Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to go back to the Speaker's ruling, because I think we are still trying to work outside of the scope of the object of this bill. In the Speaker's ruling with respect to Quebec and the first amendment, here's what he said:
...there are two elements to this new clause. The first is the Government of Quebec's right to opt out of the strategy, and the second relates to the right...[of the] financial compensation if it chooses to do so.
So in that case he was specifically focused on the opt-out provisions, not the financial side of it, because that's what germane to this discussion. He said:
With regard to the first element of the amendment, the members for Joliette and Vancouver East both have given examples of Canada-wide programs and policies of which the province of Quebec is exempted.
Madam Folco was indicating that this is not new, that Quebec has had provisions like that. He said:
The Chair is in no way questioning that such arrangements exist in current programs or could exist in future programs within specific legislative frameworks. However, the Chair has to determine if such an arrangement as defined by the amendment in question goes against the principle or broadens the scope of this bill as adopted by the House at second reading.
He said:
The Chair refers members to clause 3 of the bill which provides elements that should be part of a housing strategy, elements that are, in fact, defining the scope of the bill. The Chair views the nature of those elements as being very different from that proposed by the amendment in question and finds that an opting out provision is a new concept which exceeds the scope as defined in clause 3.
Now, the scope of this bill primarily is quite narrow. Its purpose is to require the minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to consult with the provinces—plural—and territories and to establish a national housing strategy. That's the scope of the bill. It's not wider than that; it's very narrow. Whenever you start making a special provision, like you have for Quebec, that would be outside of this scope. It's beyond the scope. Whether you call it an “opt-out”, an “opt-in”, a “may be” or a “may not”, it goes beyond the scope of the bill.
Then, of course...so when we look at the—