Debates of June 1st, 2006

Opposition Motion—Gasoline Prices

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding I share many social injustices. We have over 10% unemployment in a large section of my riding. We have homelessness. We have many people crying out for aid, assistance and support. It is not as though I do not share a concern or a thought along with my colleague from across the House but we have social injustices across the country. How can we single out one industry and sort of throw on its back that it is the only reason for all of the social injustices? I do not think so.

As an example, the pharmaceutical industry, notoriously or famously, is one of the most profitable industries in the world and in my colleague's province it is a very profitable industry. Should we put a surcharge on that industry to help pay for the social injustices that occur in her province or in Nova Scotia or in British Columbia?

I am not suggesting there are not imbalances but our taxation system is not just there to spread the wealth but also to create the wealth. We cannot kill the golden goose that lays the golden egg. Every sort of dog has its turn. The industry has been severely threatened on occasion and dollars were poured into the western industry to help get it off the ground and make it through. The industry is now contributing back to the GDP, a lot of tax revenue is coming back and a lot of that tax revenue is being distributed across the country.

Let us look at the aerospace industry in my colleague's province. Hundreds of millions of dollars went into that industry every year for many years to help promote the industry. Could that money have gone toward social injustices? Possibly, yes, but that industry has created many jobs and has created quite a tax return for the province and for the country.

Where do we draw the line on the balance with targeting specific industries that are maybe strong today but in five years, two years or six months down the road are not? I do not think it is fair to put a surcharge on a particular industry and target just that industry at a particular time.

I can see it in an overall policy, in an overall platform, in an overall tax structure or tax regime where we have a corporate structure of taxes, where the finance minister, with the input of my colleagues on all sides of the House, negotiate the levels of taxation for corporations, for private people, for individuals and for non-charities. I think that is a reasonable argument. However, I think it is wrong to suggest that we can target one particular area.

Could I have the member's response to that?

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my hon. colleague has asked me this question.

In my opinion, all businesses, all financial institutions and all companies have a social responsibility.

We are talking today about the fact that a company is not assuming its social responsibilities. I am not against making a profit; I am against making unconscionable profits. I am against making a profit at the expense of those less fortunate, because such profits only make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Certainly, it creates many jobs. However, it also makes the rich even richer and the poor even poorer, since it has a global impact on all services provided to the public. When we have to pay more for gas, all services--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Western Arctic has the floor.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am supportive of the need to do something to counteract the negative impact that increasing gas prices are having on Canadians. Increasing fuel prices are a drag on our economy which, if allowed to continue, will show itself through increased prices in all sectors and possibly increased unemployment.

While all Canadians suffer from increasing energy prices, some feel the effects more than others. In the north, where energy costs are so high already, these things impact us more than others.

The other concern Canadians in northern and rural municipalities across the country have is with heating oil. As the price of oil goes up the price of heating oil goes up and that has a detrimental impact on Canadians.

However, these price increases are a symptom of a much larger disease. The disease is the fact that inexpensive, easy to access fossil fuels are beginning to run out at a time when demand continues to increase. While the Bloc's motion is a start, we must address the twin facts that new sources of energy need to be developed now and the demand for fossil fuels needs to be reduced.

What is needed is a national energy strategy that is based on the twin pillars of conservation and the development of new energy sources. I realize that some members of the House are frightened at the thought of this strategy as it brings back visions of the Liberals' failed national energy program. Even the CEOs of the large pipeline companies in Canada are calling for a national energy strategy.

Now is not the time to be timid. We must not let the failures of the past prevent us from effectively dealing with the fact that action is needed now.

What we have had is timid action. For example, a New Democratic initiative to require fuel efficiency in vehicles was defeated when both the Conservatives and the Liberals voted for voluntary standards which have failed to address energy costs, climate change and smog.

We have seen no action from the Conservative government because it has not realized that this issue is a priority with Canadians.

Before my time runs out I would like to put forward an amendment to the motion which would perhaps bring it in line so it can move forward. The amendment reads, that the motion be amended by adding the word “extraordinary” immediately before the word “profit” so that the section of the motion would read “a surtax on the extraordinary profits of”.

Private Members' Business--Bill C-292

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, with the House's indulgence, a point of order was raised earlier this afternoon concerning the tabling of some documents.

I have had the opportunity to consult with the government House leader and I believe I have his consent and an invitation from the Speaker to table some documents further in reference to Bill C-292, the private member's bill standing in the name of the right hon. member for LaSalle—Émard.

With the consent of all hon. members and for the information of the House, I am happy now to table, courtesy of the website of the Government of Canada and the Library of Parliament, the documents pertaining to the Kelowna accords, which were referred to earlier today in this House, and I am prepared to now lay them on the table, in both official languages.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to table the documents?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion--Gasoline Prices

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I will now deal with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Western Arctic.

