Bradley Trost

[Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, 2006, September 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this debate with quite a bit of interest. I wonder if my hon. friend, the member for Richmond, listened to the remarks from one of his colleagues in the Liberal caucus, the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, about how this would impact his riding and how the Conservative government's agreement with the United States has impacted it.

Does he understand just how many individual jobs are being saved in ridings such as his colleague's from the Liberal Party?

Another question is this. It is not between $4 billion and $5 billion. It is between $4 billion and zero. With this agreement, the Conservative government got the industry $4 billion--

[Justice, June 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, just last fall the previous Liberal government introduced a bill that doubled minimum sentences for gun crimes. That bill was seconded by the member for Wascana. This week the same member and his party voted against a Conservative bill that called for minimum sentences. Canadians are wondering why just six months ago someone could vote for something and now against something.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice explain to the members opposite why minimum sentences are necessary to ensure the safety and security of all Canadians?

[Income Tax Act, June 1st, 2006]

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?

[Income Tax Act, June 1st, 2006]

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--

[Business of Supply, June 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that this issue has been brought before the House. We had a full day of hearings on this issue last year at the industry committee. One thing kept coming back despite all the talk of refining margins, marketing and so forth, and that was that the price of gasoline is predominantly controlled by two major factors: first, the price of crude is internationally set and we really cannot do much about it except maybe explore some more; and second, taxes. The government in its wisdom has cut the GST, cut income tax, et cetera to help consumers.

Does my hon. friend support more tax cuts by the government to help consumers across the board? This year it may be the higher price of fuel and next year it may be the higher cost of something else, so maybe we should just cut taxes in general to help people out. Does he support the government in its approach that tax cuts should be general?

One thing I have heard from Bloc members is their continual cry about carbon dioxide et cetera. They know that the most effective way to cut it is by implementing a carbon tax which would be a tax on gasoline. Does his party support generalized tax cuts as a major priority and does his party support a carbon tax on gasoline?

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with quite a bit of interest to the member's various criticisms of the Conservative child care plan, and I have listened all day, but ultimately I have one question. I realize why the opposition parties are opposed to it, but are they and will they be so committed and so opposed to it that if they ever have a chance to be in government, either individually or as a coalition, they will guarantee to the House that they will repeal the Conservative child care plan in its entirety? Whatever they call it, the family allowance, the support for families plan et cetera, will they stand behind their criticisms of today and guarantee that in the future they will do everything they can to repeal it?

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there were a couple of remarks by the member for Trinity—Spadina that I found particularly interesting.

First, let me explain something for the member since she comes from a very urban riding. The situation is somewhat different in rural Canada. I have some good friends, who I mentioned in my S. O. 31 on Tuesday. Andrew is a farmer and Vicki stays at home with their three children, all of whom are under age six.

To drive from Willowbrook to Yorkton, which would be the nearest centre for child care, would be roughly a 30 mile drive. For this couple to drive, because Andrew also works for a feedlot, they would have to buy an extra car. They would have to spend the extra money on gas, which is over a buck a litre on average most days now. When we begin to add all that up, even if Vicki were to work, it would be very difficult.

Under the program that the member was proposing, this family would receive absolutely nothing, whereas under the current government, they will be receiving support.

Why is the hon. member proposing a plan that would clearly discriminate against people in rural and remote regions, giving them absolutely nothing? Why would she support a plan that would discriminate against rural Canada?

[Budget Day, May 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, today is budget day, and while the economists, the lobbyists, the activists and the journalists will all have their pronouncements, millions of Canadians will each have a very simple test: Am I better off? Is my family better off? Is my family better off with lower taxes on fuel, clothing and furniture? Is my family better off with more police to serve and protect? Is my family better off when the government empowers real child care experts, mom and dad? It is a simple test, but a necessary test.

For us as members of this House, we must remember that this is our test too. Not are we individually better off, but is the country better off for our being here?

Last budget day I mentioned my friends Andrew and Vicki, farmers with three small children in eastern Saskatchewan. This budget will be a success tomorrow if they are better off than they were yesterday. They will be better off because this government has asked and answered one simple question for all Canadians.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, April 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will tell the hon. member that I have never met a tax I particularly liked. I have never met a tax that was particularly fair. If the hon. member is prepared to work with members of other parties, I will do what I can to help push forward an agenda of tax fairness, of tax cuts across the board in all areas, in all ways.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, April 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in the hon. member's preamble he began to discuss the importance of productivity. He noted that it was not elaborated on in the throne speech in quite the way he wanted. Partially that is because this is a focused government that will state what it will do, get its accomplishments and move on rather than making grandiose statements and not actually fulfilling them.

Having been a member of the industry committee in the previous Parliament, I will make note of things we could have done and things that I as the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt will be lobbying for to be put on the public agenda to help increase productivity.

I will note specifically the implementation of smart regulations. While the previous government made remarks, had reports and made some grandiose noise, it never actually got around to accomplishing anything. That is one of the areas where I think this government will be doing, through committees and other elements, not just its five priorities, but it will be moving things forward on productivity.

The hon. member has concerns about sliding back into a recession and having difficulties. I think he would agree with me that one of the great successes of the last couple of decades has been monetary policy. Not just in Canada but across North America, Australia and Europe, we have gone away from a world view of a more Keynesian, loose money type of concept to a much more solid, fiscally responsible monetary policy. Margaret Thatcher, the prime minister of Great Britain in 1979, was probably the politician who most brought it forward. Ludwig Erhard and some of the early German post-war finance ministers also held to that position.

I point out to the hon. member that if the interest rates had not declined and had been at the same rates as they were in the Mulroney era in the following government's era, there would still be a deficit and the government would not have balanced the budget once. In essence, the reason we had this good prosperity is largely due to proper monetary policy, and the previous government's fiscal policy was irrelevant.