Human Resources Committee on Dec. 8th, 2009

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

But presuming that the legislative clerk's advice is sound, the Speaker would get the same advice from their lawyers--presumably, making some assumptions--so this bill would never proceed beyond the Speaker's ruling. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

It is possible, but once again, I can't speak for the Speaker.

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

I appreciate that, Mr. Chair.

Okay, I just wanted to make those points. I think it's an entertaining experience to amend bills beyond the scope. In law we call this ultra vires, but it's just an exercise in entertainment if what I understand is correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

All right, thanks, Mr. Hiebert.

I have Mr. Jean, Mr. Lessard, and Mr. Komarnicki again.

Mr. Jean, the floor is yours.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to say, first of all, that I wasn't laughing at Mr. Ouellet at all, and I have no laughter at him or at what he said. I was more or less making an observation. In English, of course, in my communities, my area of Canada, in Alberta, we have a saying that you can't suck and blow at the same time.

[An hon. member]

We have that too.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

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--

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

It just happens that it's his turn to talk as well.

Mr. Lessard, you have the floor, sir, and then I have Mr. Comartin.

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

I'm going to answer Mr. Komarnicki's question and Mr. Jean's question. I think they are both very worthwhile questions that clearly reflect two opposing political options. For that reason, with all due respect, I will come back later with those two answers, but I will start with two statements made by Mr. Hiebert.

Mr. Hiebert started by telling us he is here as a visiting member. My impression is not that he is visiting the committee, but that he is visiting the House of Commons. He is missing a good session.

When the House refers a bill to a committee, it is so the committee can assess it and make amendments, and that is what we're doing. That is the first thing. This is not a cheap shot. It's what he said. He also told us he is visiting and finds this entertaining. I don't find the situation of homeless people at all entertaining. I don't take it lightly, here or anywhere.

Mr. Chair, I come to Mr. Komarnicki's question, because I think he asked a good question. He asked whether the other provinces could also have the right to opt out. However, the fact is that they have never requested it.

The House of Commons has recognized that we are a nation, with the attributes of a nation, let us hope. Those attributes are not always visible. Quebec, not the Bloc but all of the parties in the National Assembly, unanimously, have made the political choice that it will have full powers and full jurisdiction, as recognized in the Constitution, to take responsibility for social housing.

I have never heard Mr. Komarnicki or his colleagues say they wanted the same thing for Ontario or Manitoba or other provinces. That's up to you, you are entitled, it's your choice and we respect it. If there is anything we respect, it is your political choices. They may be described as right-wing, but we pass no judgment on those choices. It's up to you.

In our case, however, it is not our choice and that is not the recognition we have historically been given. As well, Quebec's historical request is not what appears in the bill.

However, I would not want to do to Bill C-304... I think the opposition considers it to be very important. It is not perfect. We want to give it the potential to be adopted, at least by the opposition. It is the basis for an amendment.

I find it unfortunate, however, that something as irresponsible as systematic obstruction of the work we are doing on Bill C-304 would be done here. I think it would be completely irresponsible, just as I would think it was irresponsible if we did it on Bill C-56.

The government asked us to expedite our work on Bill C-56. We did that and I think it is also important to expedite work on Bill C-304. If we are given substantive arguments, we will deal with them. But making arguments as frivolous as saying that it's entertaining is not acceptable. That kind of argument amounts to systematic obstruction.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

I have Mr. Komarnicki, Mr. Cannan, and then Mr. Hiebert.

Mr. Komarnicki.

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

Mr. Chairman, I know Monsieur Lessard was trying to say that there's a filibuster going on. Nothing could be further from the truth.

First of all, why did Mr. Lessard pick this particular clause as the first one debated? It's because it's going to determine how he votes on the rest of the bill.

Let's not kid anyone about what's going on here. Why are the NDP supporting a non-national housing strategy by allowing this or any other province to opt out? They want the rest of the bill to go in, because the writing is on the wall in terms of what Mr. Lessard would do if this weren't here.

It's the same for the other parties. You can't pull the wool over our eyes. It's a legitimate debate, and it's not a filibuster. It's making a point as the crux of what's going to happen here today. Let not anyone pretend we don't know what's up or what's attempting to be done here. It's only a sense of good reason that would prevent that from happening.

My point would be this: If this is indeed an issue, and we know how substantive an issue it is and the fact that the Bloc will support the rest of the bill only if this that we say ought not to be in is in, the least that this particular group should do is allow this matter to be appealed to the Speaker and have the Speaker make a ruling on it before it comes back here for further discussion. At least that much should happen. Otherwise we're going on an exercise saying that the Speaker will have to deal with this after we've gone through a lot of debate and a whole lot of other clauses. When it's so critical a point, one would think that we would want to establish the correctness of it before we choose to proceed with all the rest of the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We'll have Mr. Cannan, Mr. Hiebert, and then Mr. Jean.

Mr. Cannan.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm in no way planning to filibuster--I wasn't even planning to speak--but I just wanted to clarify the procedure with the clerk. Both clerks are lawyers? No? So do you consult with lawyers to get their opinions? No? You're speaking just from experience, then? Do you have consultation with the Speaker? If the House leader asks for a ruling, does the Speaker then consult with you? In your past experience, is that what has happened?

[Lucie Tardif-Carpentier, Procedural Clerk]

Yes, we would give advice to the Speaker, but he would decide. He would make his own decision.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

I'm just trying to clarify how that goes.

He's a big boy, so he can fend for himself, but I just want to say there's no way that my colleague Mr. Hiebert was insulting any aspect of housing. He has been around here a long time. He's just filling in. Perhaps it was something in the translation, that Mr. Lessard was not....

I just want to clarify that he is filling in. He's substituting. Yes, he's visiting the committee, filling in for my colleague who's away today, but he wasn't insulting any aspect of housing. We're both from British Columbia. We have a 30-year Canada-B.C. social housing agreement, which was signed in 2006, and I think that social housing, affordable housing, accessible housing, housing of all forms is very important in British Columbia, as it is in all provinces and territories in the country.

I just wonder if maybe Mr. Lessard would be willing--he talked about how the Government of Quebec may choose to be exempt--maybe just after the word “Quebec” to add, as a friendly amendment, “and the Government of British Columbia to be exempted from the application of the act”. That way we'd also have the ability to choose if we want to. It's in the spirit of friendship and cooperation. I think it would make sense for all of us, all Canadians, to be treated equally. It's our national policy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I need some clarification. Are you adding a subamendment to this right now?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I'm adding one as a friendly amendment.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

It's just as a friendly amendment, Mr. Lessard.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

That's if he accepts it. He has to accept it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Ron, do you want to just state again what you're suggesting as a friendly amendment?

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

I think they're just talking.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Lessard.

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

What I understood, Mr. Chair, is that our colleague, Mr. Cannan, I believe, has asked that we add something after "Quebec". It would read as follows: "The government of Quebec and British Columbia to exempted from the application of the act ...". Is that it? And all the rest would stay?

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Yes.

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

That's right.

I have two other things to say, Mr. Chair, a question and a submission.

Does he, as we do, have a mandate from British Columbia to do this? We have one from Quebec. That is my first question.

My second question is: is British Columbia recognized as a nation on the same basis as Quebec? That is the basis on which we made the amendment.

If one of the two answers is no, the amendment is void, and we will vote against it.