Human Resources Committee on Dec. 10th, 2009

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This would actually add something to the definitions section, specifically “aboriginal community”, and it defines it as “a community made up of Métis, Inuit, or First Nations peoples, whether or not that community is situated on a reserve”. We're bringing forward this amendment to clarify that this act does apply to Métis, Inuit, and first nations people who live either on-reserve or off-reserve, are urban or rural, recognizing that more than half of the status Indian population live off-reserve, and aboriginal Canadians do live in urban centres but also disproportionately face housing insecurity and homelessness. This would be a recognition of that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Is there any discussion on this? No.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We're going to move to the second page in your handout, and it's NDP-2, and I will ask Ms. Leslie to speak to this.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This would actually remove the word “disadvantaged” from this definition. It's the word “disadvantaged” in reference to people with a physical disability. This was actually raised directly with us by a witness, recognizing that while people with physical or mental differences may face greater challenges or face more barriers than other people, they shouldn't necessarily be equated with a disadvantage. We really welcomed that feedback from the community and we're moving to remove the word “disadvantaged”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay, thank you.

I'm going to rule this amendment out of order. This amendment seeks to make substantive modification to the definition of accessible housing in the interpretation clause. The House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, page 769, states:

The interpretation clause of a bill is not the place to propose a substantive amendment to a bill. In addition, an amendment to the interpretation clause of a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading must always relate to the bill and may neither exceed the scope of nor be contrary to the principle of the bill.

It is with that opinion that I will rule that substantive and, therefore, inadmissible.

Yes, Ms. Leslie.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am a bit new to parliamentary procedure, so I'm looking for guidance. The ruling is that it's out of order. I'm wondering, if there were to be unanimous consent from this committee to agree that despite it being out of order this is very important to the bill and important to various disability communities, would it be possible, with unanimous consent, to get around this somehow?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

My understanding is that the only way this could happen is if you were to challenge the chair.

We are going to move, then, to--

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

Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Yes, did you want to challenge me?

Mr. Jean, go ahead.

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

As you know, Mr. Chair, I'm always challenging you.

I'm just wondering if the clerk can tell us about the constitutionality of this particular clause. I haven't seen the whole clause, but it might be inclusive, whether or not it's mentioned as a result of constitutional issues that have risen again. And I'm not sure what clause it refers to, but it might in fact be.... The Supreme Court has ruled in relation to various sections of this, including child of a marriage.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I don't think they're prepared to give advice on constitutionality.

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

So it might be included anyway. Whether or not it's included in the bill is what I'm asking.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Komarnicki.

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

I just want to make a note for the record. The committee has chosen, the majority in opposition, not to appeal the ruling of the chair because of the fact that it's not within the context of the bill or within the objective of the bill in terms of the definition, yet appealed the decision of the chair on a matter that was fundamental to this bill that would make it a less-than-national national housing policy. And I think that's regrettable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Komarnicki.

We're going to move now to....

Yes, go ahead.

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

Just for other times, and also for the edification of the.... The disability community would like to see different language start to work its way in. And I'm wondering if there's a little bit of guidance in terms of.... I know this is a restrictive area of the bill, the definition section, but is it possible, for future work, that some further detail could be provided on this part in terms of why the ruling was made, and so on?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Once again, if it had been part of the original bill, there would be no issue. Now that it's gone past second reading, we can't go back and change definitions. As I understand it, there would have been no problem changing the definitions in the original bill as it was presented before second reading.

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

I see.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Go ahead.

[Lucie Tardif-Carpentier, Procedural Clerk]

If we're able to make an amendment elsewhere in the bill that would make the change in the interpretation clause necessary or admissible--

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Lessard, sir.

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

This is important. I am happy that our colleague, Mr. Jean, has brought up this matter, because I wonder what this would in fact change, in the end. It seems to me that the removal of the qualifying term “disadvantaged“ would eliminate the arbitrariness of the matter. Indeed, this would call into play a form of judgment.

Who is disadvantaged by age? It seems to me that the question should be put. My impression is that the word “disadvantaged“ gives the provision a meaning that could discount the entire value of the text. I am asking the question because were we, by chance, to decide to pass the amendment, the only word that would disappear would be “disadvantaged“. The only thing that would then be left to do would be to make the corresponding changes wherever the term “disadvantaged“ is used.

Someone might be able to tell me at what stage one becomes disadvantaged by one's age. I also put the question to our colleagues from the NDP. Is it at my age or at yours, Mr. Chairman? At what stage is one disadvantaged by a disability? The question is the same whether it is a mental disability or a physical disability. It seems that this term creates a certain ambiguity, and that it must be removed. I am not challenging your decision for now, but I would like to better understand it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Go ahead, Ms. Leslie.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I do want to have it on the record that the parliamentary secretary has made assumptions about our decision not to challenge the decision of the chair, and those are just assumptions.

But I would like to seek your advice about clause 3 of the bill, as it stands. Paragraph 3(3)(c) states:

provides access for those with different needs, including, in an appropriate proportion, access for the elderly and the disabled, and reasonable design options;

What I would like to know from the clerk is whether, if we agree, we could amend paragraph 3(3)(c) to say, “access for those challenged by age and disability”. Would that be enough to trigger the ability to amend the definition?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Yes, if we are going to go back and look at clause 3--because it has already been passed--we'd need unanimous consent to go back and deal with that. At this point I could seek unanimous consent. I'm not sure that's going to be--

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

I'd appreciate it if you would seek that.