I must inform the hon. members that, pursuant to Standing Order 85, an amendment to an opposition motion may only be moved with the consent of the sponsor of the motion. Accordingly, I ask the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup if he consents to the proposal of this amendment.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not accept this amendment because we cannot define what constitutes extraordinary profits.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

There is no consent. Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 85, the amendment cannot be moved.

Four minutes ago I tried to say that it being 5:31 p.m., pursuant to the order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the opposition motion are deemed to have been put and a recorded division is deemed to have been demanded and deferred until Tuesday, June 6, at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.

Shall we see the clock at 5:46?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Income Tax Act

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

moved that Bill C-294, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (sports and recreation programs), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that my colleague, the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt, will be making a friendly amendment, which I have no objection to when he speaks later on today.

I will start with a rhetorical question to get everybody's attention in the House. What if the Canada Revenue Agency decided tomorrow that the housing allowance, which members of Parliament receive while in Ottawa, would now be considered a taxable benefit and it would have to be brought into our income tax returns? We would be looking at full taxation on that. How many members in the House would applaud that move?

This is precisely what happened a number of years ago with amateur junior hockey in Saskatchewan. The tax department told tier two junior teams, struggling to keep their heads above water and keep their teams alive in their communities, that the room and board being provided to the players was a taxable benefit and that it was subject to Canada pension and income tax deductions. These are 17, 18 and 19 year old kids who generally attend school and board hundreds of miles away from these communities.

This brought a real hardship to the teams. Some of them were looking at $20,000 to $25,000 assessments on their operations and they were already in debt. They were selling lottery, raffle tickets, et cetera, to keep their teams alive and then along came the ruling by the Canada Revenue Agency.

The amendment to the Income Tax Act would have the effect of providing a small exemption to amateur athletic teams of $300 per month per player for the duration of the season. That would be exempt from the reaches of the income tax department. It would extend to all amateur sports teams in which the membership would be 21 years or under. It also would be limited to teams that were non-profit, community-based organizations trying to operate a junior team, or a midget triple A team, or a skate team, or gymnastics team or whatever it may be.

There are restrictions on the amendment to avoid abuses by people who are not legitimately amateur and who try to find loopholes to get around this. I think it is well crafted to ensure that it meets the test of helping amateur athletic development in all provinces of Canada.

I will give a bit of history on this matter. About four or five years ago, the tax department descended upon the 11 teams of the Saskatchewan junior hockey league, audited their books and came to the determination that they should have been reporting the room and board being provided to the players on the teams as a taxable benefit.

It is like a person who has a garden in the backyard and grows potatoes, carrots, peas. The tax department tells the person that is a taxable benefit, saying that normally people buy potatoes and carrots at the grocery store with after tax money and this person is getting the vegetables without having to pay for them.

The rationale was very questionable. The rationale was that this was an employer-employee relationship. This is not an employer and employee relationship. That is a questionable determination. In the fall, 70 or 80 kids will show up in these communities to compete to be on these teams. What are they trying to do? They are trying to enhance their skills as hockey players. It is like a school for hockey players.

Parents entrust their kids to those teams, to put them in good homes, to attend school and to develop their hockey skills. For a lot of parents, the end game of going to tier two hockey is to obtain an athletic scholarship to the United States.

Every year in Saskatchewan two or three players on a team receive a full four-year scholarship to major American universities to pursue their hockey careers and also to receive an education. This ruling quite seriously casts some doubt over their continued eligibility on this matter.

However, 80 players show up in the fall and they compete to get on these teams. Twenty to twenty-four players make the team. The other ones take the bus ride home. There is no payment to these players. There is no employer-employee relationship. The parents basically entrust their kids to the guardianship of these junior hockey teams. They attend high school or if they are over the age of 18, they attend a community college. They are expected to behave themselves and conduct themselves in a responsible manner in those communities.

That was the criteria for imposing this case. I know a junior team is taking on the Canada Revenue Agency and fighting it in court on such an issue. This is not the same as the softwood lumber dispute where millions of dollars are spent fighting something big for many years, hoping to get somewhere. Junior hockey teams do not have that kind of money. These teams are selling raffle tickets to pay the room and board for players. They do not have the money to spend on lawyers to go to court to fight our tax department.

This is some of the background of the bill. It is more than just the Saskatchewan tier two junior hockey league. This year the Prince Albert Mintos won the AAA midget Canadian hockey championship. It is the third time in the last fives that Saskatchewan has won the premier Canadian championship for the best midget hockey players in the country. Tisdale, a town of 3,700 people, won it in 2002. Since 1978, Saskatchewan has won the AAA midget championship something like 35% of the time. This is from a province with less than a million people.

