Finance Committee on Dec. 5th, 2006

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Mr. Pacetti.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like for us to reconsider that this amendment be now ruled out of order, because we have heard from the official that there is no definite costing and there's no definition that's tangible. All this amendment is doing is clarifying or making it more clear as to who can qualify for an activity. Again, “fitness” does not describe anything, whereas “activity” will—

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Playing in a playground.

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

--more aptly describe what is the intent of this bill, “activity” meaning not only hockey, not only soccer. My daughter does not play hockey. I don't see why my daughter, being in figure skating or in ballet or in gymnastics, cannot qualify for this activity, or some other person taking some other.... So I argue—

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Mr. Pacetti, to review, your amendment says “prescribed activity”, and the bill says “prescribed physical activity”. Your amendment therefore broadens the definition. It's beyond the scope of the bill and is out of order. I've ruled on it already, so I would like us to move on.

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

Tthe finance officials haven't put a costing on it, so I don't understand how we can expand by changing a word, or expanding the scope of the bill. I don't see the link. All we're doing is changing the word “fitness” to “activity”. We're not expanding the scope of the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

That's correct, Mr. Pacetti.

Well, to clarify then, I believe the ruling would be based on the assumption that all activities are not physical but that a subset of those activities may be.

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

May be.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Yes, indeed. Now—

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

Right, and which we do not have a definition—

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

We'll move on. If you have an amendment you'd like to bring, I suggest Liberal-3 is in order. If you'd like to bring that—

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

No, but if I have to, then, Mr. Chairman, I will challenge the chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Well, you have to.

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

Well, I'll have to challenge the chair, then.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Very good.

All in favour of the chair's ruling, so indicate.

(Ruling of the chair sustained.)

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Would you like to move to Liberal-3 now, Mr. Pacetti?

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

Liberal-3?

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Yes. That's the age of 18 years amendment.

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

Well, I'm not sure why we stopped at the age of 16. I thought kids were still active and I think the delicate age is between the ages of 16 and 18. I think we want to keep kids active not just until the age of 18, but I guess forever. The age of 18 is pretty—

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Mr. Wallace has a point of order.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Well, maybe it's the wrong wording, but you ruled him out of order previously because it expanded the scope of the bill. Does adding two more years not extend the scope of the physical activity?

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

It doesn't change the definitions in terms of the activity so designated in the bill—

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Okay, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

—and so is not beyond the scope of the bill itself, although I'd be interested to know, Mr. Lalonde, if there's—you said there is—some pricing that's been done, based on some general estimates, at least, of the impact the 16-to-18-year change Mr. Pacetti proposes would have. If you could give us any indication of that, it would be appreciated.