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.

Canadian Jewish Heritage Month Act

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage (Multiculturalism)]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in the House today to speak to Bill S-232 to recognize every May as Canadian Jewish heritage month. At the outset, I want to start by congratulating the member for York Centre for sponsoring this bill, and to say a short hello to Toronto to my son, Nitin, who is watching at home.

Bill S-232 would recognize the important contributions Jewish Canadians have made to Canada's social, economic, political, and cultural fabric.

Bill S-232 would also provide an opportunity to remember, celebrate, and educate future generations about the inspirational role that Jewish Canadians have played and continue to play in communities across the country.

Today, Canada's Jewish population is nearly 400,000 strong, making it the fourth-largest Jewish population in the entire world. Most Canadian Jews, as has been mentioned, live in Ontario and Quebec, followed by British Columbia, Manitoba, as well as the province of Alberta. Jewish communities in Canada have made a major contribution to the development of cities, particularly Toronto and Montreal, which today count 188,710 and 90,780 people of Jewish faith or Jewish origin, respectively.

Supporting this bill is important for our government because it is consistent with past decisions of Parliament aimed at commemorating and supporting the Jewish community, its heritage, and the important contributions that Jews have made to Canadian society.

During the 37th Parliament, in 2003, Bill C-459, an act to establish Holocaust Memorial Day, was unanimously and quickly passed through all stages by Parliament. During the 40th Parliament, Bill C-442, an act to establish a National Holocaust Monument, garnered unanimous support and was given royal assent on March 25, 2011.

It was also in this commemorative and educational spirit that on September 27, 2017, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Canadian Heritage participated in the unveiling ceremony of the National Holocaust Monument. The establishment of Canadian Jewish heritage month would provide an opportunity to commemorate the memory of the Holocaust and the important fight that continues to this day against anti-Semitism.

Over the last few decades, a number of awareness and commemoration initiatives were funded by the government under the community historical recognition program. These include the Wheel of Conscience monument inaugurated in 2011 at the Canadian Museum of Immigration in Halifax at Pier 21 to commemorate the victims of the MS St. Louis incident in 1939. The importance of learning from history has been demonstrated again in this House, even today, in reference to some of the speeches made by my hon. colleagues and people talking about the importance of learning from the decision of the Canadian government of the time to turn away German Jews who were aboard the MS St. Louis.

The Government of Canada has also been committed for decades to combatting all forms of anti-Semitism, both at home and around the world. Canada became a full member in 2009 of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. That intergovernmental body supports Holocaust education, remembrance, and research both nationally and internationally.

Celebrations such as Canadian Jewish heritage month will resonate with many Canadians and help create vibrant and inclusive Canadian communities that foster and support our arts and culture. Proclaiming Canadian Jewish heritage month will give us the opportunity to recognize and commemorate the excellence and passion of eminent Canadians of Jewish origin who shaped our history and our culture and continue to do so.

Let us remember just a few of them: Leonard Cohen, the famous author, songwriter, and singer; Mordecai Richler, a novelist who wrote about my alma mater, McGill; Charles Rosner Bronfman, a businessman; Jessalyn Gilsig, an actor; Drake, known by many, the hip-hop artist and actor; Ruth Goldbloom, co-founder of Canadian Museum of Immigration at Pier 21; Jane Jacobs, the journalist and journalism theoretician; Ezekiel Hart, the first Canadian Jew elected to the Legislative Assembly of Lower Canada, as it was then known; and Cecil Hart, coach of the Montreal Canadiens, after whom the famous NHL MVP trophy is named.

The bill that we are debating tonight would also allow us to focus on Jewish heritage and important sites around the country. Allow me to highlight one located in my very own riding of Parkdale—High Park.

The Junction Shul, located in the neighbourhood known as the Junction, was called Congregation Knesseth Israel. It was established over a century ago in the northwest corner of my riding of Parkdale—High Park. At 56 Maria Street, a tract of land was purchased in 1911 by a small number of immigrant families, who also founded that congregation. The structure, which still stands to this very day, was completed in 1913. I am very proud to say that Knesseth Israel is the oldest synagogue in Toronto still in use, and the building was designated as an Ontario heritage site in 1984.

