Human Resources Committee on March 22nd, 2010

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

With regard to the question from Mr. Kennedy, we believe the amendments concerning Quebec that we have submitted this time around are stronger. We believe that this finesses the bill. We have worked very hard with a lot of community groups to make sure that the language is good, fair, strong, and also admissible, so that we wouldn't actually have to challenge the chair, which is something that we did last time around.

However, we're taking from the Bloc that they don't support those other drafts of the amendment.

Madam Chair, I do have a question. I don't know if it goes to you or to Mr. Komarnicki. Right now, I am failing to understand the difference between what Madam Folco is saying and what Mr. Komarnicki is proposing. Could I get clarification on the difference?

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Thank you.

I am going to ask you if you would mind clarifying that. You just explained to me the difference between Madam Folco's motion, which would require unanimous consent, and Mr. Komarnicki's.

Yours is a suggestion. His would be a motion.

Hers is a suggestion that we take all of the amendments that had previously been adopted and basically call them done--ignore them. Mr. Komarnicki is saying let's bring the bill back as it was in its format on December 9 when we were ready to present it to the House.

Is that correct?

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

Does that include the amendments that have been accepted?

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

You're including the amendments that had been accepted.

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

Exactly, but no new amendments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Yes, but no new amendments.

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

In this case.... Then there were some 20 amendments--

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

I hadn't gone that far--the first ones, yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

So we need a vote on his, while on yours we need unanimous consent.

Is that clear?

[An hon. member]

Not really.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Not really?

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

Could I suggest something? Actually, on the first part, Mr. Komarnicki and I agree, and that is that we would accept en bloc all the amendments that had already been voted on, but what I was suggesting is that we go on to look at the new amendments. Mr. Komarnicki is saying no, that's where we stop.

Is that correct, Mr. Komarnicki?

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

What I'm saying is that I'm not prepared to consent to the first process, because I'm saying we either take it as it was and report it back to the House, or we don't just take what it was and then keep arguing. It's either one or the other, not both, and not a part of either one.

Quite frankly, there were some 27 amendments, and now there may be some 30 amendments. Some of them are sequential and some are not so much so, but I'm saying that I'm prepared to agree with what Mr. Lessard's position was, and that is to put the bill exactly in the form it was. That's what I said from the outset. If there is any variation, we'll go back to clause-by-clause and we'll make our arguments again on the record.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

I'm going to tell you that I would have a challenge doing it your way, Madam Folco. I know that the clerks have some reservations because of the different sequence in which we received the amendments. We would have to go back and probably go over some of it anyway, so I think we're probably better off to do one or the other.

Either we accept the bill as it was prior to prorogation, or we have to go through it line by line. That would be my suggestion.

Do you want to speak, Mr. Lessard? Go ahead.

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

That is one of the concerns raised by Mr. Kennedy, and rightly so, in my opinion. Was Ms. Leslie's concern taken into account? Everything hinges on the issue of Quebec's right to opt out with full compensation. That is the issue here. We already dealt with that issue in committee in December, but, at the request of the NDP and FRAPU, we nevertheless reconsidered two other options. We tried—and this speaks to Mr. Kennedy's concerns—to find a solution that, while being acceptable to the House of Commons, would give Quebec that guarantee. In the end, it was not possible. Again, on Thursday, I met with the leader. It really turned out to be impossible.

Everything being put forward right now brings Quebec back to its international human rights obligations. The obligations being set out here are bilateral, in other words, between Quebec, or the other provinces, and Canada. So we cannot look to a third party to determine the obligations that each party has toward the others. That is the nature of our dilemma. In December, we dealt with the issue along those same lines. That is why I stand behind the motion I moved earlier.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Okay. Well, as you know, we made a decision several weeks ago that we wanted to take a full day to come back to look at Bill C-304. I would assume that meant that we weren't going to accept it--or we accept it in its format before we prorogued. So I would say that the committee has to make a decision. Either we accept it the way it was before we prorogued, or we continue with our work today and go through it line by line.

Ms. Leslie, I don't know how you feel about accepting Mr. Komarnicki's suggestion.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Chair, can we just take a quick recess?

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Sure. Why don't we take a couple of minutes?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Actually, we've brought food in, and I want to let the committee members know that it's for the committee members, so please help yourselves.

We'll suspend for five minutes.

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

Can we reread it before the break so we can think about it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

We're going to suspend for five minutes. Then we'll come back. They have to decide what they're going to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

All right, we've had our five-minute break. Can we please reconvene?

Do we know what's going on?

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

It's difficult to go through it other than clause by clause. I don't think Mr. Lessard wants to change the Quebec amendments--

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

No. So we are either going to accept the report or we're going to go clause by clause.

All right, ladies and gentlemen. We need to get started. It is part of our standing order for today that we are going to go through this bill clause-by-clause. I think it would be wise that.... We wouldn't have unanimous consent to go ahead with Madam Folco's suggestion, so unless there is going to be a motion that we adopt the eighth report as it was agreed upon on December 10, if there's a motion....

I'm sorry. Just let me just finish. There is a motion?

You moved a motion to accept the report that was determined on December 10.