Human Resources Committee on May 17th, 2007

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Can you just rule them—

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

So you're deemed to have been overruled on every one of them, then?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Just on the ones relating to the aboriginals, the first three.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

All right. There are no other amendments to that, so if there's no more discussion, I will call the question on amendment L-3.

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Now we'll need to vote on clause 2 as amended.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Chair, can we have recorded votes, please?

(Clause 2 as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4)

(On clause 3—Purpose)

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We've got amendment L-4.

Once again, I would point out that for the same reasons as I mentioned for clause 2, I had ruled this out of order, and so we won't go back into all the minutia we dealt with before.

Ms. Dhalla has amendment L-4 before us. Ms. Dhalla, if you'd like to quickly ready your motion, then we will have some discussion and get to a vote.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

I move to amend clause 3 in Bill C-303 by replacing line 25 on page 2 with the following:

program of a province, territory or aboriginal peoples' organization.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Do we have any discussion on that at all?

Hearing none, I will ask the question on L-4.

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Shall clause 3 carry as amended?

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

A recorded vote, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay.

(Clause 3 as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4)

(On clause 4—Exemption)

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

There are no amendments before us.

Mr. Chong.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to voice my opposition to this particular clause as well. There are a lot of intellectual inconsistencies here.

For members of the Bloc, they don't believe the federal government should utilize the spending power to effect priorities in provincial areas of jurisdiction, but that's exactly what this bill does. Even including clause 4, they seem to believe it's acceptable for intrusion into provincial jurisdiction utilizing the spending power for nine provinces, if not ten, but somehow they're supporting this bill. I think that's inconsistent.

The second problem with this clause is that it makes the members of Parliament from Quebec essentially voiceless when it comes to a say in how things are being run in this country. It effectively exempts members from that province in the federal Parliament from effecting the supposed priorities in this bill in their very own province.

For members from the rest of the country, I don't know how you could argue that this constitutes a national program when the eight million or nine million Canadians resident in the province of Quebec are not being treated the same as Canadians living in other provinces. I don't see how Liberal MPs can support something like this, which treats Canadians from one part of the country differently from Canadians living in other parts of the country. That's intellectually inconsistent.

I think this clause should be opposed. I think it's a fundamental flaw in this bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Chong.

Mr. Lessard, did you want to say something, or were you just wanting people to turn off their BlackBerrys?

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

I believe the message regarding people's BlackBerries has come through loud and clear. That's good.

Mr. Chairman, I think it makes a lot of sense to give Quebec the chance of opting out of the program. Quebec has been running its own program for the past 10 years, without any financial assistance whatsoever from the federal government.

The program that the federal government is preparing to introduce—provided of course the Conservative government consents to it, which we surely hope it does — will force Quebec to pick up some of the costs.

I would remind our colleague Mr. Chong that the federal government does not contribute one red cent to Quebec's program and that 25% of the costs of the proposed program which we are supporting will be paid by Quebec, even though it will be of no benefit to Quebec. Therefore, it makes a lot of sense that we be allowed to have our say in this matter.

I think he should be delighted, as should the rest of Canada, that Quebec is willing to contribute to this program in order to improve the daycare and early childhood education system in Canada. I think this magnanimous gesture on our part deserves to be recognized.

I think the NDP party deserves credit for tabling this bill, as does the Liberal Party for supporting it. I'm most distressed by the Conservatives who are arguing against the proposed legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, and we want to thank Quebec for their generosity on this one.

Mr. Lake, do you have some comments?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I want to speak to the same inconsistency as my colleague spoke against. As was raised before about a previous bill on EI, the Bloc previously voted in the House against a motion by a Liberal member, Andy Scott, having to do with autism. It was something he had put a lot of work into, and it was designed specifically to obtain support from all provinces.

Their only reason for voting against it was that it involved a national strategy and included the words “national strategy”. This motion would have helped families of kids with autism across the country—well, it will, because the other three parties actually voted for it.

I am flabbergasted by the level of inconsistency in their positions, based on what I've seen in this committee. I find it amazing how selective they are in their principles. Their entire reason for being seems to be thrown out the window when it comes to their stand on this bill. It's something I don't understand.

When we're dealing with this type of legislation, it seems to be a core principle that all provinces will be treated the same in this, and that provincial jurisdictions will be respected.

I find it amazing that they would stand against a motion having to do with families dealing with autism, simply because it had the word “national” in it, and then come in here and support this bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Lake.

Ms. Yelich.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

If I recall, Ms. Savoie said this bill wouldn't cost any more money, therefore Quebec wouldn't have any extra funding with which to be so generous.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

We have clause 4 before us. There are no amendments.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

I would like a recorded vote, please.

(Clause 4 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4)

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

As I mentioned before, I was challenged on a number of amendments that had gone beyond the scope. But I want to get it on the record today, because we are in a new day, that we now have before us amendments L-5, L-6, NDP-0.1, L-7, NDP-0.2, L-8, L-9, L-10, and NDP-2, which I am going to rule out of order.

The question is whether you'd like to handle them all right now, in terms of challenging the chair. I would prefer to be rejected once instead of a dozen times, because I don't know if my fragile ego can handle being rejected about a dozen times today. But I would like to get it on the record today, if that is the case.

Mr. Silva.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would of course challenge the chair. Then I was hoping we could also vote for them as a package.