When we talk about the formal recognition of May as Canadian Jewish heritage month, we are also talking about Canada's multiculturalism policy, as referenced in the comments by my friend on the opposition benches. That policy is entrenched in our Multiculturalism Act and in the Canadian charter, and it plays a fundamental role in shaping our diverse, inclusive, and welcoming society.

The policy acknowledges the freedom of all members of Canadian society to preserve, enhance, and share their cultural heritage. It also promotes the full and equitable participation of individuals and communities of all origins in the continuing evolution and shaping of all aspects of Canadian society, and assists them in eliminating barriers to that participation.

That is what makes Canadians proud to stand in the House and talk about their heritage, whether that is Jewish heritage, Scottish Canadian Jewish heritage, or Jewish heritage that hails from other parts of the planet. That is what makes this country what it is. It is policies like this and bills such as this that reinforce that diversity and that strength.

This dual focus on valuing diversity and ensuring equity distinguishes Canada's approach from those of our global peers. It goes beyond a policy that simply tolerates minority groups. We actually celebrate different cultures and we actively seek to build an inclusive society.

Supporting the bill is also aligned with similar provincial initiatives, such as the declaration of May as Jewish Heritage Month by the Government of Ontario in 2012.

I am proud to stand in the House to indicate the government's support of the bill, but I am equally proud, as a parliamentary secretary for multiculturalism, to emphasize the important contribution Jewish Canadians have made to that multicultural fabric.

As a Muslim Canadian man, and a member of this government's caucus, I am equally proud to say that the fight against anti-Semitism, the fight to create a more tolerant and plural society, is a fight that we continue with vigilance, as we must. This kind of bill is important because it underscores that heritage. It underscores the fight to promote tolerance and pluralism, and it is something that this government and I are very proud to stand behind.

With Canadian Jewish heritage month, we will provide a welcome opportunity to look back at the thousands of Jewish Canadians who have come to this country over centuries and linked their fate and their futures to the fate and future of this country we call Canada.

Criminal Code

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support, in principle, of Bill C-217, which is an act to amend the Criminal Code, particularly with respect to mischief relating to war memorials, which was introduced by the member for Dufferin—Caledon on June 15.

The bill would effectively create a new crime, where a person commits mischief in relation to war memorials and similar monuments honouring those who died during the war, by introducing a new paragraph to section 430 of the Criminal Code.

As the member for Dufferin—Caledon put it, this debate takes place at an appropriate moment of remembrance. It takes place on the eve of our commemoration of Remembrance Day, where we remember those who are no longer with us; where we remember those who, as the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore put it in this House, gave the greatest gift of all, the gift of life, so that we may live and so that we may enjoy our liberty; where we pay tribute to the veterans among us, and their families, who reflect and represent the sacrifice of those who are no longer with us, and we honour them; and where we pay tribute to our men and women in uniform across this world who are protecting our fundamental rights, who are safeguarding our democracy, who are protecting our human security or, indeed, who are protecting our international peace and security.

In effect, in 2005, when I was minister of justice and attorney general, I, at that point, developed a national justice initiative with respect to combatting hatred and racism which spoke with respect to the danger of this kind of assault on our war memorials, of those kinds of hate crimes that end up being an assault on the inherent dignity of every human being, and an assault on our equal dignity and, indeed, on our character as a multicultural society.

Section 430 of the Criminal Code currently outlines the definition of mischief and associated penalties. The section also includes specific provisions for mischief relating to data, religious and cultural property, and their associated penalties.

Bill C-217 would add another specific provision; this one for mischief, as I said, related to war memorials. It would also outline possible sentences for a person convicted of such a crime and it would create, as well, mandatory minimum sentences.

It is important to recall that the member for Ottawa South, at the time, in 2006, first proposed that the newly-elected Conservative government pass a law to make damage done to war memorials a specific offence. This push to protect monuments came in the wake of an incident on Canada Day in 2006, in which a man and two youths were observed urinating on Canada's National War Memorial in Ottawa. The man involved in the incident has since had his mischief charged dropped after partaking in voluntary community service.