There is definitely a culture of hockey history in Saskatchewan. We should be encouraging this part of our heritage. Saskatchewan is the home of Gordie Howe and Johnny Bower. A whole list of players have come through the Saskatchewan junior hockey league. We should encourage our young people to be involved in this type of program. Our tax department should not be there with assessments that almost have the effect, in some cases, of virtually putting these teams out of existence.

This is a major cultural event in the community. I come from Nipawin, Saskatchewan, which has a population of 5,000 people. When winter sets in, it is long. Hockey brings the community together.

If I go down to that hockey rink, professional people, business people, retired people, first nations people, people from all income perspectives in that community all come together. They are united in that community for one thing, and that is to cheer on their team and hope that it will advance through the hockey process. This happens in 11 communities throughout Saskatchewan. It has been going on for well over 60 years. It has been going on as long as Gordie Howe laced up his first set of skates in Saskatchewan.

Dave King is a product of that league. He has received the Order of Canada. He coached our Canadian team at the Olympics many times. He has coached in the NHL. I talked with Dave King and he could not believe the tax department would do something like this. He thought it was outrageous.

At that time, five NHL coaches had cut their teeth in the Saskatchewan junior hockey league. I believe four players on the team won the Olympic gold medal. They came from that league. They had developed their skills and worked their way through that league. Our policies should encourage the sport of hockey.

Too many Canadians sit at home watching TV, especially our young people. Young Canadians have a problem with obesity and diabetes and all kinds of problems. Why in the world does the government not encourage our young people to be active and to get involved in different activities, whether it is hockey, gymnastics or any other sport? The whole point of the amendment is to give these teams a bit of a break and some leeway.

There are 130 tier two junior hockey teams across the country. It is not just something for Saskatchewan. It would benefit other teams as well. Ontario has a whole pile of Junior B teams, maybe more of them than tier two teams. This would benefit them. The AAA midget teams would benefit as well. I am not an expert on other sports programs throughout the country, but if the tax department wanted to take its policy approach and extend it to gymnastic clubs, swim clubs, or junior football clubs, which have players under 21 years old, it would have a negative effect.

I want to also bring home a point with respect to the $300 amount. Some people would say that the income tax on $300 would not be a lot, but that is not the issue. The issue is the Canada pension assessment, which is very high when one is either at the beginning or the end of the income scale. It is basically 10%. The assessment for EI benefits, especially under the Liberal administration, was more a tax grab than an insurance premium. If we do the math involving a team with 25 players at $300 a player, it adds up. If we could pass the amendment, it would eliminate this hardship. I estimate that we are talking $5,000 or $6,000 a year.

A large group of volunteers selling tickets to raise funds for a community project would probably make $5,000 at the end of the day. What in the world would be the sense of selling raffle tickets so $5,000 could be paid to the Canada Revenue Agency? It does not make any sense. I have real doubts the amount collected, whether under EI or Canada pension, would ever amount to any tangible benefit to the player anyway. It is not enough to qualify for anything.

Some of my Liberal colleagues have mentioned disability benefits for players who might get injured. This is not enough to get them into any real meaningful disability benefit. Those members do not understand how our junior hockey leagues operate. They have disability insurance plans in place so if a player is injured, those plans provide them with much better benefits than they could ever get under the Canada pension plan. This shows a profound ignorance on the part of some members to even raise this issue. This argument could be used for school basketball teams or football teams as well. There are no Canada pension benefits for them.

A lot of my Liberal friends like to talk about our culture. I cannot think of anything that is more a part of our culture than hockey. We can go to just about any country and ask people, especially Europeans, what really sticks out about Canadian culture. They will tell us it is our hockey. Canada is the hockey centre of the world. It is our culture and it is very much a part of rural Canada.

This thing was an anti-rural Canada decision too. Our rural communities were the ones that were really hit by this. Larger cities like Toronto do not have a room and board issue. The kids live within close distance of the rinks. Nipawin, Saskatchewan is three hours away from Saskatoon and an hour and a half from Prince Albert. It is a long way away from other communities. Players travel long distances and are put in good homes.

I encourage everyone in the House of Commons to stand up for our culture, for our hockey and rural way of doing things. I urge them to tell people that the government is here to help them, not always to get in their way and make life difficult for them.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to heartily commend my colleague for bringing forth this bill. I have a couple of questions, but before I do I would like to make a brief comment.

I have a great familiarity with the topic the hon. member just mentioned. I have been involved in the hockey business for many years. I ran international hockey tours and actually operated the largest international hockey tour in North America for many years with many tier two teams and international teams. I saw the enormous sacrifice that parents and communities made on behalf of these young people who were determined to improve their lot in life.

