Human Resources Committee on Dec. 8th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Pursuant to the standing order of reference of Wednesday, September 30, 2009, we are studying Bill C-304, an act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible, and affordable housing for Canadians. We'll go to clause-by-clause consideration today.

I just want to state at the outset that we need to be a little bit patient here today. The bill, which has six clauses, somehow has 35 amendments. So we're going to actually have to take our time as we move through this and just be patient as we work with the legislative clerk to make sure that we follow through a sequential method here to make sure everything works. We'll try to do our best to explain the consequences, the actions of what is going on, and then we can just try to go through it clause by clause.

What I'm going to start off with right away is this. In clause 2, if the amendments are carried that are going to be suggested by the Liberals, that is going to affect what happens in clause 3. What I'm going to ask is that we stand down clause 2 first, we start with clause 3, and then we can come back to clause 2, if nothing gets amended or changed, and then we can go back to what we're doing. I can assure you that we're going to take every clause, clause by clause. We'll go through that.

I do need a majority from the group to be able to do that. If not, we will start on clause 2.

Mr. Lessard, I will turn the floor over to you, sir, and then we can go from there. Mr. Lessard, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. With all due respect, I would note that in our initial discussions I wanted us to start the clause by clause study of this bill with clause 3, as you now want to do, starting with consideration of the Bloc Québécois amendment. This is the determining point for us in terms of participating after that regarding the bill as a whole, depending on the decision that is made, one way or the other.

If you have no objection, we could dispose of new clause 3.1 that we submitted as an amendment. I know that other amendments have been submitted. I don't know whether the other parties are going to want to move subamendments. I would like us to debate new clause 3.1 moved by the Bloc Québécois first.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Lessard.

The question I have, then, is this, and I just mentioned it. Is it all right for the committee to start on clause 3? We're going to come back to clause 2, but as Mr. Lessard said, there are some amendments that have been proposed that will reflect what we do in terms of definitions and interpretations in clause 2. We'll come back to clause 2, but I need the majority to decide whether that's the case.

Mr. Savage.

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

I don't have a problem with that, Mr. Chair. I agree with you that this is going to be a little bit of a complicated process, and there may be some amendments we come to that we may need some time for, that we might even suggest that we come back to, depending on what happens on other clauses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Most definitely, and I want to make sure that's the case. The other thing I want to propose to the committee as well is if we do not complete this today, would it be all right that we continue to work on this on Thursday? We don't need to address that this second. I just put that out there. We'll need to discuss that before we go for votes. The bell's at 5:15, and we'll need to wrap it up shortly thereafter.

Ms. Leslie.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just for clarification, if we discuss the new clause 3.1, with the NDP and the Bloc amendments, and should, for example, those two fail, does that preclude us from starting at clause 2?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

No, absolutely not. We're going to have to go back to clause 2 anyway. I'm merely suggesting we start on clause 3 because there are implications in clause 3 that refer back to clause 2. That's all. After clause 3, we'll go back to clause 2.

I would like some clarification from the committee once again.

Mr. Lessard, I believe you're talking about subclause 3(1). That is going to determine how you vote on the rest of the bill, is that correct? Can we start with subclause 3(1), then come back to clause 3, then go back to clause 2? I promise we'll go back to clauses 4 and 5 after that.

Does that make sense for the committee? Because it does affect the way the Bloc are going to vote on the bill in general.

I put the question to you. The Bloc would like to address subclause 3(1). Right now we'll deal with subclause 3(1), then come back to clause 3, then go to clause 2, then clauses 4 and 5.

Do I have consensus from the group to start with subclause 3(1)?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much. We'll go to subclause 3(1).

The way we're going to handle subclause 3(1) is I'm going to talk to the Bloc about this: NDP amendment 6, which is on page 8, was submitted first, so I'm going to ask you if you want to deal with yours. They are similar, but in terms of the way the amendments came in, we want to deal with them in that order.

I'm going to defer to you first, although I realize that clauses 8 and 9 are similar. I'll have us go right to page 8 so that people understand what amendment we're talking about.

I'm going to let the NDP move that amendment and then speak to that amendment.

We'll turn it over to you, Ms. Leslie.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment would add to the bill a caveat that Quebec is exempt from the act, but that if the transfer of federal dollars came out of the implementation of this act, the Province of Quebec would receive its share. We've added this language in recognition of the unique nature of Quebec following a motion put forward by this Prime Minister, which was passed, recognizing the uniqueness of Quebec and that it forms a nation within Canada.

We've seen this kind of clause in other bills. We've seen it in the Child Care Act, for example, so I can say the Liberals have supported something written like this, as we have, and as has the Bloc. We've seen this kind of asymmetrical or flexible federalism in other bills as well. That's the point of this provision.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

So before we go any further, as I said, Bill C-304 provides for the minister responsible for CMHC to consult with the provincial ministers to establish a national housing strategy. This amendment proposes to allow the Province of Quebec to opt out of the national strategy.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 766,

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, the introduction of this opt-out provision is contrary to the principle of Bill C-304, and therefore is inadmissible.

If there's no more discussion on that, I'm going to move to subclause 3(1), BQ-2.

Go ahead, Ms. Leslie.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

That's fine. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

All right then.

Mr. Lessard.

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

Point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Go ahead.

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

Just to understand, then, you are ruling against it. So then without a challenge it can't be considered. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's correct.

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

Okay.

So effectively it's deemed to be ultra vires or not within the scope of the act, by a ruling of the chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's correct.

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

And it happens the moment you say that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's correct.

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

So somebody here would have to challenge in order to change that outcome.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's correct.

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

Okay. I just wanted to make sure, because somehow it was happening a little quickly, and I wasn't certain.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

No, we want to take our time and go through this.

I know the next amendment is very similar.

Mr. Lessard, the floor is yours, sir.