I mention this because it would seem to me that the appropriate response with respect to that kind of vandalism is not to institute a mandatory minimum but to respond by way of community work, by way of education, by way of having to meet with veterans and confronting exactly the nature of the outrage that was committed and thereby learning from that. That would be a more appropriate remedy than introducing a mandatory minimum.

Since the member for Ottawa South introduced his proposal, there were other incidents involving monument vandalism, including an incident of a cross being torn from the cenotaph at a Royal Canadian Legion in Bell Ewart. At the time, in 2006, the then justice minister was not yet prepared to accept the proposal of the member for Ottawa South.

That leads us to where we are today with a related initiative to the recent passing of Bill C-442, An Act to establish a National Holocaust Monument, a monument which is intended for us to recall and remember horrors too terrible to be believed but not too terrible to have happened.

The importance, therefore, of protecting war memorials and the dignity of the individuals they represent and the values of freedom, democracy and human rights are omnipresent in this regard.

I support the need for an initiative to have a specific law protective of war memorials to express the condemnation of society of those who deface those monuments and memorials that are dedicated to our veterans, to our soldiers, and to the victims of mass atrocities, both domestic and international. But I caution as to the use of a mandatory minimum with respect to a remedial approach regarding this offence.

I support the bill in principle. I trust that the member for Dufferin—Caledon may perhaps be open to amending the bill with respect to removing the mandatory minimum, whereby we proceed in terms of alternative forms of punishment. I trust that a further discussion of the bill could lead us in the direction of where we could support the principle, certainly, which is very compelling.

I commend the member for introducing this private member's bill, but that we tailor the remedy with respect to the offence to the individual and do so in a manner that we can achieve an outcome that may be more appropriate in that regard while still achieving the objective which we seek.

Again, may I close by saying it is an appropriate initiative on the eve of Remembrance Day.

Privilege

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

March 25, 2011

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable David Johnston, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 25th day of March, 2011 at 7:55 a.m.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Wallace,

The Secretary to the Governor General and Herald Chancellor.

The schedule indicates the bills assented to were Bill C-442, An Act to establish a National Holocaust Monument--Chapter 13; and Bill C-475, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (methamphetamine and ecstasy)--Chapter 14.

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

[The Speaker, 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.

Business of the House

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I would like to make a statement concerning private members' business. Standing Order 86.1 states that all items of private members' business originating in the House of Commons that have been listed on the order paper during the previous session shall be deemed to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation.

In practical terms, this means that notwithstanding prorogation, the list for the consideration of private members' business established at the beginning of the 40th Parliament shall continue for the duration of this Parliament.

All items will keep the same number as in the first and second sessions of the 40th Parliament. More specifically, all bills and motions standing on the list of items outside the order of precedence shall continue to stand. Bills that had met the notice requirement and were printed in the order paper, but had not yet been introduced, will be republished on the order paper under the heading “Introduction of Private Members' Bills”. Bills that had not yet been published on the order paper need to be re-certified by the office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel and be resubmitted for publication on the notice paper.

All items in the order of precedence are deemed to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation. Thus, they shall stand, if necessary, on the order paper in the same place or, as the case may be, referred to the appropriate committee or sent to the Senate.

At prorogation, there were 11 private members' bills originating in the House of Commons adopted at second reading and referred to the appropriate committee. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 86.1: Bill C-290, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit for loss of retirement income), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

Bill C-300, An Act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas in Developing Countries, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

Bill C-304, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Bill C-308, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Bill C-309, An Act establishing the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Region of Northern Ontario, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

Bill C-310, An Act to Provide Certain Rights to Air Passengers, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Bill C-391, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act (repeal of long-gun registry), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Bill C-393, An Act to amend the Patent Act (drugs for international humanitarian purposes) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

Bill C-395, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (labour dispute), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Bill C-442, An Act to establish a National Holocaust Monument, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Bill C-464, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (justification for detention in custody), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to Standing Order 97, committees will be required to report on these reinstated private members’ bills within 60 sitting days of this statement.