It is not like the old days when we could throw a set of $50 skates and $20 shin pads on and go out for a little game of shinny. Today hockey sticks cost $400 and a good pair of skates can cost up to $2,000 at a competitive level. These are enormous costs that parents are undertaking.

Some organizations occasionally supplement that, but in general it is all done with volunteer dollars. Most of this is not done in major corporate Canada where the dollars just flow from sponsorships. These are small communities that depend on moms and pops, and grocery stores or convenience stores all kicking in, volunteering, selling tickets, and organizing car washes.

These communities reach out to these kids. These kids could be almost a nation away. They could be from the next county, but they have ideas and get involved with a different school than they grew up in. They create new relationships. This builds communities, countries and societies. This is the Canadian way. It is so true.

I have seen an enormous level of commitment and growth. I have tier two teams in my area of Wellington and Trenton. I have seen the pride when these kids come forward, not only in the craft of hockey but I have seen them develop as human beings and grow as adults. There is a tremendous sense of accomplishment when that happens.

Have you been able to experience such a thing in the far reaches of Saskatchewan? I do not think Ontarians have the only claim to this pride in the ownership of hockey. You have intimated that you have had a number of successful teams, but is success just in the winning of the game or is it also the development of character? I have seen a lot of that. Have you?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I would remind the hon. member for Prince Edward—Hastings that remarks are better addressed through the Chair. I recognize the hon. member for Prince Albert.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I was going to reprimand him for that, Mr. Speaker, but I do not have to do that. That is a very good question.

The president of the Saskatchewan Junior Hockey League, Mr. Ryan, is a graduate of Notre Dame College and we still have a team from Père Murray's Notre Dame Hounds. It has a tremendous legacy.

That school instills a philosophy in people that there is no obstacle in life that one cannot overcome, that people do not walk away from something and become a victim. People overcome those barriers and become self-reliant, hard-working individuals, not a burden on society. The college has a tremendous legacy through sports and other programs of turning people who have had difficulties in life into real success stories.

I told Mr. Ryan that the Liberal government liked to take money from people and then hand it out in grants and make teams dependent on it. What the Liberals would like us to do is to come on bended knee to Ottawa and ask the government for some sort of grant to pay for or help support the team.

The teams do not want that. They want their independence. They want the Gordie Howe way of doing things, the Père Murray way of doing things, the old fashioned way of hard work, self-reliance, independence, and not being dependent on governments and so on. That is instilled in the players in that league. There is a tremendous legacy of players who have come through that system.

I think of two members in this House of Commons, I believe the goalie on the Liberal side went to Cornell on a hockey scholarship and our Minister of Finance went to Princeton University. However, there are tons of players from Saskatchewan who have become really successful people in this great country--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Verchères—Les Patriotes.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the members will not find it strange if during my speech this evening on the occasion of a debate on a tax measure, Bill C-294, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, I put my calculator aside, smile broadly, and pay homage to all these young people who, at the crack of dawn or late at night, whether Monday or Saturday, strive for excellence.

The purpose of this bill is to support these elite athletes who, in order to outdo themselves, reach new heights, and go as far as their talent will take them, often have to leave their parents and the associated financial advantages—particularly housing expenses—in order to live elsewhere among other young people with whom they can flourish in their sport.

This bill aims as well to recognize that the associations that support them financially do not pay them a salary but allow them to sponge up a bit of the sweat that might appear at the same time as the major financial burdens of practising an elite sport.

Let us just look, very coolly, at all the expenses associated with an elite sport. I am going to list a few just to help us imagine the total cost: housing, food, food supplements, sports equipment and clothing, transportation, educational costs, medical expenses, registering for competitions, training, membership in an athletic club and travel to competitions. It is not unusual to see athletes who, in addition to practising their sport and getting an education, have to work in order to support their lives as high-performance athletes.

I have been speaking for a few minutes already about the modest contribution that this bill would make to some athletes without having formally introduced it. The purpose of Bill C-294 is to amend the Income Tax Act to provide additional support for athletes by excluding from their taxable income allowances from non-profit groups or associations to a maximum of $350 for each month of the year if, first, the taxpayer is registered during the year with the organization as a member of the sports team or as a participant in the sports or recreation program, and second, if membership in the team or participation in the program is restricted to persons under 21 years of age.

That being said, this bill raises the issue of amateur sport funding and the situation of Quebec and Canadian athletes. I would like to point out that there is only one program offering direct financial support to athletes, the Athlete Assistance Program (AAP). The funding allocated to that program makes up only 13% of total sport funding in Canada. That is not right, considering that expectations are very high for the 2010 Olympic Games in Vancouver, and that time and resources have to be invested before a talented young person can measure up against the best in the world, to the point that his performance is better than all others.

