Human Resources Committee on Dec. 8th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

I have on my list Mr. Komarnicki, Mr. Ouellet, and Mr. Hiebert.

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

I'm going to appeal to the logic, good common sense, and judgment of Mr. Savage and others. They're saying it's true that this amendment is against the stated purpose of the bill, and we accept that. Mr. Savage says it impinges upon provincial jurisdiction, so he wants to have the opportunity to opt out.

If we use similar logic, is Mr. Lessard prepared to say that the Government of Quebec or any province may choose to be exempted from the application of this act and receive the funds if they choose to opt out? Because that same argument would apply across the provinces of Canada. That makes the exact point that everyone could opt out of the program and call it a national housing strategy, which it obviously couldn't be.

[An hon. member]

It's the national opt-out strategy.

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

Yes, the national opt-out strategy--so the point is a good one.

Let's just get down to common sense and good judgment. The chair has ruled on a basic, fundamental part of this bill, and if you take it to the logical extension, everyone can opt out. It seems to me you would either not support this proposed amendment, or extend it to apply to everyone and then proceed. That would be only from a point of fairness and nothing else.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Komarnicki.

I'm going to move to Mr. Ouellet.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to reply to Mr. Komarnicki and Mr. Jean who are laughing at my position when I say that is not it.

You say that logically, all the provinces could withdraw. It is not a question of logic, it is a question of cultural heritage in social housing in Quebec. We are talking about a practice, a fact situation.

Are you listening?

[A voice]

Yes.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Yes? Okay.

I have visited all the provinces of Canada to investigate social housing. I am familiar with every program and every ministry, and I know how they work. None of them work like the ones in Quebec. You say that to be logical all the provinces would have to be given the same thing.

They aren't listening, they don't want to listen. No problem. In any event, they won't understand.

You then say, however, that you are afraid a province would take the money and not use it for social housing. I agree with you that in some provinces there is no structure, and that's true not very far away. But in Quebec that is not how it is. In Quebec, we build more social housing units than in any other province in Canada. It is an older culture.

In the bill, paragraph 3(3)(e), it says: "uses sustainable and energy-efficient design". Do you know that Quebec was the first province to adopt an energy code, in 1982, and apply it to social housing?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I have a point of order, Mr. Ouellet.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Excuse me, but I think we are now in a constitutional discussion. I would like to remind all the members here that we have one meeting left on this bill, and I think, as the chair told us, that Thursday's meeting will be shorter than scheduled, since there will be a meeting about an Olympic torch ceremony.

I would like to say that my impression is that we're going backwards. In other words, I think we could well not complete the cork on this bill before Thursday evening. I would like to remind all members of that, because this is my impression at this point, and I want everyone to be aware of it. I understand that the Bloc Québécois has decisions to make, but I hope we can conclude this discussion so we can move on. This is only the second amendment we are discussing, after all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

I'll just remind the committee that we are masters of our own demise. I think we just heard that. I'm joking.

Mr. Ouellet, the floor is back to you, sir.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

I understand my colleague's argument very well. It is a good one in itself, but I think that before voting we need to answer the questions and how the situation as it is, with the real facts.

I totally support what my colleague Yves Lessard about the constitutionality of this bill. We think this is fundamental. There are parts of this that are fundamental. For example, why does it say "Quebec" and not "all provinces"? If we don't adopt clause 3.1, we will not go any further, because the Bloc Québécois considers the bill to be unacceptable.

It is therefore fundamental to spend a bit more time studying this clause before moving on to the others. In fact, we will not consider them if clause 3.1 is not adopted.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Ouellet.

Ms. Leslie.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'm new to this committee, so I'm wondering how to call the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Sorry, you can't call the question.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

I can't call the question?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

No. I don't want to be challenged a second time. My feelings can't handle it.

I have a list here: Mr. Hiebert, Mr. Jean, and Mr. Lessard.

Mr. Hiebert, the floor is yours, sir.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As a visiting member to this committee, I'm a little bit surprised at the direction it's moving in. As a lawyer, I have a respect for the law and the interpretation of the law, and I would have thought that would have prevailed.

I have some comments to make, Mr. Chair, but I have a question for the legislative clerk. My question has to do with whether there are any limits on a committee that would prevent it from making amendments to a bill outside the scope of the bill or outside the scope of the committee. We've just had a ruling from you that because the amendment is outside the scope of the bill, it cannot be allowed by the chair. Now mob rule has prevailed, and we're making that amendment regardless.

I don't meant to offend. Okay, I withdraw the words “mob rule”. The majority has now stated that we're going to proceed with an amendment that's outside the scope of the bill.

My question is to the legislative clerk--and I want to make sure they hear my question. Then I have some additional comments, Mr. Chair.

Is there any limit to what a committee could do to amend a bill? Does not the logic of the law prevail in any means? Could this committee make an amendment that you, the chair, would overrule?

I'm elaborating on my question. Is there any limit to the kind of challenge that could be made to the chair to amend a bill? I'll use a couple of extreme examples.

I'm normally a member of the natural resources committee, and we're dealing with the isotope issue. Could the majority of the members of this committee sustain an amendment to this bill mandating the Minister of Human Resources to negotiate a national isotope strategy? Is that possible? Could the members in a majority, by overruling the chair, redefine what a house is in Canada so that it would include a car? Is this all possible? If that's the case, where does this go?

If we're moving into the realm of Alice in Wonderland, is there not any backstop at some point where someone has the authority to say okay, you've moved beyond the boundaries of what's legally possible, and no, you can't proceed? Is there any backstop at some point that would prevent a majority of a committee from making these kinds of changes?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I'm going to take a stab at this first, and then the legislative clerk can add to it.

My understanding is that committees are masters of their own destiny--not demise--and because of that, the committee can overrule and go in any direction.

What I will say is that as a party you'd probably appeal to the Speaker of the House. The chair's already been challenged, so we'll go to the Speaker now. It would be appealed to the Speaker, and the Speaker would have to make a ruling on that. So that's where it would go after this particular thing.

But to answer your point, Mr. Hiebert, mostly definitely, as committees we can go in any direction we want. To go beyond this, you'll be talking to the Speaker of the House.

I'll turn it back over to you.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

To have a ruling from the Speaker, does it require a majority of the committee to send it to the Speaker, or can any number on the committee ask for a ruling from the Speaker? Is it a majority or is it any number?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

No, it's just a point of order raised in the House, probably by the government House leader.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Okay. And the Speaker's ruling would presumably have to incorporate the logic of the law?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's correct. That's usually the case.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

I see. So then there's really no threat that this amendment would actually ever sustain--

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Well, I can't speak for how the Speaker may rule.