In addition, one private members’ bill originating in the House of Commons had been read the third time and passed. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 86.1, the following bill is deemed adopted at all stages and passed by the House.

Bill C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years). Accordingly, a message will be sent to the Senate to inform it that this House has adopted this bill.

As they are no longer members of this House, all the items standing in the name of Ms. Dawn Black, Mr. Bill Casey and Mr. Paul Crête will be dropped from the order paper.

Consideration of Private Members’ Business will start on Friday, March 5, 2010.

To conclude, hon. members will find at their desks an explanatory note recapitulating these remarks. I trust that these measures will assist the House in understanding how private members' business will be conducted in the third session. In addition, the table can answer any questions members may have.

National Holocaust Monument Act

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to be here today to speak in support of Bill C-442. In fact, I would like to thank the member for Edmonton—Sherwood Park and the Minister of State of Foreign Affairs for the Americas, as well as many persons in the House and outside of it, for their hard work on this bill.

As my colleague, the member for Edmonton—Sherwood Park, has stated, this bill proposes the creation of a national Holocaust memorial in Canada's national capital region. It is long overdue.

Our government appreciates the importance of remembering and understanding all events throughout history, even those that are inconsistent with the values of Canadians. Given the magnitude of the atrocities that occurred during the Holocaust in the extermination of millions of Jewish people, it is crucial that we pay tribute to the victims of this crime and to their families.

Last summer, with my mother and a good friend of mine, I visited a student rabbi. For some 30 years he has been a friend of my family. I visited his synagogue on Long Island and I learned a lot about the Jewish people who call Israel their home. It was quite impressive.

I must also acknowledge that a number of associations and centres across Canada are dedicated to remembering the Holocaust. I certainly would be remiss if I did not also mention the recently established Canadian Museum for Human Rights, which will allow people to learn about the values of democracy, freedom, human rights and the rule of law, and indeed to remember such atrocities. Democracy, freedom, human rights and the rule of law are the things we stand up for in Canada and the things we try to spread around the world.

I am very proud to say that I believe this particular museum was made possible in no small part by today's Prime Minister. Our government is very excited that this new museum broke ground in December 2008. While there are official plaques and monuments in Manitoba, Alberta and Ontario, it is indeed unfortunate, as the member suggested, that a federal memorial commemorating this very bleak period in our world's history of humankind does not exist in Canada's capital.

For these reasons, our government fully supports the intent of Bill C-442, and I am very confident that all members in the House would also agree that the ultimate objective of Bill C-442 is definitely justified and long overdue.

While I am sure all parties in both Houses of Parliament will certainly be in favour of this bill, I hope that the bill will also receive royal assent and that the national capital region will be graced with a national Holocaust monument in its midst. I am hopeful of that, as I think all members in the House are, but before arriving at that final stage, other events would have to transpire.

Of course, the minister would be expected to actively seek the interest of Canadians who would be willing to contribute their time and energy to this undertaking, but I am certain that a host of individuals would be interested in pursuing this endeavour and would together have a very positive impact on the realization of a national Holocaust monument and the content of it. I am looking forward to it, as I think most Canadians are.

Regarding the exact placement of the monument, the National Capital Commission has already established an inventory of potential sites. In accordance with its mandate and policies, the commission would identify appropriate sites from this inventory in consultation with the council. The commission would also approve the final design of the monument, with the construction phase commencing shortly thereafter.

Bill C-442 proposes to create a new council that would be responsible for spearheading a fundraising campaign for a Holocaust monument that would be established in this region. We suggest that it would not take very long to do so, because this is remembered by Canadians, and it is very important indeed to remember it.

With the pooling of the talents and resources of various stakeholder groups and committed individuals, the establishment of a national Holocaust monument in our national capital is feasible. I look forward to visiting it in a few short years, as I think many Canadians do.

Along with the many supportive actions by this government, our entire cabinet and our Prime Minister, my colleague from Edmonton—Sherwood Park has outlined many good reasons for this bill to proceed.

