Amazing. That's good. I'm glad, because it makes it less difficult to explain myself.
If you're suggesting constitutionally that it might infringe upon provincial constitutional rights in the case of Quebec, then it certainly does so in the case of all the other provinces. We are governed by the same Constitution, at least the Constitution that I recognize. So I would suggest that if indeed your argument has weight, then it does in fact violate the jurisdiction of all provinces, and they all have the right to opt out and to deal with it accordingly.
Your argument is with respect to social programs and to the housing program that Quebec has as being different. I'm sure it is much different. But I come from the most socialist province in all of the country. Alberta spends more on social programs, per capita, than any other province, as far as I'm aware, so I would suggest that this would be the most socialist province. Certainly that's what's explained by most right-wing parties in Alberta.
Saying that, I also have another observation that I'd like to make. I have two francophone communities in my riding, Plamondon and Lac La Biche. In fact there are some other ones that have been settled by francophones. I would be certain that those people would like to take advantage of the same social programming structure for housing that the people in Quebec would. At least, that's their ancestry, so to preclude them from that position would in fact not do them any justice.
Further, about 20% to 23% of my riding is aboriginal, and they have social programs. I would suggest that possibly the per capita housing in my particular constituency would be very high as far as that kind of social programming goes.
I just want to make you aware that if this is a national strategy for housing, and the Government of Canada is obviously the national body that would govern that, I would suggest that Mr. Komarnicki is correct in his assertion that if you opt out by one province, then it all of a sudden becomes a non-national program, which is obviously beyond the scope of the bill. That is what I would like to say.
I would like to hear from Monsieur Lessard in relation to those comments, because the Constitution argument is, I think--