Evidence of meeting #17 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendments.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Tim Uppal Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB
I do believe that it's important that the National Capital Commission provide land for the monument, yes.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Thank you very much.
Is there anything else you think the National Capital Commission, or the minister responsible for the National Capital Commission, should provide to maintain the integrity of your bill?
Conservative
Tim Uppal Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB
At the end of the day, the intent of the bill is that the land will be provided by the National Capital Commission. And the committee, or however it's going to be organized, will have the ability to design it--whether it's by having a contest or by consulting with Canadians on the design--and to raise funds to build it and maintain it. That's the intent of the bill.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Those are two fundamental points, as far as you're concerned. If either one of them were to be mitigated or abrogated, you would then think that this negated your bill.
Conservative
Tim Uppal Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB
If it changes the fact that at the end of the day we have a national Holocaust monument, yes. If we still have that monument in Canada's capital, I'd be fine with that, even if it's going to be done a little bit differently. I'm okay with that.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
I guess you appreciate the difference, though. For example, if I or any one of my colleagues on either side of the House wanted to establish a monument, and we bought a piece of property somewhere in the national capital region, that would be an expression of our willingness. But because the government wouldn't do that, it would no longer be an expression of the government's view on the Holocaust.
Conservative
Tim Uppal Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB
At the end of the day, what I think is important for Canadians is that there be a Holocaust monument in the nation's capital. I think that's what's important, and that was the intent of the bill.
Bloc
Roger Gaudet Bloc Montcalm, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In your view, what is the national capital? The national capital could well extend 30 kilometers beyond Parliament Hill. I do not know if you see what I mean. It would not be a good idea to put this up 30 kilometers from here, near the airport. However, there might be several good locations right here, on the Hill.
According to your bill — which I support 100% —, “it is important to ensure that the Holocaust continues to have a permanent place in our nation's consciousness and memory“ and “we have an obligation to honour the memory of Holocaust victims as part of our collective resolve to never forget“. Therefore, “the establishment of a national monument shall forever remind Canadians...“. However, if we erect this monument 20 or 25 kilometers outside of the core of the national capital, it seems that it will not reflect the same feeling. Fewer people will see it and remember. Let us take, for example, the monument to the unknown soldier opposite the Château Laurier and all the monuments on Parliament Hill. In my view, the closer the better. Otherwise, if it is too far away from Parliament Hill, nobody will go visit.
What are your views?
Conservative
Tim Uppal Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB
In a general sense, on what you're saying about the distance from the central part of Ottawa, downtown or Parliament Hill, of course close would have been good. But even where the War Museum is, I'm sure there was discussion at that time about whether it was too far away or if we could have put it somewhere else. So I'm not too concerned about the fact of how many kilometres away it is. It's the importance of the monument itself that is important to me. If the best place for it is a few kilometres away from Parliament Hill, that's fin--if that's where the best land for it is.
I have not gone into the National Capital Commission's books and seen where the best land for this would be. I have left that up to the committee that will be put together to work with the National Capital Commission to do that.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Thanks, Chair, and thank you, Mr. Uppal.
It's a very worthwhile bill. I don't really have any particular issue with the bill as outlined.
I'm curious, did you understand the principle of the royal recommendation before you put the bill forward?
Conservative
Tim Uppal Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB
Yes. We spoke to—I'm not sure of the exact name—the clerks who help you put your private member's bill together, and the researchers. When we were putting this together we had asked them to look into it and research if we needed a royal recommendation. We were told no, you do not need one. That was one of the things I was concerned about when putting this bill together. We were told by the people who helped us draft the bill from Parliament that no, we would not need one.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
I'm kind of curious about the role of the National Capital Commission in this bill. I don't see them mentioned. What I see is the national capital region: “The Minister...shall choose a suitable area of public land in the National Capital Region”.
I don't see where the National Capital Commission comes into your bill particularly.
Conservative
Tim Uppal Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB
My understanding is that when land is provided within the capital region, it is the National Capital Commission that does that. That is just my understanding of how that works.
There's also an application that can be made to the National Capital Commission to also provide land for some type of a monument. It's a much longer and drawn-out process, but that is how you would do this if you were to do this as a private citizen or private organization.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
But the minister would choose the suitable location, so it would be a government decision on the actual location and not the National Capital Commission, under your bill.
Conservative
Tim Uppal Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB
Well, I suppose it would be a balance between where land is available as well and how large this monument is going to be or not going to be. So....
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Yes, I see.
To me, a critical issue here is, did you get the bill correct as to the way you wanted it to happen? I mean, if it was the National Capital Commission that was choosing the site, then that would be a different kind of bill than the minister overseeing the planning and design and choosing a suitable site. Did you want that? Did you want the National Capital Commission to do it?
Conservative
Tim Uppal Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB
My understanding from the beginning was that it would actually have to be the National Capital Commission that would not just provide land but also suggest where they thought it was most suited because this is the land they have available. That was my understanding from the beginning, that the National Capital Commission would be involved one way or another through the minister.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Then there's the other question of a fundraiser. What if you didn't raise enough money for the monument within three years? Is that another issue you found out later that is a problem? It didn't seem to be a problem to the—
Conservative
Tim Uppal Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB
Some of the stakeholders that I met with were assured that this wouldn't be a problem. As long as the committee chose a design that was reasonable, in that sense, yes, funds could be raised. Within the committee they could decide what they would do to extend the deadline or not. But according to the number of people I've spoken to, the funds for the design were not an issue.