Indeed, I urge all members of this House to vote in favour of this important and necessary bill, just as I urge all members of the other place to do the same. Hopefully we will receive royal assent in due course thereafter.

This memorial will serve to forever remind Canadians and all visitors to this great country and this capital of one of the darkest periods and unimaginable genocides in recent history, so we do not forget and it never happens again.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to participate in the debate on Bill C-442, sponsored by the member for Edmonton—Sherwood Park. I am honoured because this is a significant presentation to the House and one that ought to be adopted unanimously. In fact, I wish our procedures would allow us to seek the unanimous consent of the House to pass the bill at all stages and ensure that it becomes law immediately. I know it has to go through a process, and I understand there are some technical amendments that have to be made, but the essence of the bill is something very basic, something very fundamental around which there can be no disagreement, and that is the establishment of a national Holocaust memorial.

It is interesting that it was about six years ago this month that the House came together with all parties agreeing to a bill to establish a national Holocaust memorial day. With that bill and this bill today, the best has been brought out in people in this place. We have come together across party lines and we have done something important.

Today is a historic moment when together we resolve to deal with the fact that we are the only country among the allies from World War II that has not yet established a national Holocaust memorial in its capital.

We have heard about the range of memorials that exist around the world. I found it fascinating that there are many that form the basis for the establishment of such a memorial here in Ottawa. Just to name a few, there is the Ani Ma'amin Holocaust Museum in Jerusalem, the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam, Netherlands, the Auschwitz Jewish Center in Poland, the Austrian Holocaust Memorial Service and the Beth Shalom Holocaust Centre in England, the Holocaust Memorial Center in Budapest, the Cape Town Holocaust Centre, Centre de la mémoire d'Oradour in France, the Dallas Holocaust Museum and Center for Education and Tolerance, the Forests of the Martyrs in Jerusalem, the Ghetto Fighters' House in Israel, the Holocaust History Project in Detroit. The list goes on and on. I have named but a few of the memorials that exist in other parts of the world.

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.

The purpose of the memorial is no different from the bill establishing the national memorial Holocaust remembrance day. It is two-fold.

The first purpose is to remember the horrors of the past, the six million Jews who were killed, who were slaughtered, who were sent to the gas chambers by Hitler in Nazi Germany in World War II. It is a chapter in our history that must never be forgotten. It is in the establishment of a memorial that we have another way of remembering that sorry chapter in the history of our society. It is another way of ensuring that we never forget that horror that should never, ever be repeated. That is the fundamental reason for such a memorial.

The second purpose is to remind ourselves that apart from the Holocaust, the motivating factors behind the Holocaust, the hatred of Jewish people, the anti-Semitism, the discrimination, the vile nature of attitudes toward people of Jewish faith is repeated today, every day, in incidents that are increasing from accounts by many in our society. They must be part of our discussions today.

I am very pleased that I am part of a parliamentary coalition to combat anti-Semitism. That is an organization of all-party members in this House determined to come together to try to grasp the nature of anti-Semitism and to understand how we can stop the spread of it, and how we can actually ensure that people live in our society with a sense of freedom and security and identity without discrimination, without living under any kind of hatred or discriminatory attitudes.

It is an important initiative in Parliament, but it is one that is certainly in question today because of the fact that so much controversy has happened around mailings from Conservative members slandering Liberal members, accusing them in the most inappropriate way of anti-Semitism.

That has put a cloud over these hearings and in fact has given us all cause for concern. We are hoping that this sorry chapter here in Parliament can be resolved, that the cloud can be lifted and in fact that public apologies can be made.

I want to ensure that we continue with those hearings because we need to be able to say to Canadians that anti-Semitism in any shape or form is wrong. That does not mean, as we have said in our committee over and over again, that criticism of the State of Israel is anti-Semitic in any shape or form, or that constraints can be put on that debate.

However, we have to be sure at all times that we are in fact not giving audience to people allowing them to take this debate and to make broad or sweeping statements about a people suggesting in any way, shape or form that the Jewish people of this country or around the world do not have a right to their homeland, that being the State of Israel.

