Evidence of meeting #68 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
I have a point of order. The point of order would be that the chair has made a decision that this group accepted and that's not different from the decision now made. I would say this group ought to be precluded from challenging the chair, because it's the same issue. The fact of the matter is that this motion is not any different from the other motion, which this committee has already accepted, saying essentially if you allow one province to pull out, at its option—
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
I think, Mr. Komarnicki, in all fairness, they would have challenged me on the first one if that had been the case, so they're going to challenge me on the first or the second one.
It's not debatable; we're going to have a vote.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
We will discuss it, but Mr. Lessard has challenged the chair, and that's not debatable. We'll go right for a vote, and we'll come back. I still have the list.
The question is whether to sustain the chair in his decision, correct?
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Can there be any persuasive arguments made one way or another on this issue?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
I need some help. Where are the lawyers in here? No, there are too many lawyers in here.
Go ahead.
Bloc
Georges Etoka Committee Clerk, Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food
To uphold the decision.
(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 6; yeas 5)
Conservative
Liberal
Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It works out well for me to speak now because I just voted a few minutes ago. I would like us to discuss the amendment moved by my colleague from the Bloc Québécois. The exemption he is seeking has already been agreed to in other bills. I have in front of me Bill C-303, which was introduced in the first session of the 39th Parliament, in 2006-2007. Clause 4 of that bill says essentially the same thing as amendment BQ-2, clause 3.1, moved by Mr. Lessard. It asks that, recognizing the relationship between the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec, in certain areas, the Government of Quebec have control, having regard to its jurisdiction in relation to payments.
Heaven knows how many discussions we had about the division of powers between the federal government and the provincial governments. We had to debate it a hundred times. I think it is very important for us to preserve a balance that it was very hard for us to achieve and that we maintain a consistent course in terms of respecting provincial powers, in this case the powers of the Government of Quebec.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Thank you, Madame Folco.
I now have on the list Mr. Komarnicki, and then Ms. Leslie and Mr. Savage.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
My colleague Mr. Hiebert raised an interesting point. It certainly crossed my mind that we have a decision here. It was indicated that the essence of this amendment goes contrary to the purpose of the bill and therefore it is not, in a sense, lawful to make. I know the committee can decide to overrule the chair, but it doesn't change the fact that this amendment is contrary to the purpose and the stated essence of the bill.
It's a national housing policy. Look at the absurdity of saying that one province—and if we do it for one province we have to do it for all—can elect on their own to opt out of the national program. It wouldn't have to do another thing. It wouldn't have to build one house, lift one hammer. Yet it would also have the option to get an equal proportionate share of the federal funding for a national housing program that it wouldn't have to follow. Think about the absurdity of that. Then, saying we will proceed notwithstanding that this is contrary to the stated purpose of the bill, that it would otherwise not be allowable but we'll debate it anyway to cause us to debate other parts of the bill.... I would challenge my colleagues to think this through.
The decision that was made by the chair is sound. It makes good sense. To allow any province to opt out makes it a non-national program. If you follow the logic and all provinces have an option to opt out but they are entitled to get their funds proportionately, it doesn't make sense.
I would say that we not proceed with this bill. But if we do, we should at least have someone higher, or at a different level from this committee—the Speaker or the House leaders, or somebody—look at it to say you can proceed on the basis that this has some validity somewhere in the House.
It's contrary to the stated purpose of the bill. I'll leave it at that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Thank you, Mr. Komarnicki.
I have Ms. Leslie, Mr. Savage, and then Mr. Lessard.
Ms. Leslie, the floor is yours.
NDP
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
For the information of the entire committee, it was always our intention to have a clause like this in the original bill. However, we received what we would say was bad or incorrect advice from the legislative counsel's office. We actually withdrew that specific provision on the advice that we didn't need it. Now we're confronted with the fact that we do need it. So that everybody is aware, it was always the intention to have this provision or a similar provision in the bill, just as Madame Folco raised with Bill C-303 for a national child care strategy.
Further, we do see this kind of asymmetrical or flexible federalism in other bills, in other pieces of law. In fact it's interesting to think of what Mr. Komarnicki proposes, that one province may not actually have to build a single house, when Quebec leads the way when it comes to affordable housing in this country. We should aspire to build as many homes and as much affordable housing and have a strategy in the way they have a strategy.
Thank you.
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
It gives me no joy to challenge the chair, I can assure you of that. As the chair knows, this is not a slur on his capability. He runs this committee very well. I will support this amendment, but not without certain reservations.
There is a grain of truth in what Mr. Komarnicki says. I think the important thing is that this bill pass. I do not overestimate the impact that this will have on the government. We've passed private members' bills before. They have become the law of the land, but not necessarily the law of the government. Bill C-292 and Bill C-293 are notable examples. Nonetheless, there's a message here that Canada needs a national housing strategy. Those of us who travelled western Canada last week, including you, Mr. Chair, heard this everywhere we went. To pass this bill, we need to pass this amendment. I'll support my colleague in this amendment so that we can pass this bill and send a message to the government and to Canadians that we need a national housing strategy.
Conservative
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
The arguments made by our colleague Mr. Komarnicki are very interesting to listen to. I would urge him to listen to mine because they deserve a reply, and this is when it should be given.
I make no claims to having the truth, but I think his argument shows that if we don't amend the bill, it will be unconstitutional. Mr. Chair, if we don't amend the bill, it should not be in order, for the following reason.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I don't have any translation, so I haven't understood a word he said.
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
I would like to draw your attention to certain facts, Mr. Chair.
First, the committee decides what its procedure will be. In fact, the Speaker of the House reminds us of this constantly. That is what the committee has just done, Mr. Chair. It was done with due respect for the skill with which you chair this committee. I don't think it challenges the way you chair the committee. You chair the committee based on the information you have. So there is no challenge to that legitimacy.
Mr. Komarnicki raised a good argument when he said that this bill is about a national policy that all the provinces will have to follow, while the Constitution provides that social housing is under provincial and territorial jurisdiction. If you follow that logic, the bill would not be in order if we did not amend it.
Second, I would also like to draw your attention to clauses 3 and 5, where the federal government's new power is defined, strictly on the basis of consultations with the provinces and other levels of government. Subclause 3(2) says that the Minister has the authority to develop a national housing strategy that "shall provide financial assistance, including financing and credit ...".
That subclause describes an entire field that in fact becomes virtually exclusively a matter under the jurisdiction of the federal government, when it does not have that jurisdiction. In paragraph 5(1)(a) we have the same thing. That paragraph talks about "... develop[ing] standards and objectives for the national housing strategy ...". It could not be clearer.
The bill also says that the federal government has full authority in consultation with the provincial ministers and provincial representatives. We can come back to this when we talk about the other amendments.
That is why our amendment is not only in order, but is also unequivocally appropriate in a bill like this.
Otherwise, we oppose it and say that it violates provincial jurisdiction, particularly because the amendment also states a position taken unanimously by the National Assembly of Quebec. All parties in Quebec, without exception and regardless of political stripe, have always defended Quebec's right to be able to exercise its full jurisdiction in relation to social housing and to be able to withdraw from national strategies with full compensation where it considers it appropriate. That is what the amendment says.
That is why I urge my colleagues, including those in the Conservative Party, to vote in favour of this amendment. They have to clearly understand what the amendment means and ensure that the government does not oppose it by using royal recommendation.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.