Bill C-442 (Historical)

National Holocaust Monument Act

An Act to establish a National Holocaust Monument

This enactment requires the Minister responsible for the National Capital Act to establish and work in cooperation with a National Holocaust Monument Development Council to design and build a National Holocaust Monument to be located in the National Capital Region.

National Holocaust Monument Act

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak this evening to Bill C-442, An Act to establish a National Holocaust Monument.

The horrific events of the Holocaust are a stark testament to what can happen when humanity and fundamental basic rights are discarded. This monument will serve as a symbol of Canadian value and diversity as much as it will be a memorial for the millions of victims and families destroyed. This monument will be a testament to the Canadian commitment and resolve never to forget, and always to stand up against such atrocities.

In addition to supporting the establishment of a national Holocaust monument in the nation's capital as proposed in Bill C-442, the government also undertakes other efforts to ensure that Canadians remember the Holocaust. These initiatives are very important, especially in light of new forces of anti-Semitism.

The Holocaust, also known as the Shoah in Hebrew, resulted in the genocide of approximately six million European Jews during the second world war. With 40,000 Holocaust survivors settling in Canada after the war, our country has the third-largest population of these survivors in the world.

Our country's Prime Minister, when he visited the Nazi death camp at Auschwitz in the spring of 2008, commented that, on the one hand, he was deeply moved by the suffering of the innocents who died, but that, on the other hand, he felt hope from the spirit and strength of the Jewish people.

Worldwide, there has been an increase in the number of major violent manifestations that are anti-Semitic in nature. This increase is linked to Holocaust denial and questioning the legitimacy of Israel. Similar events are being reported here in Canada, and there currently appears to be less understanding of other cultures and religions.

The government does not tolerate public expressions of anti-Semitism. In support of this sentiment, we have created a fund that provides security-support grants for synagogues, Jewish schools, and other communities that have faced hatred or violence.

I would like to explain some of the actions that our federal government has recently taken to remember the Holocaust and thereby to underscore the importance of protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Holocaust Memorial Day, which is also called Yom HaShoah, is determined each year by the Jewish lunar calendar. The Parliament of Canada has formally recognized this annual event through the Holocaust Memorial Day Act, which was adopted with the support of all parties. This Act, which came into force on November 7, 2003, reaffirms our country's commitment to human rights and provides an occasion to focus on the lessons of the Holocaust. I should mention that all provinces and territories also have acts that recognize the Holocaust Memorial Day.

In 2005, Canada co-sponsored a resolution at the United Nations General Assembly, which led to the designation of January 27 as the International Day of Commemoration to honour the victims of the Holocaust. This date is the anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camp in 1945. Shortly, we will join in the sixth annual international commemoration of the Holocaust.

In 2009, the Government of Canada became the 27th member of the Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance and Research. This organization was established in 1998 and is mandated to promote national and international policies and programs in support of furthering understanding of the Holocaust.

One of the requirements for becoming a member of this task force is to complete a project with liaison partners. To fulfill this requirement, Canada co-hosted a conference with B'nai Brith Canada that was held in Toronto this past June. With 200 attendees, including representatives from other countries, this two-day conference focused on Canada's restrictive immigration policy during the second world war, which led to the exclusion of refugees seeking sanctuary.

In February 2009, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, along with 11 other members of the Parliament of Canada, attended the inaugural conference of the Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Anti-Semitism in London, United Kingdom. This conference was also attended by parliamentarians from 40 countries.

Following this event was the London Declaration on Combating Anti-Semitism, which calls on governments and societies to affirm democratic and human values, promote respect and citizenship, and combat any manifestations of anti-Semitism and discrimination.

The Government of Canada is proud to have provided financial support to the Parliamentary Centre, which, along with the Inter-parliamentary Commission on Combating Anti-Semitism, will be hosting the follow-up conference here in Canada, November 7-9 this year.

In the summer of 2009, Canada was a signatory to the Terezin Declaration, which emerged from the Prague Holocaust Era Assets Conference held in the Czech Republic. This declaration speaks to the need to take care of elderly Holocaust survivors to ensure that their last years are filled with dignity, and imposes a moral obligation to pursue the restitution of property and to attend to the needs of survivors.

The Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism was commended for his leadership efforts, and the Government of Canada was recognized for its commitment to Holocaust commemoration and education. As follow-up to this conference, Canada was among the 43 countries that signed the new restitution guidelines in June 2010 to deal with some outstanding issues related to property confiscated by the Nazis.

The Department of Citizenship and Immigration has also been taking concrete steps that further the recollection of the Holocaust on our own soil. In May 2009, the minister established a Jewish-Canadian advisory committee for historical recognition projects to review projects such as monuments, plaques, and exhibits for the Jewish-Canadian community. That same month, Citizenship and Immigration announced that it would contribute a total of $2.5 million to the Jewish-Canadian community for projects such as monuments, commemorative plaques, and education materials.