This is a difficult topic and a major issue before us today. I think the bill before us actually helps us to remember what we are here for and why it is important to stand up and say, “We will not tolerate any form of anti-Semitism, or hatred or discrimination against anyone because of their sex, or race, or faith.

I know that time is limited, but I want to say that it is imperative that all of us in the House go back to our respective communities and speak about the need to stop anti-Semitism and hatred of any shape or form.

I want to reference the work that is happening in Winnipeg, in particular the work by the Jewish Federation of Winnipeg. It is a force, a committee, an organization that is vigilant on a daily basis to ensure there is awareness that the very purpose, the very reason, for the solidarity of our community in Winnipeg is not being threatened by signs of anti-Semitism and a regular occurrence of incidents of hatred that have to be stopped.

In fact, in a recent brief to one of our committee hearings on anti-Semitism, the Jewish Federation of Winnipeg clearly documented a number of incidents that are hateful and growing and must be stopped.

I will conclude by citing the words of the Jewish Federation of Winnipeg to describe their concerns and why this bill is so important and why it is important we are vigilant every step of the way. The federation states:

Winnipeg Jewry over the past 40 years or more, has generally enjoyed both the physical and psychological security that comes from a sense of belonging to a free and democratic society.

That is the basis for pursuing all signs of hatred, for standing up in support today for the Holocaust memorial, because we want to ensure that people of Jewish faith, of Jewish background and Jewish identity are always able to feel that sense of belonging and to be part of a free and democratic society.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-442, An Act to establish a National Holocaust Monument.

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. We believe that we must commemorate the victims of the Holocaust, but we also believe that we must continue the fight against anti-Semitism and all other forms of hate speech and discrimination. We have done so in the past, and we intend to continue that fight.

Anti-Semitism and all other forms of hate speech are contrary to the values of Quebec and Canada. They must be denounced publicly, without hesitation.

The Bloc Québécois has always acted to secure social peace and a public space without hatred, discrimination or violence. That fight is crucial for any society that claims to be democratic.

The purpose of the bill is to create a national monument in Ottawa to honour the victims and Canadian survivors of the Holocaust. To that end, Bill C-442 creates the National Holocaust Monument Development Council, whose five members will be selected by the federal government from a list of volunteer candidates. Candidates will have to show that they have a strong interest in and familiarity with the Holocaust. The council members will not be entitled to any remuneration.

The Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, who is responsible for the National Capital Act, and the monument development council would supervise the monument's design and planning. They would also select an appropriate parcel of public land in Canada's national capital region, where the monument would be erected.

While the minister is tasked with designating the public land, the council would be responsible for a fundraising campaign to pay for the monument's construction. It must be completed within three years of Bill C-442 receiving royal assent.

When we think of the Holocaust, the first images that come to mind are images of horror. All of us have seen pictures of the concentration camps that shocked the entire world.

In the wake of the political and economic crisis that hit Germany after World War I, the National Socialist German Workers' Party singled out the Jews and blamed them for all Germany's troubles. They became scapegoats and the worst lies were fabricated about them.

It is estimated that about three quarters of Europe's Jews were massacred by the Nazis, representing approximately 40% of the world's Jewish diaspora. Six million Jews died under the Nazi regime.

This mass murder was implemented by the Hitler regime, as well as by a number of bureaucrats of the Third Reich and many collaborators, both individuals and states. In addition to Jews, the Nazis also massacred gypsies, homosexuals, disabled people and Slavs from Poland or Soviet countries.

After the war, faced with the horror of the crime that had been committed by Germany, governments the world over agreed to incorporate into international law the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. These crimes have no equivalent in terms of their gravity.

The purpose of Bill C-442 is to establish a monument to serve as a reminder of this crime.

The Bloc Québécois is in favour of establishing a monument to commemorate the Holocaust. Such a monument would serve as a constant reminder of the violence inherent in intolerance.

In order to preserve a public space of freedom and democracy, we have to fight against intolerance here at home. We cannot remain silent before words or actions that are anti-Semitic, homophobic, sexist or racist and that aim at discriminating against fellow citizens.

We cannot help but be concerned when people are targeted and become victims of discrimination because of their religion, and more generally, their ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation or language.

