Human Resources Committee on Feb. 8th, 2011

[The Chair (Ms. Candice Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, CPC)), Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Good morning, everyone. We will call our meeting to order, meeting number 42 of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Before we begin the orders of the day, let me say that last week I was so anxious to get down to business that I failed to introduce our new clerk. I'd like to introduce Travis Ladouceur. Travis is the new clerk assigned to our committee. I think he did a fantastic job last week when he had a sort of baptism by fire, and he and the rest of the analysts did a fantastic job.

Welcome. We're very glad to have you here.

The orders of the day are to examine the order of the House recommitting Bill C-304, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians. We have been directed to deal with just two specific clauses in that bill.

Everyone has the bill in front of them. We will begin by dealing with clause 3.

(On clause 3--National Housing Strategy to be established)

Shall clause 3 carry?

All in favour....

[A voice]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Sorry?

Are we ready?

All right. Let me just give you a moment to get all your paperwork in front of you.

There's no amendment right now on clause 3. We're just voting on clause 3 as is.

The clause is on the table.

Is there any discussion?

There is no discussion.

Then I will once again call the vote.

All in favour of clause 3 passing, please signify.

All opposed, please signify.

Clause 3 carries.

We now have an amendment, an inclusion, which would introduce a new clause 3.1....

Yes?

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

What's the number in the vote count? I thought we were in a tie.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

I count six and five.

[A voice]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Oh, I see.

Unfortunately, because you were subbing in at that point for Mr. Savage, your vote didn't count.

I understand, though, that you, Ms. Findlay, were wondering if you could have—

[A voice]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

No, the vote was completed, but we....

[A voice]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

I actually didn't.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

She couldn't. So the vote was tied.

[A voice]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

She did, but her vote didn't count.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

No, I didn't.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

You didn't vote?

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

No. What I would like to know is whether there's unanimous consent to acknowledge that there were three of us sitting, as there would normally be, and that we could actually have that vote count.

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

On a point of order, you can't have two...at the same time. There would be no consent.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

You can have unanimous consent to allow democracy to work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

We have a point of order here.

Go ahead.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

The point of order is that if the ruling is that the vote didn't count, the vote still needs to be completed, right? The chair does have a say. So we can't entertain a unanimous consent motion at this time to count hers as a vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

I see. Well...okay.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Yes; that's because we'd be in a vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Right; we're in the middle of a vote.

Okay, it's a tie. I think that's where we are right now. It's a tie, which means that I have to break the tie.

It's tradition and it's normal that the chair votes to continue the status quo, so I will be voting yes.

(Clause 3 agreed to)

We now move on to proposed new clause 3.1.

Are we ready? We have a motion of amendment to include a clause 3.1.

Mr. Lessard, do you wish to move your amendment?

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

I will move the amendment, Madam Chair, and I will explain it.

Clause 3 has been agreed to. Let's remember that the House referred Bill C-304 back to our committee for further study because of an initial amendment that was rightly not accepted, by yourself, I think, Madam Chair. That one had financial implications, but the amendment I am moving has no financial implications. It recognizes jurisdiction. The amendment reads as follows:

Quebec may, as a party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, participate in the benefits of this act with respect to its own choices, its own programs and its own approach related to housing on its territory.

That is my amendment. If necessary, I can explain in more detail, if my colleagues so wish.