To date, of this total amount, $1 million has been contributed to assist in the operation of the National Task Force on Holocaust Education, Remembrance and Education, which brings together Canadian experts on the subject to learn from each other and improve co-ordination.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada has also contributed $485,000 to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the MS St. Louis incident. This will include a memorial, which will be installed at Pier 21 in the Halifax harbour. Renowned architect Daniel Libeskind has been selected by the Canadian Jewish Congress to design the monument. When describing his proposed design, Libeskind stated, “This work of memory will express the importance of eradicating the evils of hatred, racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism”.

I should pause at this moment to recount the relatively unknown story of the ship known as the MS St. Louis. On the eve of World War II, this German ocean liner transported 900 Jewish passengers from Germany who were denied entry into Cuba, the U.S.A., and Canada. These individuals were eventually accepted by various European countries and subsequently over 250 lost their lives.

The Canadian Museum of Human Rights will also promote the remembrance of the Holocaust. The museum will include exhibits on the Holocaust, since it serves as an invaluable tool to teach people the extreme consequences of racism and the responsibility of everyone to promote societies based on respect, equality, and understanding.

I would like to turn my attention to Bill C-442. This bill is favoured by various stakeholder associations such as the Canadian Jewish Congress, B'nai Brith Canada, and others. Therefore, I would expect these associations to be extremely interested in participating in the work carried out to achieve the objective of this bill, possibly by providing advice to the national Holocaust monument development council proposed in the bill.

If Bill C-442 were to become law, which I certainly hope will occur, Canada would be one of several countries, including Austria, France, Germany, Sweden, and the United States, that have memorials or monuments to recognize the Holocaust.

It is also important to recognize the support of all parties for this bill. We as members of Parliament, through our support for a national holocaust monument, are taking a stand against hatred of the worst kind and saying to future generations, never again.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-442, An Act to establish a National Holocaust Monument, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Bill C-442--Admissibility of Amendments Made at Committee--Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Eglinton—Lawrence on October 20, 2010, concerning amendments contained in the third report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities on Bill C-442, An Act to establish a National Holocaust Monument, presented in the House on June 9, 2010.

I would like to thank the member for Eglinton—Lawrence for having raised this important matter. I would also like to thank the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the hon. member for Mississauga South for their contributions.

In raising his point of order, the member for Eglinton—Lawrence noted that the bill had been adopted by the House unanimously at second reading on March 3, 2010 and reported from the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities on June 9, 2010. The member for Eglinton—Lawrence drew to the attention of the Speaker three of the amendments contained in that report. He pointed out that the chair of the transport, infrastructure and communities committee had ruled all three of these amendments inadmissible, judging them to be beyond the scope of the bill as approved by the House at second reading. Each of these rulings was appealed and overturned in the committee by a majority vote, as is reflected in the minutes of proceedings of the committee at a meeting held on June 3, 2010.

Let me briefly remind the House of the nature of the amendments that are in dispute. The first amendment, to clause 2 of the bill, provides the minister with the authority to require that the National Holocaust Monument Development Council constitute itself as a legal entity.

The second amendment, to clause 7, provides that the council’s role in raising funds for the construction of the national Holocaust monument be expanded to include fundraising for maintaining the monument and for the council’s own costs. I should note here that, as provided for in clause 5 of Bill C-442, the council members are unpaid and must apply for their positions.

The third amendment, to clause 8, allows the minister to delegate his responsibilities for overseeing the planning and design of the monument, for consulting the public concerning the design and site of the monument and for the construction and maintenance of the monument to the council.

In his comments on the point of order, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader contended that the amendments in question were consistent with the principle of the bill as well as within its scope. In his view, the amendment to clause 2 served only to clarify the definition and did not constitute a substantive amendment.

He argued that the amendment to clause 7 was similarly best regarded as a clarification of the source of funding for expenses entailed by the bill. He noted that the member for Eglinton—Lawrence had himself introduced an amendment to the effect that the minister's responsibility included both the construction and the maintenance of the monument and that this amendment was not found to contain any procedural defect.

With respect to the amendment to clause 8, the parliamentary secretary went on to state that it served to elaborate on concepts already contained in Bill C-442 and did not attempt to introduce a new concept. On the contrary, he contended that since clause 8 followed immediately upon those clauses which set out the minister’s responsibilities, it was completely appropriate to deal with the delegation of those responsibilities in clause 8.

In summary, the parliamentary secretary argued that the three disputed amendments were matters of clarification and elaboration, that they were within the scope of the bill and that they were therefore entirely acceptable from a procedural point of view.