Canada is not immune. According to Statistics Canada, Canada's police forces have indicated that 785 crimes in 2007 were hate crimes. That was a decline over 2006 when 892 such offences were reported. Of those crimes committed in 2007, 185 were religious hate crimes. Again, that was a decline over the 220 cases reported in 2006.

This data shows a slight decrease in the number of hate crimes, which is good news. Nonetheless, the fact remains that such acts still take place, even though they are unacceptable in democratic societies like Quebec and Canada.

One religious hate crime is one too many. There must be zero tolerance. We must work on putting an end to such crimes. We cannot remain silent, on the sidelines or attempt to downplay the situation.

We must oppose anti-Semitism and racism. Anti-Semitism stems from profound ignorance. Thus, education is the most effective way to oppose it.

We believe that we must raise awareness and foster dialogue to build a Quebec that is even more inclusive and respectful of all its citizens. Priority must be given to education and prevention in order to eradicate beliefs and activities based on hatred.

Funds from anti-racism programs must be first allocated to groups that are victims of racism and hate crimes. All too often, acts of hatred target children in schools. These children very regrettably learn about violence or hatred motivated by race or religion.

In an effort to effectively combat anti-Semitism and all other forms of racism, the Bloc Québécois member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant presented a concrete proposal in April 2008: she introduced Bill C-384, which was passed at second reading. This bill amended the Criminal Code and created a new offence to prohibit hate-motivated acts of mischief that target specific identifiable groups at institutions such as schools, daycare centres, colleges, universities, community centres, playgrounds, skating rinks and sports centres or any administrative, social, cultural, educational or sports establishment used exclusively or mainly by such groups.

The creation of this offence sends a clear message and reaffirms that society does not tolerate acts of violence against places attended or used by identifiable groups.

This bill—now law—sends the message that violence motivated by hate of a group or community is not tolerated. The specific offence allows us to denounce not only the material damage to a building, for example, but also, and above all, the fact that hatred of an identifiable group, which is the cause of the act, is morally wrong.

Such crimes fly in the face of the values of Quebeckers and the society we wish to create for ourselves. These crimes only increase tensions between members of our society. That is why we must do everything we can, still in line with our own values, in order to prevent such acts from ever happening again.

The bill introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, is already receiving support from minority groups in Quebec and Canada. For instance, the Canadian Jewish Congress sees this bill as an appropriate response to the concerns of the Jewish community.

The Bloc Québécois recognizes the importance of the fight against discrimination and hate crimes. Such acts go completely against the core values that drive Quebec and our party, which always represents the interests of Quebeckers here in the House.

The Bloc Québécois has always opposed anti-Semitism and all other hate crimes, which fly in the face of the values of the Quebec nation.

What kind of shared values are we talking about? It is becoming increasingly necessary to remind people of the shared values on which the Quebec identity is based. The most important values, those that form the foundation of our nation, would, we think, include the following: gender equality—and it is no accident that that is at the top of the list; French as the official language and common public language; democracy; basic human rights; secularism; pluralism; and so on.

In closing, all citizens of Quebec have the same rights. Quebec citizenship is inclusive and unifying. It transcends differences by promoting a collective identity that focuses on civic identity.

In that regard, the monument in question, to be built outside of Quebec, in no way contradicts the values of Quebeckers, and the Bloc Québécois will be pleased to vote in favour of this bill.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for his Bill C-442.

I must admit I was very surprised that Canada remains the only allied nation without a Holocaust monument in the national capital. I am very pleased that this bill is receiving all-party support. I think that is a very good sign. The bill itself merely provides a framework for a monument to be built within a three-year period. There is a lot of work to be done during that three-year period.

Could the member tell us whether he has any ideas as to where it is going to be, the cost of it, who is going to pay for it, and so on? Could he give us a better idea? Also, what sort of memorials or monuments exist in other allied countries?

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

moved that Bill C-442, An Act to establish a National Holocaust Monument, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce 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 part of the second world war. Textbooks recount 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 over the Nazis. I also learned about the Holocaust, how groups of people who did not fit certain stereotypes were exterminated in the name of racial purity.

