Madam Chair, first of all, I'd just like to remind us all that you have made a decision on the admissibility of the amendment. I feel as if we're sort of retreading old ground by talking about the scope of the bill, but I do want to respond to the arguments that have been put forward, and I'll try to do it very briefly.
What I heard from Mr. Komarnicki was four points. One was that this amendment is beyond the scope of the bill. First of all, certainly the Speaker made his ruling and as a result the bill came back to this committee. I believe that on the amendment before us, the purpose was to be very much within the framework of the Speaker's ruling so it would not be inadmissible. I can tell you that the advice and help that we got clearly laid out that this particular amendment would be admissible and supportable, so I feel that your argument.... You can challenge it the House, for sure, and we'll have that debate, I'm sure. We believe this is admissible within the Speaker's ruling.
The second point that was made was that it's not really a national housing strategy. The fact is that this bill has been crafted very carefully to move us forward on the very important issue of housing, and it's being done in a way that recognizes, along with other processes that we've seen, that you can't just sort of lay something down and force it on people and say, “This is the federal government, and do it our way or no way.” It has to be an open process and this bill is very much designed that way.
We hope that it will result in a national housing strategy, but if you read through the bill, for example in clause 4 words like “consultation” and “cooperation”, and in clause 5, “convene a conference”, are all measures to ensure that there is consultation with provinces and territories and other stakeholders. In that sense, it is pan-Canadian. It is a national strategy. At the same time, we're trying to also recognize the situation in Quebec historically as legislators on many other occasions, whether that is child care, health care, Canada student loans, or the Social Union Framework Agreement. We've had other private members' bills.
I feel this bill is no different in what it's trying to accomplish from other things we have seen agreed to within our country, including Quebec, recognizing the history and role Quebec plays. I don't see this as any different.
With regard to other provinces, I'm not aware of any provinces that have asked for any particular change in how this would be conducted. The language in the bill is very open concerning that consultation, so on Mr. Vellacott's point that somehow we have to go and talk to other provinces, we've not heard from anybody that this is any issue. I think when people read the bill, when the provinces read the bill, this is something that they are to be involved in. They are to be consulted. They are to be part of a process that we hope will lead to an agreement. I think that is very clear.
Concerning the process of the committee, Mr. Vellacott said it had come before the committee three times. That's not correct. It's been the usual process. The bill came to the committee after it passed the House at second reading. We had witnesses, some very excellent witnesses who came forward. There were amendments made. I think they did improve the bill, so it was there once previously and it's come back now again. It's not as if it's been through this committee more than that.
You also mentioned that there was no agreement from the opposition parties, which is also not correct. There has been a lot of discussion because the purpose and the goal of what we're trying to achieve has been very much supported by the three parties on this side based, partly, on our own recognition of what needs to be done around housing but also because of the tremendous support in broader society. There has been no disagreement. We may have discussions, and we have very intense discussions about wording and what will work and what won't, and I'm very happy that Monsieur Lessard has put forward this amendment that we think strikes the right balance, but there has been no disagreement, as you suggested. I just wanted to clear that up.
Overall we want to advance this issue. We think it is a very important issue in Canada with regard to affordable housing, and we want to advance it in a way that the federal government is playing a constructive role with all of the participants. That is what this bill is designed to do.
I have a feeling we're just not going to agree. You guys don't want this bill, whatever the reasons.
Maybe we should just vote on this, and if you're going to challenge it in the House, so be it. I think we're just sort of going around and around now, but you're making arguments, so we have to respond to them. I think our perspectives are quite clear on the different sides.