Finance Committee on Dec. 5th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

We move now to clause 10, to which there is amendment G-1 in your kit.

Mr. Dykstra.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

I don't know if you need me to read the amendment or whether it's there for everyone.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Mr. Dykstra, if you would like to speak to G-1, that would be great.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

We're basically replacing lines 40 to 45 on page 27, line 46 on page 28, lines 36 to 39 on page 32, and line 22 on page 33. These are pretty straightforward amendments, and the explanatory notes are actually fairly detailed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

To assist you, Mr. Dykstra, a persuasive tactic that is often used by committee members here is to describe all these as technical amendments.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

That's exactly what I was about to do, sir. Thank you.

(Amendment agreed to on division) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 10 as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 11)

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Now we have clause 11; that is page 5 of your kit.

Mr. Wallace, please go ahead.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I'll move the technical changes replacing the lines. We begin with family fishing corporations, of which I have none, so I have no conflict. They are technical amendments put forward by the finance department.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you, Mr. Wallace.

(Amendment agreed to on division) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Clause 11 as amended agreed to on division)

(Clauses 12 to 20 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 21)

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Clause 21 has a series of amendments. I believe the bulk of them are consequential to the first one.

Mr. Pacetti, I am going to rule on your amendment. I'll let you move it, and then I'll rule it out of order, Mr. Pacetti.

Do you want to withdraw it, or would you like to move it?

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

I don't believe it's out of order.

Which one are we talking about? Is it L-1?

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Yes.

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

It relates to eligible activity. All we're doing is—

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Mr. Pacetti is moving L-1.

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

I'm moving amendment L-1. I'm moving it in the sense that all I'm doing is changing the word “fitness” to “activity”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Indeed.

Clause 21 of the bill creates two new sections to the Income Tax Act, the first for deductions for public transit, the second for deductions for “the cost of registration or membership of the qualifying child in a program of prescribed physical activity”.

The amendment pertaining to the fitness expense proposes to change this to “activity”. In my opinion, that would enlarge the category of individuals who could benefit from this deduction, and therefore it is beyond the scope of the bill. If you would like me to cite chapter and verse, I could go on. In my opinion, it is beyond the scope of the bill, and I am ruling it out of order.

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

We are allowed to expand deductions; we are not allowed to ask the Crown to spend more money. I believe those are the criteria we've been using up to now. I don't see what the problem is here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

House of Commons Procedure and Practice states at page 654: “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

I'll rule this out of order. I should also mention that since amendments L-2, L-3.1, and L-3.2 are consequential to this amendment that I ruled out of order, they are also inadmissible.

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

I agree that they are all related, because what we're trying to do here is expand the fitness credit to include all activities—

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Right.

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

—because we're not sure it should be prejudicial to just one sector of the Canadian population. I'm not sure we're expanding the scope of the bill, but in fact making it better. I'm not sure why you're ruling it out of order, because all we're trying to do is make it better for Canadians.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Mr. Pacetti, I appreciate the fact that you may think your amendment is trying to make it better—

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

I know it's going to make it better.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

However, as chair I am obligated to rule your proposed amendments as beyond the scope of the bill, and therefore out of order.

Go ahead, Mr. McKay.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I just wanted to ask the officials how they are going to determine and who is going to determine how one qualifies for this fitness expense, and whether they have in fact costed the amount of money that will be required in order to be able to determine what's entitled to a fitness credit and what isn't entitled to a fitness credit. What will be the definition? How will they administer it? How much will it cost?