However, as a student reading from a textbook, those events seemed distant and dated. They happened before I was born, to people I did not 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 young people today, it is even more remote. Privileged to live in a country like Canada, the Holocaust can seem totally foreign, something which people have difficulty understanding because they cannot relate to the atrocities and horrors.

For some, a deeper understanding of those terrible events is provided through the stories and retelling of family members and veterans who were witness to the Holocaust, and in some cases, survived it. Elie Wiesel and Branko Lustig have done much to remind us of what they experienced. However, 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 which may exist in a textbook but whose real significance is lost.

In a way, it is 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 their families. As Canadians, we pride ourselves on a nation that values and demands respect toward 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 is 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 to newcomers and we remain deeply grateful toward this country that values its new Canadians as positive assets to our national identity.

Today's Canada and those who are honoured to call Canada home would have tremendous difficulty identifying with the deep horrors of the Holocaust. The concept of state-sanctioned killing and ethnic cleansing is completely alien.

The dangers we as a country now face are complacency and fatigue, to allow things like the Holocaust to rest in the pages of history. To do so, invites a return to the terror of those dark years, and losing those very things which we hold most dear.

We must remember that just because no crime so horrible has occurred in Canada does not mean we need not concern ourselves. After all, the history of our country is not perfect: the internment of Japanese Canadians; the events surrounding the Komagata Maru incident; and the treatment of aboriginal Canadians. We should not pretend that crimes against whole groups of people are something that only ever happen far away and long ago. Time and time again our government has urged vigilance and for people to learn the lessons of history so we never find ourselves ignoring the signs of trouble.

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 who 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 quarters of the world, but there are people even in our 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.

Others have not been so vocal and public with their hatred, but have cloaked their denial of the Holocaust behind a veneer of claiming respect for human rights. The rise of anti-Semitism in some places around the world, whether overt or subtle, is another compelling reason why Canada must continue to ensure that the Holocaust is both acknowledged and condemned.

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

Some people have suggested that a monument is not necessary. After all, who has not heard of the Holocaust, they say. Do we really need a monument? I believe that yes, 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 fully understood or appreciated. No one really grasped what happened. It was not until we saw the photographs, until there was a more tangible and visible way to understand, that the significance of the Holocaust began to sink in.

This is why I believe that reading about the Holocaust in a textbook is not enough. Every year there are thousands of Canadians who 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 remained the only allied nation without a Holocaust monument in its nation's capital. As it is the case in these other countries, with the passage of time there are fewer and fewer survivors who can bear the personal 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 lasting reminder of a dark era of hatred and violence that we must ensure never occurs again. By placing the monument in the nation's capital, at the seat of government, 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 would like to express my sincere appreciation to those who have made fighting anti-Semitism, bigotry and racism their cause, and in doing so, have helped make our nation and our world a better place. In particular, I would like to extend my deepest appreciation to the men and women of the armed forces who continue to battle extremism and uphold our values of freedom and justice around the world. As Canadians, we owe them a tremendous debt which we can never repay.

I have been thrilled with the broad level of support I have received to establish a national Holocaust monument, both from my colleagues in the House and from organizations throughout Canada, specifically Laura Grosman from the Canadian Holocaust Memorial Project, senior parliamentarians such as the hon. member for Mount Royal and the hon. member for Winnipeg North, along with a number of my colleagues in the Conservative caucus, and in particular, the hon. Minister of State for Foreign Affairs. They 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. I would urge all hon. members to support this legislation. Let our commitment to remembering those who died in the Holocaust and those who continue to be confronted with anti-Semitism be represented by a visible, concrete reminder of that dark time. Let it stand as a testament to our own ideals and values and be the embodiment of the words and stories inscribed in the textbooks of history, read but not fully appreciated.

Our Prime Minister, when he visited the Nazi death camp in Auschwitz in the spring of 2008 commented that on one hand he was profoundly moved by the inconceivable suffering of the Jewish people who were killed, but on the other hand he felt hope from the limitless spirit and strength of the Jewish people.

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