Evidence of meeting #42 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
Madam Chair, you have twice ruled the amendment to be in order. I have just listened to Mr. Komarnicki's argument. Our colleague cannot do indirectly what you have not allowed him to do directly. Here he is again, claiming that the amendment is out of order.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
Well, I think Mr. Komarnicki was just wrapping up that point, and then he was going to continue with talking about the clause as it was.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
In deference, I was speaking...and your ruling was with respect to the point of order. This is with respect to the amendment itself.
Of course, Madam Folco was referring to the status of Quebec and how they have special arrangements and so on. I'm just saying that the Speaker has indicated that although Quebec may have other arrangements in other cases, in this case, the bill talks about a very narrow point. It's not to allow someone like Quebec to decide on its own to do the various things that are outlined. They could, in some legislation, but we have to remember that this bill has passed second reading and is not at the stage where amendments can be made, because its scope has been defined.
I think the instruction was that we deal with the role of provinces, and that would be not only Quebec. If they were going to move an amendment, if they think it's in order, they should say that all the provinces of Canada, including Quebec, may, as a party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights—and I might want to know what that means and gives as a special right—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.
Conservative
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
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.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
I'm just saying that if the member who is proposing this wants to be within....
First of all, and I was quite clear...and I disagree, obviously, with the advice you received and your ruling, because I don't think you've appropriately reflected on the idea of the past history of this and that this is really an attempt to do indirectly what can't be done directly.
But having said that, I say that if they're going to try to move this motion, they should at least be fair to all of the other provinces in the country, to give them the same provision. I don't think it's up to me to correct that. It's up to the mover of the motion to try to at least put it within the spirit of a national housing strategy, which this certainly is not.
Conservative
Conservative
Maurice Vellacott Conservative Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
In addressing this amendment before us, I do want to remark on the previous history. I think that's in order and it's appropriate to do so.
We did have some rulings, as my colleague rightly pointed out. There was a pretty important one from the chair before. I think that should have stood and remained as it was, without doing indirectly, as my colleague mentioned, what they can't do directly.
I think we're all aware this has been before this committee. This is the third time. This bill has been up before. Some of the members here were on that committee at the time, and others were not. Obviously there was not agreement around the table, and particularly among the opposition parties in the previous two times this was forwarded.
I think it sets a bad precedent. I mean, you can do whatever you want in committees. They're masters, as they say, of their own fate; masters of their own destiny. But I think it sets a bad precedent to keep bringing it back time and again whenever they receive a ruling they don't like.
When a bill comes before a committee, as is the case now, we have the chance to study it, scrutinize it, examine it thoroughly, and to make changes during the clause-by-clause. The chair and the Speaker...has now ruled again. There is something of a contradiction, in my view, between the chair and the ruling we just had within our self-contained committee. The Speaker had ruled that amendments allowing for provincial opting out are outside of the scope of the bill; they remove its national character and are out of order.
I think we have another issue now--namely, that we have languishing some pretty important other committee work that sits and doesn't get done or dealt with now because of this. There's the adoptive parents issue. We need to get that done. Mr. Martin's study on Canadians with disabilities is a pressing one as well. Some of these studies take a considerable length of time--some three years on the poverty study--because rulings that are made are not accepted. There are different end runs attempted and then we get bogged down.
As has been said, quite sensibly by my colleague, this is simply an infringement. The whole bill infringes upon provincial jurisdiction. The Bloc seem to recognize that, but they kind of want their cake and to eat it too.
I think coalition MPs have argued the entire time that there's a need for a national housing strategy. Now they're trying to change the bill so it's no longer national in scope. The Bloc themselves claim they believe the federal government should stay out of provincial jurisdiction, yet they want to support a bill--the bill before us now--that by way of this amendment would impose the federal government on an area of provincial jurisdiction.
So I guess they're kind of selling out, insofar as they tacitly acknowledge that the feds should stay out, and yet they want to support a bill that would impose those federal government requirements on an area of provincial jurisdiction.
I object, as well, coming from a western province. But Alberta, Saskatchewan, B.C., and sometimes Manitoba, have similar discussions. They may not arise to the extent they do in the Bloc members' province, but they're not to be dismissed or taken lightly or brushed aside either. We have some of those same concerns constitutionally where there's an intrusion of the federal into the province. If Quebec is exempted, what right does the Bloc have to impose those rules on the other provinces: on my province, on Alberta--Honourable Rick Casson's province--or any other province, for that matter? I think that's well worth taking into account.
We have objections to the bill as a whole, but no less so because in this particular amendment before us now, that the Bloc have proposed, they, again somewhat myopically, find it only in terms of their province. They don't talk in terms of any of the other provinces; they don't speak in respect to the territories in our country.
I think it doesn't have the proper kind of approach, which would say what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If it works in terms of Quebec, why should it not be stated in respect to all of the provinces and all of our territories as well?
Again, we've had this debate in different committees over time. Other provinces, as well, need to insist on and stand by those very same rights as Quebec does, sometimes in appropriate ways, for their own province. Others have that same right in a confederation, across a country.
Those are my remarks, Madam Chair. I pass to the next speaker.
Yves Lessard Bloc Chambly—Borduas, QC
Madam Chair, the very least we can say is that our Conservative colleagues have quite opposite positions. Mr. Komarnicki states that we should pass an amendment recognizing that right for all provinces, while Mr. Vellacott tells us that we want to impose the Quebec rationale on all provinces. Perhaps you should have a discussion between yourselves to decide on the argument you want to waste our time with.
