Human Resources Committee on Feb. 8th, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you, Mr. Lessard.

I have some concerns about one of the words in this amendment. I would like our legal analyst just to provide some explanation; she did for me. I think it might answer a few questions.

The Speaker ruled that the previous amendment was out of order because there was an opting-out provision, which was a new concept that exceeded the scope defined in clause 3. Your amendment is “Quebec may”, and I would interpret “may” as an option: may or may not. My concern is again that this is providing an option, and it would just be for Quebec, not all provinces.

That's my concern. I'm going to ask our clerk to take a moment to tell the rest of the committee what she has told me about why she feels comfortable with it, because I don't.

[Lucie Tardif-Carpentier, Procedural Clerk]

This amendment clarifies the participation of the Province of Quebec in this national strategy, which is clearly in line with the motion of instruction that was adopted by the House last November; therefore, in our view, the amendment is procedurally admissible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you.

Mr. Martin, you wish to speak, and then Mr. Komarnicki.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

So it is in order, then. Okay.

Just very briefly—

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Mr. Komarnicki, do you have a point of order?

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

I have two points of order.

One is that the amendment is out of order and that we'd like a ruling, and we may have to appeal the ruling.

Two, the other aspect of this that gives me grave concern is that the instruction to this committee by the House was that this matter be referred to this committee “for the purpose of reconsidering Clauses 3 and 4, or to add new clauses, with the view of clarifying” not the role of Quebec, but clarifying “the role of provinces,”—in the plural—“specifically Quebec, within the jurisdiction of the Bill.”

Any amendment, in my view, would have to clarify the role of the provinces, specifically including Quebec, with respect to the bill itself. It didn't say “province, specifically Quebec”, it said “provinces”. This amendment has no mention of provinces. It deals only with Quebec.

So for two reasons—number one is that any amendment has to be in line with what has been referred to this committee—I think the Standing Orders and practice and procedure are quite clear, that the committee only has jurisdiction to deal with amendments that are part of the order of reference back to this committee. It gave specific instructions to reconsider this for specific purposes.

So nowhere in the amendment is there an allusion to “provinces”. I think for that purpose it's out of order.

Secondly, it is my firm view that “opt out” means you can or cannot do something, or may or may not do something. Rewording this so that you can say Quebec “may” obviously means it may or may not, which is exactly the essence of the opt-out provision.

Thirdly, this is not part of the money consideration at all. If we look at the history of this bill—and I've been present for the history when the previous chair, I think Mr. Dean Allison was here—there were various amendments tried. Various amendments have been tried—I know Ms. Megan Leslie moved an amendment to the clause—essentially to this effect. I can read it specifically, if you like. Also, Monsieur Lessard had previously moved an amendment that was not dissimilar to the amendment that was ruled objectionable.

And there's a principle that you can't do indirectly what you can't do directly. What the committee has been trying to do on at least three occasions now is to do that which is outside the scope of the bill. The scope of the bill is a national housing strategy, and it doesn't allow for people to come in or come out at their whim or their option.

So I think that point of order should be settled on two accounts: one, the word “may”; and two, the specific instruction that made reference to “provinces”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

I'm going to suspend, because I have to tell you, folks, I'm not comfortable with the “may.” I'm not comfortable. I need to feel that I agree with this decision.

So I'm just going to suspend. Everyone is on the list. I'll suspend for a couple of minutes, and then I'll resume.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

I'm ready to resume. Thank you very much.

All right. I'm comfortable that this is in order, Mr. Komarnicki, because if you look at the way it is written, it is that “Quebec may” participate, be a party, “with respect to its own choices, its own programs and its own approach related to housing on its territory”. So it's not “may” as in “may opt out”; it's just...I believe that the “may” is in how it would participate in the program with respect to what it already does in the province.

So I'm ruling. I won't have any more discussion on whether it's in order or not, and if you wish to make an amendment, amend some of it—

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

I would like a little clarification from you and the lawyers. If the essence is that they participate in the benefits, does that mean that if they participate in the benefit they can't thereafter not participate in the benefit if it doesn't line up with their objectives?

Obviously, it allows them the option to participate or not on an ongoing basis. If we look at it in the first place, we say, well, they may participate—let's assume they do—do they have to continue to participate? I don't think so, according to this, because they may say it doesn't line up with what they're doing and therefore they're not going to participate.

I want some clarification on that. It seems a bit fetched.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

The entire bill says that this a national program, which means all the provinces participate. But what this is doing—the way I read this—is giving Quebec the option to participate in the benefits with respect to its own choices in its own programs and its approach related to housing on its territory. So it can't opt out, because the first clause, clause 3, says this is a national program. Quebec cannot opt out. But it does have some choice on how it's going to enjoy the benefits of this program with respect....

