I'm just developing my point with respect to the amendment and saying that for the amendment, if it's going to be proper, I would ask that the proponent of the amendment, in the spirit of what the House ruling was, if he thinks it's within scope—which I say it isn't—include all of the provinces.
If you read that, saying that all of the provinces may participate in the benefits with respect to their own choices...and every province has its own choice, every province has its own programs, and every province has its own approach related to housing in its territory. Why? Because it's a provincial jurisdiction. This is not particularly new. Why would the member not include all of the other provinces with respect to this particular amendment?
What I'm seeing here is a national housing strategy or a desire to have a national housing strategy that's not really national in scope.
I say that the history before this committee is very important. In December of 2009, when Mr. Dean Allison was chair, Megan Leslie moved a motion saying this: “Recognizing the unique nature of the jurisdiction of the Government of Quebec with regard to social housing in Quebec, and despite any other provision of this Act, the Government of Quebec may choose to be exempted from the application of this act. Whether or not the Government of Quebec chooses to do so....”
That amendment was ruled out of order. Immediately after that, Monsieur Lessard moved a motion that said: “The Government of Quebec may choose to be exempted from the application of this Act and may, if it chooses to do so, receive....”
So we have not done very much more here in this amendment. I'm saying that what the parties, the opposition parties, are trying to do here is to do indirectly what they know they can't do directly after the Speaker has ruled definitively and after the matter has been referred here to this committee in a very specific way.
So I'm saying to the member that if he's going to move a motion like this, he would need to include the other provinces. If he fails to do so, it's really an attempt to do indirectly what they can't do directly, and certainly we would be opposing any motion on those grounds alone.