In his remarks, the member for Mississauga South reviewed the procedural principles on which the Speaker should base his ruling. He pointed out certain differences between the bill as introduced and as reported from the standing committee and supported the position of the member for Eglinton—Lawrence that the amendments objected to were inadmissible.

As hon. members will agree and as has been frequently pointed out in the past, the Speaker's responsibility is clear in cases concerning procedural irregularities in a committee's consideration of a bill. As Mr. Speaker Fraser stated in a ruling in reference to amendments adopted by a committee after the committee chair's rulings on the amendments were overturned, in the Debates on April 28, 1992, at page 9801:

In cases in which the Chair is asked to rule on the admissibility of committee amendments to bills, any modifications which offend a basic principle in the legislative process are struck from the bill.

With reference to the three amendments contested by the member for Eglinton—Lawrence, I have examined the third report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities carefully, as well as Bill C-442 both in its first reading version and in the reprint containing the committee's amendments. I have also consulted the minutes of the proceedings of the committee related to its clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

Bill C-442, as stated in the summary to the bill, “requires the Minister responsible for the National Capital Act to establish and work in cooperation with a National Holocaust Monument Development Council to design and build a National Holocaust Monument to be located in the National Capital Region”.

The amendment to clause 2 of the bill empowers the minister to require the council to “form a legal entity”, by amending the definition of Council contained in the bill. In committee, it was ruled inadmissible on the basis that it constitutes a substantive amendment to the bill by way of a modification of the interpretation clause.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, at page 769, states:

The interpretation clause of a bill is not the place to propose a substantive amendment to a bill. In addition, an amendment to the interpretation clause of a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading must always relate to the bill and may neither exceed the scope of nor be contrary to the principle of the bill.

I can see nothing in the bill as amended by the committee which requires that such a power be provided to the minister. It appears to me to be a new concept and on that basis to constitute a substantive amendment to the interpretation clause of Bill C-442.

Clause 7 of the bill originally required the council to spearhead a fundraising campaign for the sole purpose of funding the construction of the monument. The amendment added the additional purposes of funding the planning, designing, installing and maintaining of the monument, as well as “any other costs incurred by the Council”.

While certain of these elements may constitute an elaboration or clarification of the purpose for which the council was to raise funds, I do not regard the maintenance of the monument as an aspect of its construction. It seems to me that it is only once the monument has been constructed that maintenance may be required. Further, there do not appear to be any grounds on which the original bill might be said to allow money raised for construction to be used for the costs of the council, whatever they may be. Therefore, it is my view that these two elements are clearly beyond the scope of Bill C-442 and were rightly judged inadmissible by the chair of the transport, infrastructure and communities committee.

The amendment to clause 8 of the bill authorized the minister to delegate to the council certain of his responsibilities. In particular, this delegation would include the planning and design of the monument, its construction and its maintenance. There are no provisions in the bill as adopted by the House at second reading for any delegation of the minister's responsibilities. As such, this notion of delegation seems to be a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill. Indeed, the delegation of the minister's responsibilities to the council seems to be directly contrary to the principle of the bill, which requires the minister to design and build the National Holocaust Memorial Monument, in co-operation with the national council, rather than have the national council do it in his stead.

I would also like to take this opportunity to clarify a certain confusion which appears to exist concerning the ruling that the amendment to clause 8 was offered at the wrong place in the bill. As I noted, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons felt that an amendment to delegate powers was appropriately placed if it followed those provisions which set out the powers to be delegated. While that is a reasonable position, it is not the point that is at issue here. Clause 8, in its original form, read:

The Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada may assist the Council in the performance of its functions under this Act.

A provision for the minister to delegate powers to the national council seems to me to be well beyond the scope of clause 8, which deals with the role of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. Clause 8 is not the appropriate place to attempt the insertion of such a provision, even if it were otherwise admissible.

For all these reasons, I therefore rule that the amendments to clauses 2, 7 and 8 of Bill C-442 are null and void and no longer form part of the bill as reported to the House. In addition, I am ordering that a reprint of Bill C-442 be published to replace the reprint ordered by the committee.

I would like to once again thank the hon. member for Eglinton—Lawrence for having raised this important matter.

Bill C-442—Admissibility of Amendment made in Committee

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have reviewed the submission made by the member for Eglinton—Lawrence on October 20 and have listened carefully to the parliamentary secretary's argument. In my view, the matter before you now, Mr. Speaker, is very serious and substantive in terms of establishing a precedent which may not be in the best interests of the House.

In my view, by allowing these amendments to stand, the bill as amended and submitted to the House on June 10 for report stage would establish a principle whereby a private member's bill before a committee theoretically could be hijacked and rewritten in a fashion changing the intent of the bill to something totally different. If that was the intent it would have had substantive other changes and support in debate, in committee and in the House, that this was not to be a publicly funded project but rather a project which would be administered by the government but paid for by fundraising in the community at large. Those are two separate concepts.

