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.