For the benefit of all, the AAP is the source of financial assistance paid directly to Canadian amateur athletes who are already among the top 16 in the world, or who have the potential to reach that level. So this program is far from the panacea for the financial needs of athletes, who have glaring needs long before they manage to rank 16th in the world in their discipline.

An athlete is a human being who has dreams and ambitions, but also fears and obligations of all kinds. It is therefore our collective duty to encourage athletes, to show how proud we are of them throughout the long, hard climb to excellence, and not only when they enhance our visibility as they climb to the highest step of the podium.

Of course, this tax credit may seem modest, but it is clearly a step forward in providing direct assistance to athletes who, as I was just saying, often have to work to earn their living, particularly up and coming athletes, who receive very little support, either in terms of money or of visibility or credibility.

Fortunately, there are certain organizations which have long believed in these young people. For if we did not already have teams, or organizations which generously provide money to meet some of the basic needs of these athletes, the legislative measure we are debating this evening would be of no use at all.

So I take this opportunity to congratulate and thank those entities, and above all the men and women who embody them and are their driving force, who create environments conducive to the development of skills and the establishment of positive role models for youth, and who make it possible for these sports talents to emerge.

Their invaluable contribution to creating a better society deserves to be recognized and inspires and motivates all of us to always act in our communities' best interests.

Although the Bloc Québécois supports this bill, some amendments are needed to maximize the bill's benefits and minimize its irritants.

First of all, the Income Tax Act, which this bill amends, gives no definition of “athlete”. It would be helpful to define this term, because the various sports bodies at the provincial, federal and international levels do not always have the same criteria. For Sports Québec, athletes qualify for financial assistance if they are carded by Sport Canada, if they are not carded by Sport Canada but belong to a Canadian team that plays an unsupported Olympic sport, or if they are identified by the Quebec sports federations as being at the elite or developmental level and are considered to be among the most promising and to be making steady progress. What definition will be used to determine who can receive the credit? A clear, precise answer to this simple question is critical to full implementation of this measure and would make it easier for the sports communities in Quebec and Canada to understand the scope of the measure.

In addition, it seems to us that, because of the age restriction, many athletes are excluded who would need the assistance, particularly those registered with university sport teams. We believe that these young people should continue to enjoy the benefits of this tax credit because, despite their youth, the time they can spend on a paying job is probably shorter due to the greater demands of university.

We intend to persuade the committee to which this bill will be referred to assess and support these amendments, which we find highly desirable, in order to make this new tax credit more relevant and effective.

I would be remiss if I concluded this speech without reiterating how much I admire elite athletes in Quebec and Canada for the work and performances they manage to achieve under sometimes less than ideal circumstances. With their intensive training sessions that require leaving any worries in the locker room and focusing on the essential performance, and in team sports, taking on that unfailing sense of solidarity necessary to reach common goals, these young people are models of healthy living which offers a refreshing contrast from sedentary living and all sorts of related illnesses historically rare in young people. Whenever you perform in stadiums, arenas and pools, with dozens or even hundreds of pairs of eyes riveted on you, and show everyone that your goals are within reach, you are bearers of hope. Whenever you demonstrate that a well-controlled sports performance is a source of beauty, excitement and wonder, you spread great happiness all around. Whenever you show that elite sport can be an integral part of an active, modern life, you are a source of inspiration for the generations that follow you.

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe this bill's intentions are in the right place. As the sports critic for my party, I believe that we should do much more to help our young athletes succeed, but simply put, I do not understand what, if anything, this bill would do.

I understand that the idea behind it is to make allowances paid to young athletes by not for profit organizations tax free up to a sum of $350 per month, but these are athletes that do not make tremendous amounts of money in the first place. In fact, a typical junior A hockey player, of which I was one, will probably only receive $300 a month from his or her team. During an eight month season, that amounts to only $2,400.

The basic personal exemption rate in Canada is $8,639 per year. That is the amount of money one can earn in a year without having to pay any income tax. When all is said and done and the tax season rolls around, I would be very surprised to see that any of these athletes would have earned enough money from their small allowances to pay any taxes at all. Therefore, I ask what the benefit is here. I do not see one. I believe it is just smoke and mirrors.

Admittedly, the Conservative government has just lowered the basic personal exemption and forced Canadians to pay more taxes, but even with the Tory tax hike, I do not think young Canadian athletes would have extra money from this allowance that would exceed $9,000 a year. It is just not going to add up. If the hon. member is actually concerned about these athletes, he should ask his colleague, the Minister of Finance, not to lower the basic personal exemption by $200 this year.

The bill will also make allowances paid to people on behalf of the hockey player tax free up to $350. This also has a nice ring to it, but again it is very disingenuous and is very much smoke and mirrors.