The concept of public financing through fundraising was never raised at second reading debate. It was never raised in presentations to the committee. In fact, Mr. Speaker, if you would check the timeline, the amendments proposed by the government came at the eleventh hour, late in the evening. They were imposed on the committee and the committee chair was overruled on three of them.

This is fairly serious. This is a matter where the former House leader would give his speech about the tyranny of the minority or the majority, however one wants to look at it.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to review the rules of practice and procedure, because I believe that if the government wanted this to be publicly funded, it could do so very easily. All it would have to do is defeat the private member's bill, table its own bill, and deal with it, rather than trying to somehow take an instrument which was never constructed for the purpose for which the government has made its arguments.

If I may, I would like to give my support to some of the key arguments.

Mr. Speaker, on May 11, 2010, you ruled that the Speaker does not get involved in committee issues except in cases where a committee has exceeded its authority, such as an amendment that is beyond the scope of the bill. In such cases the Speaker is responsible for ruling on the admissibility of such amendments after the bill has been reported to the House. This is because the motion to refer the bill to committee after second reading establishes the principle and scope of the bill. As a result, the committee report that is not consistent with that motion must be corrected.

Here we are. The bill has been reported and amendments have been made to it.

Mr. Speaker, you are aware from the presentation by the member for Eglinton—Lawrence that the ruling of the chair of the committee was overruled by the government members.

With regard to the member's argument, he is seeking your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that the committee has exceeded its authority in passing these amendments. O'Brien and Bosc at page 765 with regard to admissibility reads:

Amendments and subamendments that are moved by Members in committee must comply with certain rules of admissibility. It is incumbent upon the Chair to decide upon the admissibility of amendments once they have been moved; the Chair does not rule on hypothetical motions. He or she relies on the procedural rules that have been established as precedents over the years and upon the authorities on parliamentary procedure and practice.

Now we have a contrasting situation. Chairs' rulings in committees can be appealed. The chair can be challenged, and that is exactly what happened. In the House that is not the case.

With regard to the amendment to clause 7, it seeks to establish a fundraising campaign to cover the cost. I mentioned earlier that this is different from the intent of the bill because it involves the National Capital Commission. The member has asserted that Bill C-442 is merely calling on the government to do what it easily could do administratively.

The point is, the National Capital Commission already possesses the authority to establish a monument without parliamentary approval. Indeed, the National Capital Commission currently is responsible for 16 monuments, including the Hungarian monument, the Canadian tribute to human rights, and the monument to Canadian aid workers. Construction is currently under way for the national naval monument. In addition, the National Capital Commission is in the planning phase for the creation of a national monument for the victims of communism. None of these monuments required legislation to move forward.

That precedent, that process and structure whereby a decision is taken to have a monument through the auspices of the National Capital Commission does not require public funding. It is funded by the taxpayers' purse, through taxes, through government money. That is the model on which Bill C-442 was done. It was never done to say that we have to set up a structure that is going to have to raise the money to do it.

This is an important monument for Canadians. It is not one that somehow we are going to put the burden on those taxpayers who want it to come up with the money themselves and somehow do the job that the National Capital Commission was engaged to do.

I could go through all of O'Brien and Bosc on the terms of admissibility. I could talk about principle and scope, which I think the member for Eglinton—Lawrence has done quite clearly. Those remarks have been put on the record and I will not repeat them. I am not trying to just add words.

The parliamentary secretary got up and summarily dismissed the arguments that have been made simply because of the summary of the bill, and he read it into the record. I would like to read it into the record as well. A little summary appears on all bills. The summary for this bill states:

This enactment requires the minister responsible for the National Capital Act to establish and work in cooperation with a Holocaust Monument Development Council to design and build a Holocaust Monument to be located in the National Capital Region.

This is a project for the National Capital Commission. Every one of the projects that I referred to with regard to those other monuments had a work group established to make it happen. There is a lot of planning. There are a lot of things that have to happen. The fact that there is reference to a Holocaust monument development council does not in itself suggest that there has to be fundraising. In fact, before these amendments were made, there was nothing like that in the bill.

Mr. Speaker, if you are going to rule on the admissibility of these amendments, first of all, I submit that they are beyond the scope and intent of the bill. The evidence is in debate both at committee and in the House at second reading that there was never any discussion, any suggestion that fundraising would be involved. It was always understood. In fact, what the House of Commons voted unanimously for at second reading was to send to committee a bill to engage the government to have the National Capital Commission do the Holocaust memorial on behalf of all Canadians.