If our colleagues opposite want to come up with specific provisions for specific provinces, why don't they have the courage of their convictions and introduce amendments to that effect? As Ms. Falco clearly described just now, this amendment is about a Quebec policy. It is about our principles; they have led to ways of doing things in Quebec, the means of our own we have developed.
If our colleagues tell us, for example, that they have a mandate from Alberta, from Saskatchewan or from Ontario authorizing them to secure a different provision for each of those provinces, let them say so and let them do it. But they must not hold us responsible for something they would like. Let them have the courage to go and get it. But they are not doing that.
We respect what the other provinces that want a Canada-wide strategy are doing. They are Canadian and they want to show it with a policy that they see as theirs, because their choices are the same. They have the right to do so and we respect that. Once again, we will vote with them so that is what they get.
We have already done so with clause 3. We say yes to a Canada-wide strategy, but that strategy must not get in the way of Quebec's initiatives in its policy on poverty and its strategy on developing social housing. Despite the fact that the Canadian government completely withdrew from funding social housing from 1991 to 2001, Quebec has continued to develop its policy. Of course, our means were more limited. During that time, the feds kept tax points that normally would have been allocated there. It used them for other purposes, as it also helped itself to employment insurance funds for other purposes.
That is the issue. We are saying yes to a Canada-wide policy, respecting and recognizing the rights and powers already established by the treaties that Canada itself has signed. That is what we are saying today.
Wanting to distort things gets us nowhere. It is of absolutely no help to people living in misery, people with substandard housing or none at all. The merit of Bill C-304 and of our amendment is that we must try to come up with initiatives we can all agree on to help people in substandard housing. That is the merit of this bill.
I invite our Conservative colleagues to get back to the basic intent of this bill and to stop destroying the nature of the amendment we have proposed this morning.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
Thank you.
I have to chuckle, Mr. Lessard, because at the last meeting you chastised me for talking to everyone in a sermon tone, somewhat as if they were children. I enjoy when we all are able to speak with a bit of passion and conviction, and I'm quite happy to give you that freedom, as you certainly deserve. It was a very passionate intervention, and I think we all should be able to enjoy that same type of passion when we speak. I just had to note that.
Thank you, Mr. Lessard. That was very well done.
Madam Davies.
NDP
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
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.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
Thank you very much.
Mr. Komarnicki, you had something new to add?
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Yes. To the extent you got advice to this effect, I think it was bad advice. Having said that, let us not be under any illusion. It was not crafted with a view to establishing a national housing strategy. It was crafted specifically with a view to getting Bloc support. Monsieur Lessard was not supporting anything that didn't specifically allow for a special provision for Quebec only.
This was crafted--and I would put it to you, Ms. Davies--specifically to get the support of the Bloc for your bill and not for any other purpose, or else you'd have done it earlier. You have had at least two amendments, and this is the third, to get the Bloc to vote with you. So let's be clear about that.
With respect to the amendment itself, nobody's yet explained to me why Quebec, as a result of being a party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, has the right to do what you say in the amendment. Perhaps Monsieur Lessard or others could clarify why Quebec, as opposed to any other province, might have special privileges, because of the international covenant, which the other provinces might not have.
No one's yet explained to me how this amendment does not detract from a national policy. And if this amendment doesn't take away from the purpose of the bill, which is to establish a national housing strategy, how is it that other provinces are not added to it? I would like to ask Ms. Davies and Monsieur Lessard how many provinces they have consulted with and put the question to as to whether or not they would want the same privileges that Monsieur Lessard is planning for Quebec--
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
--and whether they were even consulted on this amendment.
They probably weren't, and I'll tell you why they weren't: because you were seeking the Bloc's support for the amendment in the House, which is contrary to the scope and purpose in the first place, for referral back to this committee of this particular amendment, and that's why you wouldn't have contacted the other provinces and asked for input with respect to their inclusion--
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
--in this particular area.
You can't cut it both ways. Either this takes away from a national housing strategy--and if it does, the other provinces should have the same privileges--or, if it doesn't, why is it there? There's no reason to have it.
We know that all of the provinces have been given funds by the federal government. In fact, there's been $2 billion to repair and build new social housing; $1 billion for repairs and upgrades; $400 million for seniors; $75 million for persons with disabilities, first nations, and areas in the north. And that money is given to the provinces, essentially, according to an established formula.
If you're going to have an existing strategy that gives those kinds of dollars, and you really want it to be meaningful, are you saying that Quebec may or may not participate, depending on its own choices, its own programs, and its own approach relating to housing on its territory? If it has that kind of a choice, then what about Saskatchewan, what about Manitoba, what about Ontario? Do you suppose they might want to administer the national strategy by way of their own choices, by way of their own programs, by way of their own approaches, with respect to housing on their property? Of course they would. It's provincial jurisdiction. It's no different whether you're in Quebec or any other province of Canada.
What is behind this amendment is a desire to get Bloc support, notwithstanding anything else, and an attempt to circumvent the ruling of the Speaker in an indirect way. I think that's offensive. What we have here is essentially the tyranny of the minority, of the opposition trying to get together to put something together that ought not to be. No one's yet answered the question of why the other provinces aren't in on it and what it means if Quebec has some special status as a result of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
I'd like to have somebody explain that to me, if they could.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Candice Bergen
I am going to suspend at this time. It's 12 noon, and according to the orders of the day, the first hour was on Bill C-304, but we do have committee business. The first part of this committee business I would like to be in camera, so we will go in camera and deal with committee business, and then we'll continue with the orders of the day.
[Proceedings continue in camera]
[Public proceedings resume]