Take, for instance, Canadians who open up their homes and hearts to billet young athletes who must move away from home to compete. These kind Canadians are the reason that so many young athletes get to follow their dreams. Surely they deserve a break on their taxes, but in fact, they already get one. The Canada Revenue Agency treats the monthly allowance that billeters receive from clubs as non-taxable. It is a good thing too because as a young athlete myself, I probably ate twice as much as the billeters received for an allowance, but admittedly, that may not always be the case.

The Canada Revenue Agency might consider the allowance as taxable income if the family hosts multiple athletes in a businesslike manner with the intent of making money from the venture, but the vast majority of times these allowances are not taxed. Once again I have to wonder what this bill is trying to achieve. Maybe it is just trying to deceive Canadian taxpayers. The bill is attempting to make an allowance that generally is not taxed not taxable. I am all for supporting Canadian athletes but there must be dozens of more tangible and practical ways to do this.

I have some other questions about this bill. What does the hon. member consider to be reasonable expenses? Does he think that the Canada Revenue Agency will share his view on these reasonable expenses? If, for example, an athlete plays hockey for six months of the year, will he get to claim $2,100 or will he get to claim the entire year at $4,800? Why is this aimed only at athletes? Just as with the government's lacklustre budget, there is no consideration here for artists, musicians, writers, performers, or actors.

I feel that the hon. member is trying to move in the right direction and we do need to support our young athletes much more. I am, however, at a great loss as to how this bill would actually help them at all.

This bill is just more smoke and mirrors where athletes, coaches and parents deserve much more. This bill falls far short of the mark. There is so much more the government could do, that this Parliament should do, directly for our young athletes, coaches and parents. I am sorry, but this bill falls far short of the mark.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to join in the debate. Unlike the previous speaker, I will not be nearly as critical about the bill. I have a criticism obviously, because I cannot get on my feet without doing that. It is part of my job as a member of the loyal opposition. My criticism will be on the macro picture and not on the specifics.

I am actually substituting for the NDP critic for amateur sport, the hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. He had an urgent matter to tend to in his riding and asked me to speak in his stead. I will do the best I can, but it will not be as good as he would have done, obviously.

In general, the NDP is very supportive of this bill. It goes in the right direction. I really do not believe there is any kind of hidden agenda or that it tries to pull a fast one, although I respect the hon. member's right to express that point of view. If I have a criticism, and I will touch on it at the end, it is that tax cuts are the answer to everything as far as the Conservatives are concerned. I hear some of them cheering. The reality is that is not the case and I hope to at least leave that thought on the table. I realize it is heresy for the Conservatives to even hear somebody say that tax cuts are not the answer to everything, but nonetheless it is coming. Get ready. They should take praise while they can because it is coming.

There is the whole notion of ensuring that the good people who billet our young athletes, if they are not getting a benefit from it, at the very least ought not be penalized. I would agree with those who suggest that the amount of $350 a month is not an awful lot of money for a teenager at this level of activity and commitment.

I like that the bill focused on this area because the people who offer to billet athletes in their homes are not just offering a cold bed for room and board. When they are in those homes, in the overwhelming majority of cases they are getting so much more. People see themselves as surrogate parents, so to speak. Everything that happens to the young people in their homes matters to them. They take care of them. Their hearts go out to them and they pour everything they have into the job as if those athletes were their own children.

In many cases people do it because they hope, and in an overwhelming number of cases it is the truth, that somewhere else another family at another time will provide the same opportunity for their kids. They provide support to the young person in their home in the way they would want their own children supported in someone else's home. Certainly encouraging billeting and providing some relief is a good thing.

Further, the fact that there is at least some incentive may make it easier for more families to get involved. The intent is to thank those who are already doing it, to offer some assistance and to encourage them to stay involved but also to offer some incentive for other parents to become involved. The intent is to recognize that those people care and that money is tight, but the federal government and Parliament are doing what they can to ensure there is not any kind of penalty involved. That may be just enough. That may be the tipping point that allows yet one more family to open up its home and open up its heart. That can only be a good thing.

While I am on a roll with positives, I was very impressed that the hon. member took the time with this very small bill, and it is not exactly asking to change the world, to make sure that the dollars we are providing to these young people and parents are inflation protected. We should be doing this more often. It ensures that we do not have to go through the usual cycle where we do nothing for years and years and the dollar amounts remain those that are prescribed in the law. It takes getting the attention and the time of Parliament to change those amounts and we all know how difficult it is to get a bill through the House. It is not an easy process.