I submit that this is a clear case where the amendments proposed by the government, ruled inadmissible by the Chair but overruled by the government, is simply an attempt to take this instrument, the private member's bill asking for this monument, and turn it into a project to be run by and fundraised by the public as a separate project without government money.

That cannot possibly be interpreted as the intent of the bill. It was never mentioned. It was never voted on by this place to send it to committee for that purpose. It was for the National Capital Commission as a project, as other monuments. I am totally disgusted that the parliamentary secretary would rise and summarily dismiss fundamental principles of practice and procedure when in fact the government is trying to change the bill.

This is so important, Mr. Speaker, that you must rule this to be inadmissible, order the committee to review the bill again without those amendments and then let the government defeat it or pass it in committee. When it comes back to the House, the government can defeat it at report stage or at third reading and it can be responsible for why there is not a Holocaust memorial.

The issue is that this is a different bill and members would vote differently depending on whether or not these amendments were there.

Therefore, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the government's arguments are contrary to our practices and procedure and I ask you for a favourable ruling on the point of order raised by the member for Eglinton—Lawrence.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, on October 20, the member for Eglinton—Lawrence raised a point of order regarding three amendments made in committee to Bill C-442, An Act to establish a National Holocaust Monument.

I undertook, at that time, to respond to the member's comments in detail as soon as possible.

The Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities adopted a number of amendments to Bill C-442 and the bill was reported to the House on June 9. The amendments adopted by the committee do not change the principle of the bill, which is found in the bill's summary. Rather the amendments elaborate on measures in the bill and therefore are not outside the scope of the bill.

The Speaker indicated, on February 26, 2007, when addressing the question of scope relating to a private member's bill, that the summary of a bill provides a basis for determining if an amendment has gone beyond the scope of a bill.

The summary of Bill C-442 states:

This enactment requires the Minister responsible for the National Capital Act to establish and work in cooperation with a National Holocaust Monument Development Council to design and build a National Holocaust [Memorial] to be located in the National Capital Region.

The summary applies equally to the bill as introduced and the bill as reported by the committee.

Let me explain how the amendments noted by the member for Eglinton—Lawrence are within the scope of Bill C-442 as introduced.

Clause 2 in Bill C-442 includes a series of definitions, including the definition of a national Holocaust memorial council, which would be established by the responsible minister under section 4 of the bill. The amendment to clause 2 clarifies that the council established by the minister may be directed by the minister to “form a legal entity in order to properly manage the functions and ensure good governance and accountability of said council”.

The amendment does not alter the definition of a national Holocaust memorial council but merely provides clarity to the definition.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice states, on page 769, “The interpretation clause of a bill is not the place to propose a substantive amendment to a bill”.

The amendment to the definition of council is not a substantive amendment, but merely provides specificity and clarity to how the minister should establish the council, an authority the minister is given in clause 4 of the bill.

Given that the bill as introduced obliged the council to take on a number of responsibilities, including the oversight of the planning and design of the monument, the selection of public land for the monument and the adoption of bylaws to carry out the council's functions, it is important for the legal status of the council to be clarified. As the amendment notes, this is designed to ensure accountability to Canadians.

I would note that the member for Eglinton—Lawrence did not suggest that this amendment was outside the scope of the bill. As I have explained, the amendment simply clarifies an existing purpose for clause 2.

The second amendment noted by the member for Eglinton—Lawrence relates to clause 7.

In Bill C-442 as introduced, clause 7 stated:

(1) The Minister shall be responsible for allocating the public land for the Monument and for maintenance of the Monument.

(2) The Council shall spearhead a fundraising campaign to cover the cost of constructing the Monument.

The amendment to clause 7, adopted by the committee, clarifies the source of funds to be used to plan, design, install and maintain the monument. The amendment merely reflects the fact that in order for construction to be undertaken, other steps, like planning and design, must occur and they must also be paid for. Indeed, planning, designing and installing are all implicit parts of the construction of the monument.

I note that the member for Eglinton—Lawrence proposed in committee that clause 7 was amended by changing the minister's responsibility from maintenance to a responsibility for construction and maintenance. That amendment was not ruled out of order.

The amendment that was finally adopted by the committee is similar to the member's amendment in that the council's responsibilities are clarified with respect to the fundraising campaign for the monument.

The member's amendment to clause 7 has a parallel to the amendment adopted by the committee.

I submit that the member, in committee, found his amendment to be within the scope of clause 7, and the committee's amendment parallels that of the member and is also within the scope of clause 7.

The third amendment to Bill C-442 refers to clause 8. The amendment to clause 8 allows the minister to delegate to the council his or her responsibilities for the functions outlined in paragraphs 6(a) and (c) and subsection 7(1). This amendment does not introduce a new concept to the bill; rather, it elaborates on concepts already present in Bill C-442.

