With the two new announcements last year by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport, the federal government has now committed almost three-quarters of a billion dollars towards the highway infrastructure in New Brunswick since 1993.

Clearly the federal government is doing its share towards the improvement of highways in New Brunswick.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member on his appointment as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport.

I would also like to set the record straight. The Premier of New Brunswick clearly told the people at home to submit their applications because $90 million was available in Ottawa.

The leader of the provincial Liberals, Shawn Graham, moved a motion in the New Brunswick legislature asking the federal Liberals to meet the commitment made by the minister responsible for New Brunswick. It is a commitment of $90 million for highways 11 and 17. These highways are part of New Brunswick and Canada.

The federal government has a responsibility to the economic development of our region. It takes away $69 million a year in employment insurance benefits alone. It is time money was allocated to this issue to ensure the economic development of our region.

What does the Parliamentary Secretary—

[The Speaker]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must understand that, as I said earlier and I will repeat it, after the Government of Canada's two latest announcements, the federal government has now committed close to three quarters of a billion dollars to New Brunswick's highway infrastructure, since 1993. This is close to $750 million, over a period of not even 10 years.

I realize that the hon. member wants more money and that he may have been told that $90 million would be available. But what we are saying is that the only other program in which there are funds available is the highway improvement program, which was signed in 1987. At the end of the current fiscal year, there will be some $40 million left for this program.

[The Speaker]

It being 7 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7 p.m.)