Assuming this bill carries and is implemented, the improvements it makes guarantee that the amount that people receive will not be eaten up by inflation. Otherwise, it could be another 10 years before the matter finally came back to the House. It says a lot about the mover of the bill that he thought ahead to ensure that regardless of what happens to the broader economy vis-à-vis inflation, the intent of the bill would still be respected and achieved regardless of whether or not we hit a period of inflation.

We have all been lucky enough to enjoy a sustained period of very low inflation, but history tells us it is not going to be that way forever. While this may seem rather innocuous now, it could prove to be an important part in providing support on an ongoing basis, so that in later years it does not become irrelevant. It is not that this is a huge amount of money, but it is enough to help.

I sincerely believe that is the intent of the mover. I know the history of this bill. Previous members have attempted to get this initiative through. I think it originated with another member in Saskatchewan, a province I am close to. My dad is from Saskatchewan, so I consider Saskatchewan to be important in my heart, almost as important as my home province of Ontario.

It says a lot about the determination of the Conservatives in Saskatchewan who wanted to do something. It was the Saskatchewan example that brought this issue to a head, in that the auditors said that there was all kinds of money that should have been taxed. That is what led us to this point.

Kudos to the mover. The bill is a good thing. It is not everything but rarely are private members' bills everything. I compliment the member.

I have to take a moment to put on the record that the tax cut method is a nice way and there are times when it is exactly the prescription that is needed, no question, but it is not the answer for everything. What the bill will not do is speak to other important elements which affect young people's lives that are not dealt with by tax cuts.

One example is the state of our public health care system. If anybody needs that system, it is certainly young people involved in vigorous sports. We want to know that no matter where they are in our country, if they need immediate medical help, it is there.

There is schooling as well. For most of those young people their career is not necessarily going to be sports. For many it will be and I wish them well, but it will not be for all. We also need to think about post-secondary education and what will be the future careers for those who do not pursue sports. We cannot educate a young person in Canada all the way through the system up to the end of post-secondary schooling through tax cuts. It is not enough. There has to be investment.

I do not in any way mean to detract from the bill or the mover of the bill, but it is important to understand that there need to be other investments. It is fine to make great speeches about our young people, but it does not begin and end with a tax cut. The majority of things that will affect a young person's life vis-à-vis the federal government are more about investing in the young person, and not just tax cuts.

We must remember that someone has to have a taxable income before a tax cut will do anything. There are bigger priorities. It takes more than tax cuts to solve some problems.

In the case of this bill, our critic, our caucus and I believe that this is an appropriate way to go. We think it is a good thing. It is not going to solve all the problems but it is a good step in the right direction in an area of our family lives and our community which is important to Canadians.

We are proud of the achievements of our young people in international sports when they compete on behalf of Canada. We only have champions when we support them and are with them all the way through.

This is a good bill and we are happy to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise again to speak to this legislation. I was thinking the other day about how many people have actually put work into this since the issue first got started. The first time I heard about this legislation, I was not even a member of Parliament. I now have been elected twice, although I know that in this current era we tend to have elections more frequently.

The first time I heard about this I was actually watching Hockey Night in Canada. I saw one of Canada's more well-known citizens--some would say distinguished and some would disagree with that--Mr. Don Cherry, discussing the matter and going on about how ridiculous the ruling by the government was and how it was harassing hockey players in Saskatchewan. At that time, there was a very excellent member of Parliament for Souris—Moose Mountain, Roy Bailey. He began to get this going because he had the Weyburn Red Wings and the Estevan Bruins in his riding, two hockey teams that were affected by this.

He worked on it for a couple of years and tried to work the back and forth between finance and national revenue to get the problem solved without having to go through legislation. In the previous Parliament, in 2004, there were 12 or 13 Conservatives elected from Saskatchewan. The member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands moved an almost identical piece of legislation to try to solve this issue. At that time, it passed in the House. I must thank to the members of the NDP, the Bloc Québécois and the odd Liberal who--

[An hon. member]

They're all odd.

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

I cannot argue with the hon. member's remark there, but having said that, I cast no aspersions on any member in particular.

The legislation actually did pass the House and was proceeding through the Senate toward full assent, but the election interfered, so I thank Mr. Bailey, who is no longer in the House, the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands who got it going, the multi-party support we had, and again, of course, the member for Prince Albert who again is bringing this up.

It takes a lot of effort to get a very small change. For the life of me I have still not quite figured out why the gnomes in the catacombs of the finance department are still so adamantly opposed to this and why they argued to the previous government so strongly against this measure and, apparently from what my colleague from the Liberal Party says, still have somewhat of an influence over there. I am thankful to say that I think I can say without contradiction it will have the unanimous support of the governing party in the House and hopefully the Bloc, the NDP and some Liberals will come to see the light.