As the member for Eglinton—Lawrence has noted, concerns about the admissibility of the amendments were noted during consideration of Bill C-442 by the committee. However, the committee agreed after reflection that the amendments were important to clarify the provisions already present in the bill. This motion is consistent with the scope of the bill because even with this inclusion in the bill, the minister would remain accountable for the establishment of the monument. Further, this motion reflects the provision that the minister fulfills his responsibilities by working in co-operation with the council.

The second issue raised with respect to clause 8 is that the chair ruled that the amendment was moved at the wrong place in the bill. Clauses 6 and 7 outline the minister's responsibilities for the establishment of the monument. Clause 8 provides for the delegation of some of these powers. It stands to reason that the bill would first need to set out the minister's powers before dealing with the delegation of these same powers.

I would also draw to the attention of the House that the member for Eglinton—Lawrence proposed three amendments designed to clarify this bill's clauses himself. I submit that these three amendments are within the scope of the bill as introduced. The amendments do not add any new concepts to the bill, but simply clarify and elaborate on the provisions already in the bill and are consistent with the previous Speaker's rulings on the admissibility of amendments.

Bill C-442--Admissibility of Amendments Made at Committee

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with respect to the admissibility of three amendments made in committee to Bill C-442, An Act to establish a National Holocaust Monument. The bill, which was reported back to the House with amendments on June 9, 2010, is scheduled to be debated on October 27, 2010.

Before I speak to my substantive points, I want you to know that I and my party and each member of the House wish to see the establishment of a national Holocaust monument in our nation's capital as soon as humanly possible. In bringing this matter to your attention, I am simply seeking to ensure that proper procedure and practice is followed on this important bill and that there are no errors in legislation and indeed in the process.

I seek your ruling that the committee has exceeded its authority and passed amendments that are beyond the principle and scope of the bill as outlined in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, page 766. To wit:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principles of the bill.

As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the issue of inadmissible amendments being passed in committee and included in the bill as reported has arisen in the House on numerous occasions. In the most recent occurrence, you ruled on May 11, 2010 that the Speaker does not get involved in committee issues except in cases where a committee has exceeded its authority, such as an amendment that is beyond the scope of the bill. In such cases, the Speaker is responsible for ruling on the admissibility of such amendments after the bill has been reported to the House. This is because the motion to refer the bill to committee after second reading establishes the principle and the scope of the bill. As a result, a committee report that is not consistent with that motion must be corrected.

On September 18, 2009, Bill C-442 was introduced by the member for Edmonton—Sherwood Park and was debated at second reading on December 8, 2009. In presenting his private member's bill, the member for Edmonton--Sherwood Park summarized the scope and principle of the bill when he concluded:

This monument is a statement made by Canadians to the world that honours those who died in the tragedy of the Holocaust and says to future generations of Canadians, never again.

Based on this principle, the House of Commons unanimously, and I might add enthusiastically, adopted Bill C-442 at second reading and referred it to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

On May 13, 2010, the committee began a study of the bill at the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities where the member for Edmonton—Sherwood Park stated, and I repeat, that the Prime Minister gave his support and approval to the bill as passed in the House.

On May 26, 2010, and again on June 3, 2010, your committee met in public, not in camera, for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. The government presented a total of nine amendments, one for each clause of the bill.

At the meeting on June 3, 2010, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities moved five amendments. In at least three cases the chair ruled the proposed amendments inadmissible. In each case the chair's ruling was appealed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and the chair was overruled. The amendments were then carried on division.

For clarity's sake, I will read out the specific amendments in question.

On Clause 2, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities moved:

That Bill C-442, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 10 on page 2 with the following:

“Minister under section 4 and directed as such by the Minister to form a legal entity in order to properly manage the functions and ensure good governance and accountability of said council.”

The chair ruled this amendment inadmissible because it proposed a substantive amendment to the bill by way of a modification to the interpretation clause, as provided on page 769 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.

On Clause 7, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities moved:

That Bill C-442, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing lines 12 and 13 on page 3 with the following:

(fund rais)“ing campaign to cover the cost of planning, designing, constructing, installing and maintaining the Monument, and any other costs incurred by the Council.”

The chair ruled this amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the bill, as provided on page 766 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.

Further, on clause 8, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities moved:

That Bill C-442, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing lines 14 to 16 on page 3 with the following:

“8. The Minister may delegate to the Council his or her responsibilities under paragraphs 6(a) and (c) and subsection 7(1).”

The chair ruled this amendment inadmissible because it was moved at the wrong place in the bill, as provided on page 768 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, and also because it was beyond the scope of the bill, as provided on page 766 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition.

In committee, I argued that the government, in bringing nine amendments to the bill, one for each clause, was attempting to rewrite the bill, leaving nothing but the title intact.

