Mr. Speaker, I will focus my comments on the amendment that has been proposed by our friend from the Bloc.
First of all, it was interesting to me that it was not discussed at all. We sit on the finance committee where we reviewed this bill recently. To be frank, based on the discussion at that committee, we were able to get what I would say was all party support for the changes to the tax system where it reflects an employee-employer relationship for not for profit or small junior clubs.
The bill applies to a lot of things. I want to say to the member opposite that I do not mind his concept in terms of providing some sort of assistance to athletes at the college and university level. In fact I have two daughters who are very competitive volleyball players who may some day benefit from being university or college volleyball players, and some assistance might be of interest, but let us not confuse that with what is proposed in the private member's bill that is in front of us today.
It is a $300 opportunity, and that was even adjusted at committee, to help a club and young people afford to be junior hockey players in this country. That is not for major junior. It is junior A, junior B and midget players who are boarding somewhere, trying to progress as athletes. This is a simple proposal to help them, through the tax system, to afford to be billeted somewhere else.
I am absolutely standing in favour of what the private member's bill is for. I am standing today opposed to what the amendment is, because it does not actually fit.
I would suggest to the member opposite that if he or his party is interested in supporting amateur athletes at the university and college level, who are often, as was previously pointed out, over 21 when they are there, that that is a separate issue that should be brought in front of the House for a proper debat, sent to committee to be properly debated and discussed, and brought back here.
I would suggest to the members of the House that if the amendment still stands, if it has not been withdrawn, that we reject the amendment, and that we move to vote in support of this private member's bill so that we can have this in law in time for the next hockey season.
I am not sure how well thought out the amendment was, and based on some brief discussions I have heard by the mover of the main motion, there is some ambiguity in what it covers, such as the age and how it affects the Income Tax Act, and that we should, at the very least, look at it separately.
I would ask that the House not support the amendment and then move to the debate on the main motion and support that main motion at that time.