One thing that people need to understand is that the franchises, the organizations involved, are not particularly rich. They are not huge. They are in amateur sport. They are not for profit. That is particularly what the bill is stating.

I would like to read a portion of an article from one of my community papers, the Humboldt Journal, about a situation facing the Humboldt Broncos, an SJHL or Saskatchewan Junior Hockey League team in my riding, so that people can get a bit of a grasp of how it is. Small-town sports and volunteer sports are always on a bit of an edge because there is never enough money. In rural Saskatchewan, where prices are not that good for agriculture and people do not always have tons of money to spend even though they work hard and love their hockey, it gets a little hard.

If I may, I will read a few paragraphs for the House so the members can get an idea of what the situation is. The title of the article is “Broncos skating on financial thin ice”. It quotes Len Hergott, president of the Humboldt Broncos:

“I don't think we're in a state of panic,” he said. At least not yet. “On the other hand if we can't get our season ticket base up and some of our advertising revenue up, it could turn into a panic situation”.

The yearly expenses for the team vary on how far they go in the playoffs. On average, Hergott noted, it's between $340,000 and $400,000.

That is all we are talking about, an organization that has $340,000 to $400,000 a year in expenses. It is not that large. The article continued:

They've cut and trimmed the expenses to the point where they really can't cut any more, he noted. Expenses just seem to keep going up--bus rates are up and the cost of equipment, too, he said. Plus, “We still have to have a product on the ice”, he noted. “It takes a certain amount of money to do that”.

Even in some of the team's stronger years, they didn't spend a lot of money on building their team through trades, etc., because they, like other teams in the Saskatchewan Junior Hockey League, just cannot afford it.

They just cannot afford it. These volunteer, culture building, core of Canadian culture hockey league teams cannot afford it. Their budget is $340,000 to $400,000 a year. Depending on the team, it varies as to how much financial impact this has. Looking at my previous speech in Hansard, I note that I said between $10,000 and $15,000. That was based on a number, and maybe we are looking at a slight bit of inflation there, when I had spoken with members of the Broncos, who had a fairly good idea of what it would cost.

That $10,000 to $15,000 a year in financial relief is what we are going to be providing to a team that has a budget of $340,000 to $350,000 and is struggling. That is $10,000 to $15,000 less that the team would have to fundraise through bake sales, lotteries and various volunteer auctions of hockey league team players.

These organizations are the very heart of their communities. I remember that when I was speaking at the Remembrance Day ceremony on November 11 in Humboldt, Bronco hockey players were all there, representing the best of their team, representing the best to the broader part of the community. They were dressed sharp and they were distinguished, absolutely representing the values of character, hard work and sacrifice, values that are useful in building character for later on in life.

The member for Prince Albert has also noted something that could be a real problem in tax rulings that Canada Revenue has made over the years, and that is that the hockey players involved, and of course this will apply to other sports as rulings get extrapolated, are ruled to be employees. This can cause an extreme problem in applying for hockey scholarships to the United States, because if a person is deemed to be an employee of a sports team, he or she is deemed to be a professional athlete and as such is ineligible for a NCAA hockey scholarship. It is mostly to the United States that these players tend to go on hockey scholarships. Maybe Canadian universities should provide a few more hockey scholarships, but most players go to the United States.

In their prudence, the NCAA has understood to this point that it is not a real employer-employee relationship, but the possibility does exist to shut down the entirety of the college scholarship program if someone wanted to take a very technical, bureaucratic perspective. It is a very real concern.

Before my time expires, I want to take issue with a few of the criticisms of the bill by the member from West Vancouver and his rationalizations for opposing it. He said that it would not be a lot of money so it would not be taxable. A lot of these hockey players work in the summer. They work very hard. In the oil patch they make $8,000, $10,000 or $12,000. That $2,400 is then added on top of that $8,000, $10,000, $12,000 or $14,000. It then becomes fully taxable. He also failed to take note of the CPP and the EI. That starts at the beginning. I remember very clearly that when I was in university and did not make enough to pay income tax for many years I still got dinged with those payroll taxes at the beginning.

This is something that should be noted. It is not a rationalization. It is an attempt to solve a problem. It is a private member's bill that has received all party support in the House and affects, in just junior hockey, 130 different teams across Canada.

Instead of whining about other issues, issues not related to the bill, perhaps the member should concentrate on the individual circumstances of the bill and try to support it. Maybe the member could suggest some amendments. I know that the hon. member for Prince Albert noted there would be amendments moved. I understood that he meant at committee. That will take care of some of the technical problems.

For the people watching this on TV, let me say that this is about Canada and this is about hockey. I would seek the support of all members for this legislation. It is important. It is Canadian. It is pro-hockey. What more should we do but support hockey?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I invite more debate from the House.

Is the House ready for the question?