A national Holocaust monument in our nation's capital is something that the government can accomplish today, without this legislation. However, since it has chosen the legislative route, it is important that the proper procedures and practices be followed so that the House can be assured that the committee did not overstep its authority and produce legislation beyond its mandate to do so.

It is my view that upon examination, Mr. Speaker, you, too, will find that the amendments proposed by the government are inadmissible and that the bill should be restored in its original form and so reported to this House.

I respectfully seek your ruling on the matter and thank you in anticipation of same.

National Holocaust Monument

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, 70 years ago, the first transports began arriving at death camps like Auschwitz, sites of the worst government-sponsored genocide in history.

A publicly funded national Holocaust monument in the national capital is one way that all Canadians can be part of honouring the Holocaust's victims.

This House, reflecting that wish, unanimously supported Bill C-442 to accomplish that and yet, at committee, the government introduced nine amendments, one for each article, signalling that it was walking away from its commitment and withdrawing its support for a publicly funded national Holocaust monument.

Instead, the Conservatives told a small segment of our population to raise the money, build the monument and then, when and if it is done, they will take ownership and credit.

However, there is no need. The Minister of Transport already has the authority and the means to direct the National Capital Commission to build this monument on behalf of all Canadians.

I ask the minister and the government to respect the will of the House and get this monument out of the political arena and onto ground where it belongs.

Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities concerning Bill C-442, An Act to establish a National Holocaust Monument.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House, with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, I move:

That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

I move the amendment I proposed earlier, in other words, that Bill C-442, in clause 8, be amended by adding, after line 18 on page 3, the following:

8. (2) Nothing shall prevent the Minister from contributing funds for the cost of planning, designing, constructing, installing and maintaining the Monument.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

I move that Bill C-442, in clause 8, be amended by adding, after line 18 on page 3, the following:

8. (2) Nothing shall prevent the Minister from contributing funds for the cost of planning, designing, constructing, installing and maintaining the Monument.

After the text that was put forward by Mr. Jean earlier.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, and good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, meeting 21. Orders of the day are pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, March 3, 2010, Bill C-442, National Holocaust Monument Act.

When we last left committee, we had dealt with the first Liberal amendment on clause 7, and we are now entertaining amendment LIB-3 on clause 7.

Mr. Jean.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Thank you very much, Chairman and colleagues.

As per our discussion on clause-by-clause on Bill C-442, we began to bog down on some detail just prior to the conclusion of the clause-by-clause.

I've proposed this motion: that we continue clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-442 on June 3 from 9 to 11, because I think we're free then, or, if witnesses are confirmed on that date, that a special meeting be called on June 2. You don't need to worry about that, because apparently June 3 has been freed up.

I'm looking for people's agreement on this. I'm hoping the government will agree to continue with clause-by-clause on Thursday.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Thank you.

I'll just begin. Good morning, members of the committee. I thank you for having me here today to speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-442, An Act to establish a National Holocaust Monument.

As a student growing up in Edmonton, I learned about the history of the Holocaust as a part of the Second World War. Textbooks recounted the events that unfolded; the battles that were waged; the sacrifices of our soldiers, airmen, and sailors, along with their families; and the eventual victory of the allies against the Nazis. I also learned about the Holocaust, how groups of people who didn't fit certain stereotypes were exterminated in the name of racial purity. But to a student reading from a textbook, those events seemed distant and dated. They happened before I was born, to people I didn't know much about, in countries on the other side of the world. I had only a superficial understanding of the Holocaust. It was a part of history. It was something I learned about but never truly understood or appreciated.

For our young people today it is even more remote. For people privileged to live in a country like Canada, the Holocaust can seem wholly foreign, something that people have difficulty understanding because they cannot relate to its atrocities and horrors.

For some, a deeper understanding of those terrible events is provided through the retelling of stories of family members and veterans who were witnesses to the Holocaust, and in some cases survived it. But as time passes and the ranks of those who are able to tell those stories dwindle, there comes a danger that this unparalleled crime will become just a part of history, something that may exist in a textbook but whose real significance is lost.

In a way it's a tribute to the progress we have made that our children have difficulty understanding this brutality. Today's Canada is a nation of hope and opportunity, a beacon to those around the world seeking to find a new home and brighter future for themselves and for their families. As Canadians we pride ourselves on a nation that values and demands respect towards other people, affords a personal dignity to all people, and provides an environment of tolerance and understanding. Our society is the dream for many around the world, and it's something that the thousands of men and women in our armed forces have fought for in distant war-torn and oppressed nations. My own parents came to Canada in order to take advantage of all that Canada affords newcomers.

