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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

I'll rule on the point of order right now, then, if I may.

It's not a point order.

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON

I'd like to finish, if you don't mind.

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

Very briefly.

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON

The point that I was about to conclude is that the amendments that are on notice tear apart the principle and the heart of that bill. So I said that I personally, and I speak for my party, I think reflect what happened in the House of Commons when every member accepted the bill.

One of the principles of procedure in the House is that the bill comes from the House to this committee for second reading, and we can amend things administratively. The government can go ahead and do things without seeking legislative approval. So my question is, if the government is no longer willing to support its own member in the partial financing of the monument, then it can only mean that the government no longer supports that bill, no longer supports the establishment of a Holocaust monument.

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

I'll rule on the point of order now.

It's not a point of order. I think we have to go back to Mr. Gaudet's suggestion, his motion, that we defer it until the 27th.

If we can focus on that discussion, Mr. Volpe, I'll give you the floor to finish on the motion, if you have anything else to comment on, and then I have Mr. Bevington.

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON

I think I'm going to be as diplomatic as Monsieur Gaudet. I'm going to find the fragrance in the flower in that thorn bush. We will have to look at that particular date, because it has just been brought to my attention that the bill, with one very minor exception, is word for word Bill C-547, presented by then member of Parliament for Thornhill, Ms. Susan Kadis.

If Mr. Gaudet—compliments to him—hadn't been a member of Parliament, he would have been a great horticulturalist, and I think we're going to support his motion.

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

Mr. Bevington.

10:05 a.m.

NDP

Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT

Sometimes, Mr. Chair, I'm left breathless after hearing the comments of Mr. Volpe.

I think this motion is in order. We've been presented with some amendments the government wants, so we know something is up and we want to come to some understanding of it. I won't be here, but in my perusal of the amendments as I'm sitting here, which say that the government wants something a little different...they want to ensure that they get their cake and eat it, too. That's what I see here. I see that the minister is distancing himself from the decision about the design and placement of the monument, and as a mayor who—

10:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

I'd have to ask you to be relevant to the motion.

10:10 a.m.

NDP

Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT

I'm trying to say why we should postpone this bill for another week. We have to understand the motivation of the government in putting forward these amendments, which we actually have in front of us. They haven't been presented, and perhaps they won't be presented. The nature of the amendments is to allow the government to have the monument erected, and as a mayor for many years, I know what monuments are like. They can either give you praise or criticism.

So what we have here is the government distancing itself from the design and location of the monument. If it turns out to be great...and if it doesn't, well, then, there's another body that can take the flak for it. I see this is what the government is doing here with these amendments. Fine, but I would like to see that wholesome discussion. I think if people want to take credit for something, they should be engaged in it. What you've put forward is that the government should be engaged in developing this monument, and I think that's correct. It's a political decision and it should have consequences in its outcome.

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

Thank you.

Before I go to Mr. Watson, I'll just again advise the committee that we have been challenging the minister to make time for committee on the 27th, and he has worked that into his schedule. Whether that influences your decision or not, I just know that it presents challenges into June.

Mr. Watson.

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just very simply, in discussion of the motion to defer consideration, we've now heard both Mr. Volpe and Mr. Bevington making some very substantive comments about the substance of the amendments, all the while saying they really have no idea what the amendments are about. I would suspect it's quite the contrary. They've already got some very substantive....

10:10 a.m.

An hon. member

[Inaudible--Editor]

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON

Mr. Chair, order please.

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

Order.

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON

Thank you.

So they've offered some very substantive comments on the substance of a number of the amendments already. I would submit, notwithstanding their protestations, that they're actually ready to move forward with consideration of clause-by-clause now. I would submit that we should vote against this motion and get on with it. They have comments.

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

Mr. Jean.

May 13th, 2010 / 10:10 a.m.

Conservative

Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB

I was happy to hear that Mr. Volpe and the Liberals were now prepared to support the bill, after they discovered it was actually very similar—or identical, as he said—to a Liberal bill that was passed three years ago, or was before the House three years ago.

My issue is this. I want to be clear on the record that the government is not looking at who should receive credit for this bill. What we believe is that the substance of the bill is very important. It touched upon a lot of people. Six million Jews and their families were destroyed during this period of time, and I think it's something that as a committee and as a government and as opposition members we should move forward on as quickly and as thoughtfully as possible, without worrying about where the credit lies and without worrying about all of those kinds of political issues. I think what's important at this stage is that we move forward.

I also want to say for the record, and for those people who are listening, wherever they may be, that I think all parties feel this is a very important thing. This committee is a master of its own destiny, so we can perfect any imperfection of this particular bill at this stage. I think it's important that all people who listen to this understand that we can perfect any issue now, by way of a vote. Even any challenge to amendments, or anything else, we could perfect and have this bill done within the next 15 minutes, to establish this.

But Mr. Gaudet has moved a motion that he would like some more time to think about this and possibly talk to his party, in relation to the amendments, which I do not believe are substantively different. If that's what Mr. Gaudet and the Bloc would like to do, I think the government can do nothing but support that at this stage, because what's important is to move forward with this bill. But it's also important that everybody has an opportunity to have a thoughtful process.

I want to make sure that everyone listening and everyone at this committee recognizes that we are not into taking credit for something that is simply the right thing to do. If Mr. Gaudet wishes to have some more thoughtful process to that, and if Mr. Uppal doesn't mind, I suggest that the government would support the motion by Mr. Gaudet to move this matter to the next time.

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

Mr. Bevington.

10:10 a.m.

NDP

Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT

I'd be willing to move ahead with the bill if the government side said it would pull back its amendments right now.

10:15 a.m.

Conservative

Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB

We're prepared to support Mr. Gaudet's motion. That's the motion that's before us.

10:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

Is there further comment?

Okay. Mr. Gaudet has presented a motion that we defer further discussion of this bill until May 27. All those in favour of the motion?

(Motion agreed to)

The motion is carried.

With that motion, we will adjourn this portion of the meeting.

10:15 a.m.

Conservative

Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB

Mr. Chairman, a point of order.

10:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

Mr. Jean, on a point of order.

10:15 a.m.

Conservative

Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB

In relation to what was brought forward by Mr. