Human Resources Committee on Nov. 17th, 2009

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

I call the meeting to order.

This is the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, meeting no. 56, and the date is Tuesday, November 17, 2009.

On our agenda, we have Bill C-304, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians.

Do you have anything to add, Mr. Kennedy?

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Merci, madame la présidente.

I have a proposal that we defer, and I believe it is with the consent and agreement of the sponsor of the discussion.

The motion would be, if the committee is not travelling, to defer the clause-by-clause discussion to November 24, and if travelling, to December 1. The reason for this is that currently among various parties, including our own, there are new amendments coming forward that would help strengthen the bill. We would hope for the time to have some discussions on these before bringing them in front of the committee. I understand there are some of those from other parties as well. This would allow the bill to get a fuller consideration.

Some of these amendments come from some of the groups the committee heard from. They only came in yesterday and so weren't able to be fully understood, and not all of them are in the format for amending the bill.

For those reasons, I'd like to move to defer discussion to either of the two dates mentioned, depending on the committee's travel agenda.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

I'd like to hear other members of the committee on this motion.

Mr. Komarnicki.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

First of all, there's the question of whether you're prepared to entertain the motion as being appropriate.

Second, it would seem to me that we had the sponsor of the bill speak with respect to the bill fairly adequately. There was a round of questioning, which the member participated in, and we had a full round of discussions about some of the issues relating to the bill. There were a number of them--there is no doubt about that--that were problematic and of concern. The sponsor of the bill and the seconder, I understand, introduced a number of specific amendments that were circulated amongst the committee. We've heard from various witnesses about what they may have had or not had in mind. We have concluded as a committee, insofar as the calling of witnesses was concerned, that this was sufficient. The sponsor of the bill had a lot of input as to who might or might not be called and testified herself.

That being said, there is no need for further witnesses. If the member wishes to further amend her bill, that's something that could be done during the course of the clause-by-clause. But the amendments that were put forth were substantive and they were extensive. I see no point or merit in delaying the bill for a further date. This member had not only days and weeks but months to hear from various parties and to decide how she may want to amend the bill.

While I would agree that the bill is flawed in many respects, both in wording and in its objects and what it hopes to achieve and how it may hope to achieve it, and is probably a bill that has fundamental problems, I don't think we should be deferring the matter. We should be proceeding with the clause-by-clause today and dealing with the bill as it stands.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Thank you, Mr. Komarnicki.

Monsieur Lessard, s'il vous plaît.

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

Madam Chair, Mr. Komarnicki's remarks surprise me a great deal. He says that, even if the bill raises serious concerns, we have to deal with it immediately.

There are two things to consider. If he really feels that the bill raises serious concerns, he should look at it more carefully, and in the light of the amendments.

It is even more surprising that we have just received fifteen or so amendments. I have a hard time seeing how we are going to be able to give each of these amendments its due consideration in so little time. I am just finding out about them now; I do not know if my colleagues around this table have read them before. Unless we want to ignore the work that has been done by one of the parties, the Liberal party... We have the Bloc amendment, but not the ones from the Liberal party.

In my opinion, it is wise to postpone the clause-by-clause study, Madam Chair. It is even wiser because it will free up time so that we can...

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Order, please.

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

It is even wiser, Madam Chair, because one of the reasons why the committee has been asked to postpone our trip for the study on poverty is that the government wants us to study BillC-56as a priority. I do not think that we can do the clause-by-clause study of this bill today because I doubt that we can consider so many amendments in two hours.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Order, please. This is very difficult. I do not want to annoy anyone, but if you must talk, please keep your voice down.

Excuse me, Mr. Lessard.

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

No apology needed, Madam Chair. I really appreciate the care with which you are handling our work. Madam Chair, I am tempted to start my comments from the beginning.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

No, Mr. Lessard. People have heard you so far.

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

No. Madam Chair, you and my other colleagues have heard me, and I really appreciate that. But the members of the Conservative party have not heard me because they have been carrying on their own conversation at the same time. And they are the ones I was talking to, Madam Chair.

With your permission, Madam Chair, and with all due respect, I would just point out to them again that their view that we should study the bill clause by clause today is not appropriate because 15 amendments to the clauses of the bill have been introduced.

My colleague and I—I think that I can speak for her because she has just received them too—would like time to study them. That would make our work quicker and easier when we come back together because we will have studied each of the amendments.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Merci, M. Lessard.

Mr. Martin, you are next on my list.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

In the interest of the good harmony that exists in this committee in trying to get as much done as we can and accommodate people, and understanding that a significant number of important amendments have come forward with respect to Ms. Davies' bill that she wants to look at in all seriousness, we should give the necessary due consideration to her request for a deferral until a later date. It is a serious piece of public business that we're doing on that front. It isn't something she brought to the table; other parties have brought this to the table, and they have every right to.

I would suggest, in light of some of the other business that is before the committee.... I thought we would have this discussion later in the committee about getting from now to the end of the year. We have some government business that we have to do because it takes precedence. That's Bill C-56, which we start next Thursday. According to the schedule we were looking at until now, we were supposed to travel the following week to western Canada to study poverty. That's now a challenge, because understandably the government wants to see Bill C-56 through committee and back into the House before the break.

My suggestion, for others to consider, is that we do Bill C-56 on Thursday next week and sit as many meetings as we need to in order get it done; that we travel west the first week of December; and that when we come back, in that week before the break we deal with Bill C-304.

I put that on the table for people's consideration.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Thank you, Mr. Martin.

There are two things here, and I would like to ask Mr. Komarnicki a question before I give my colleagues the floor.

There are two parts to this motion. One is to defer, and the other is to defer to a specific date. You spoke in general terms, Mr. Komarnicki. Do you have objections to the deferment, or is it to the deferment to a particular date?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

First of all, I had objections to the deferment, but then I have heard Mr. Lessard say that 15 or more amendments have come in that we hadn't had. I've heard Mr. Martin say that he understands we want to get some government legislation through quickly—specifically Bill C-56—before the year is out. Those are issues of concern.

But if we're able to agree that we would do Bill C-56 starting this Thursday and concluding, as far as I'm concerned, on Tuesday and Thursday of the week following and report it to the House.... I don't know that we would need a third meeting, but if that were necessary, it could be arranged, and so be it. That would cancel the travel for next week and move it to December 1, which seems reasonable. After that, we could deal with this bill more fully at that point, and before we broke for the end of the session. That makes good sense.

With that understanding, I would certainly be prepared to consider a motion like this and perhaps have Mr. Kennedy withdraw his present motion, if he were so inclined. It would still achieve what he wants to achieve, basically.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

I needed to have that clarified, because you didn't address it.

Mr. Kennedy, I'm sorry, you had the floor. Then it will be Mr. Lobb and then Mr. Savage.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank all my colleagues for all their comments.

I am here as a visitor to the committee—as an MP, but on this specific issue. I think it may not be appropriate to have a motion on all the committee business tied to this. I hear the goodwill around the table, and it sounds to me as though there's certainly a way to have different objectives met. I just don't feel qualified, as a non-permanent member of the committee, to make sure I get that correct.

So speaking to Mr. Komarnicki, I'm glad to hear the openness, because while we may have differences, we should obviously put in our best earnest effort to improve a bill—I heard you say you had some concerns—and I think this would enable that to happen.

For the benefit of the committee members, so that they know their time is respected, let me say that the amendments came in large measure from people who participated in our hearings who didn't quite understand some of the deadlines and the necessity of members' being able to look at them in advance. This is to get the best result we can, and whether or not it's one that Mr. Komarnicki or others can support, hopefully at least we'll reflect the committee's best effort.

I'm quite happy to amend the motion I'm putting forward on deferment if it will help the committee arrive at facilitating its business. I'm just not sure I can summarize all the different considerations Mr. Komarnicki has raised today, but I would defer to the chair, perhaps, in that regard, because I think she's trying to put together the different pieces of how the committee can move forward.

I'll leave my comment at that.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Thank you, Mr. Kennedy.

Mr. Lobb.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Thank you, Madame Chair.

I do share Mr. Komarnicki's eagerness to deal with all these items that we're discussing here. What astounds me here is that we have a private member's bill that was first read in the House on November 5. I believe there are now close to 30 amendments to this bill. We heard from the testimony from the presenter of the bill that this was an all-inclusive bill that had been widely researched and studied, and we see here, upon a little bit of consultation from a few groups, over 10 amendments.

I'm astounded that on November 5 it was first read, and there are 17 amendments, what is it, a year later? It's a long time anyway, and we're just dealing with this now. So it's just astounding to me.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Thank you, Mr. Lobb.

Mr. Savage.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm largely in concurrence with what people are saying around the table in terms of this motion and the deferment of it to a more suitable time. I want to remind the committee that we also have a motion to deal with that is very important and very time-sensitive regarding the twentieth anniversary of the unanimous declaration of Parliament, which I think we have to get to today and come to some resolution on. In light of the report that came out today about food banks and the increased necessity of food banks, poverty is a huge issue in this country, particularly among children. As parliamentarians, we all have to address this, and I want to make sure we get to that today.

I'm prepared to deal, as Mr. Komarnicki was suggesting, with Bill C-56 expeditiously. I wasn't keen on the whole way it has been handled. Mr. Komarnicki does his job well as a parliamentary secretary and normally keeps us very much in the loop, but I hadn't heard anything in terms of moving the travel. It would seem to me that it would make a lot more sense to keep that travel, which I assume is largely booked, and use next week to get witnesses lined up for the following week. Then we could be assured that we would pass Bill C-56 through the committee on, say, December 3 or 4.

I'm prepared to have this discussion, but I do want to remind committee members that we have a very important motion on the floor and many people in Canada are interested in the outcome of that.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Raymonde Folco]

Thank you, Mr. Savage.

Let me recapitulate Mr. Komarnicki's suggestion. It is a suggestion.

If I understood correctly—and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Komarnicki—you suggested that this Thursday, November 19, followed by November 24 and 26, which is next Tuesday and next Thursday, we continue and finish Bill C-56 and report it back to the House, which would allow us to go on the trip north in the first week of December, being November 30, December 1, and so on. We would come back and we would then work on Bill C-304 and finish that before December 11, the last day of the session this year.

Is that what you're suggesting, Mr. Komarnicki?