So I'm ruling it in order. I hope that's enough clarification for you, but we do have quite a few speakers on the list in terms of the bill, so I'm not going to discuss my ruling anymore. My ruling is not debatable.

Mr. Komarnicki.

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

There are two points of order, of course, that I raised.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Both on the admissibility of the bill?

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

One was the, if you want to call it, “may in or may out” provisions, which you've ruled on.

The other point of order was with respect to provinces.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Yes.

Well, I would say because the Speaker's ruling said specifically to Quebec, I'm comfortable with this, but I think if the committee decides to have a friendly amendment, or a not friendly amendment, that would say that all provinces, including Quebec, may enjoy the benefits, that would be up to the committee.

Because of the Speaker's ruling, I'm comfortable that it specifically mentions Quebec.

So that is my ruling. We will now continue. We do have speakers on the list.

Mr. Martin, you are on the list to speak.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

I'm going to turn my time over to Ms. Davies, if you don't mind.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

All right.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Chairperson.

I'll just speak briefly to it. I thank you for your ruling.

This bill has had a long history, that's for sure. I know Mr. Komarnicki has had issues with the bill. I would say this: if you look at the bill in its overall context, the real drive of this bill is for the federal government to bring together the partners, whether they're provinces, territories, first nations, or municipalities. It's to basically then attempt to devise a plan. There's nothing that is mandatory in that sense.

Even this clause amendment today can be viewed in that context, that this is about bringing the partners together to actually devise a strategy. Then there has to be an agreement whether or not they go ahead with it.

I feel that the bill is very realistic, and this particular amendment deals with the specifics of Quebec. I would also add that you can look at any number of bills or agreements that have taken place, whether it's the social union framework, whether it's the 2004 action plan on health care that dealt with the question of Quebec, or whether it's the national child benefit. There are many examples where there has been an understanding within legislation or agreements about the programs and the jurisdiction of Quebec. So I feel this amendment is no different in that regard.

I think the amendment today is very adequate because it makes it clear that Quebec, as a party to the international covenant, may participate in the benefits and make its own choices, as you've outlined, Madam Chair.

Hopefully we'll vote on this. There's tremendous support for this bill across the country from groups like the YWCA, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, the Canadian Medical Association, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities—it's a very substantial list—and they want to see the federal government work with the other partners to devise a strategy. This amendment will help ensure that happens.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Mr. Komarnicki, you're on the list to speak.

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

Am I on the list? No, I was on the list to speak with respect to the points of order. I will want to speak to this one, but not at this time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Okay, fine.

Madame Folco.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

With regard to the amendment, as everyone knows, Quebec has made other requests in the past. It goes back quite a long way. So there is a tradition and a precedent when it comes to the powers of the Government of Quebec and the way it relates to federal government legislation. Clause 3.1 is perfectly in line with the tradition and the precedent, and reflects the Government of Quebec's experience with and requests to the federal government.

Then, if we look at other agreements between the federal government and the Government of Quebec, we see that the only province or territory of Canada that has ever asked for this kind of distinction to be made is Quebec. So it seems to me that Mr. Komarnicki's request concerning the other provinces is irrelevant. It does not seem to me to be respecting the intent of this amendment, far from it.

When lawmakers want to bring other provinces into the discussion, they mention the provinces and territories. Provinces and territories have come up nowhere in this discussion. That seems to me to be another argument supporting the fact that it has always been clear that this is to do with the powers of Quebec, not with all the provinces and territories individually.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you.

Mr. Lessard, you were on the list.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. We have dealt with the technical relevance of the amendment. So I would like to debate the substance now.

Following on from Ms. Falco's comment, I would like us to remember that the housing question is a major one in the overall context of poverty. That being the case, I can only congratulate Ms. Davies for her initiative in bringing this bill forward.

In social housing, Quebec has a distinct strategy for combatting poverty enshrined in its legislation. When the Government of Quebec set up its initial strategy on social housing, the federal government completely withdrew from the funding. That was in the period from 1991 to 2001. So a concern for Quebec is to protect that strategy while recognizing, of course, that there can be a national, Canada-wide strategy. That too is because of the will of the provinces. Each time Canada wants to set up a strategy on any matter at all, the provinces all want to back that strategy, while Quebec has developed one on its own. That has enabled it to set up social programs that are often used for comparison, as a model, for other provinces.

That is why we debate this tooth and nail each time. We want to arrange for Quebec to be able to keep this distinctness. We recognize and accept—as we have just done with the vote we have just held—that the federal government can set up a national strategy. But that must not become an obstacle for Quebec.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Mr. Komarnicki.

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

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—