In today's Canada, those who are honoured to call it home would have tremendous difficulty identifying with the deep horrors of the Holocaust. The dangers we as a country now face are complacency and fatigue, to allow things like the Holocaust to rest on the pages of history. And lest we think that hatred and anti-Semitism are relics of the past, we are reminded on an almost daily basis that there are individuals around the world who continue to deny the very existence of the Holocaust or seek to downplay the extent of the crimes that were committed against humanity.

President Ahmadinejad of Iran continues to outrage people with his denial of the Holocaust. His myopic and ignorant comments on the subject of the Holocaust have resulted in condemnation from virtually all corners of the world. But there are people, even in our own country, who agree with him. The denial of the Holocaust and those who voice such opinions must continue to be fought in the public square. This monument will be a testament to where Canada stands.

The rise of anti-Semitism in some places in the world, whether overt or subtle, is another compelling reason why Canada must continue to ensure that the Holocaust is both acknowledged and condemned.

In my opinion, members of Parliament are charged with two important roles: fighting for the interests of their constituents, and pursuing issues that will benefit Canada as a whole. I believe that establishing a national Holocaust monument speaks to both of these roles and will help instill in generations of future Canadians an understanding of the atrocities of the Holocaust through a visible, tangible icon here in the nation's capital.

Some people have suggested that a monument is not necessary, saying “After all, who has not heard of the Holocaust? Do we really need a monument?” I believe that yes, we do. Remember after the Second World War was over, people began speaking about the Holocaust? Newspapers printed the crimes that had been committed, but they were not understood. No one really grasped what had happened. It was not until we saw the photographs, until there was a more tangible, more visible way to understand, that the significance of the Holocaust began to sink in. That is why I believe that reading about the Holocaust in a textbook is not enough.

Every year thousands of Canadians come to visit our capital, many of them schoolchildren. A physical, tangible monument given space in our nation's capital will make a different impression than the words they read on a page. Like many, I was surprised to learn that Canada remains the only Allied nation without a Holocaust monument in its nation's capital. As is the case in these other countries, with the passage of time, fewer and fewer survivors here in Canada can bear witness to the Holocaust.

A permanent monument to those who died in concentration camps or in their own homes at the hands of the Nazis will serve as a long-lasting reminder of a dark era of hatred and violence that we must ensure never occurs again. By placing the monument at the seat of government in the nation's capital, we accord an appropriate respect and acknowledge the gravity of this terrible event. Great Britain, the United States, France, all our allies have understood the importance of remembering the Holocaust, and so should Canada.

I've been thrilled with the broad level of support I have received from all parties to establish a national Holocaust monument.

The Honourable Irwin Cotler stated:

This monument will be a monument to remember, a monument to remind us. It will be an act of remembrance. It will be, also, a remembrance to act so that never to forget, which is underpinning this monument, will be translated into never again.

Madame Lavallée stated:

The Holocaust was one of the worst crimes of the 20th century. The Bloc Québécois therefore supports the bill to commemorate both the survivors and the victims.

Judy Wasylycia-Leis said:

It is truly amazing that we do not have such a Holocaust memorial right here in Canada's capital city. Tonight with this bill we are actually making a significant attempt at redressing an oversight. I hope that we can accomplish this quickly.

Anita Neville also expressed:

...and I am hopeful that all members of all parties will see fit to support this. It is something that is important, not just to acknowledge what happened in the past, but, as we have heard elsewhere tonight, to ensure that our children know what happened and will determine that it will never happen again in the future.

Many organizations throughout Canada have expressed their support, such as B'nai Brith, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Canadian Israeli Committee, and the Canadian Jewish Political Affairs Committee.

I would also like to recognize Laura Grossman, from the Canadian Memorial Holocaust Project, and the Honourable Peter Kent, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, who have been strong supporters of moving this initiative forward.

I see this bill as an example of the best of what Parliament can do when we transcend traditional party lines and move forward on an issue of tremendous importance to Canadians.

The Prime Minister says:

This is a very worthy project, which would serve to honour the memory of victims and ensure that future generations of Canadians learn from one of the most horrific chapters in human history.

Members of the committee, this monument will stand as a testament to our own ideals and values and will be the embodiment of the words and stories inscribed in the textbooks of history. This monument is a statement made by Canadians to the world. It honours those who died in the tragedy of the Holocaust, and it says to future generations of Canadians, never again.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, meeting number 17. The orders of the day, pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, March 3, 2010, are Bill C-442, An Act to establish a National Holocaust Monument.

With us today is the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Tim Uppal, MP for Edmonton—Sherwood Park. Welcome.

Mr. Volpe, on a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Merci.

I'm sorry, but we are out of time.

Thank you to our guests for being here today. We look forward to further input as we move forward.

As a notice to committee members, on Thursday we're doing Bill C-442, the Holocaust bill, so if you do have any amendments or concerns, please contact Bonnie.

With that, Mr. Jean.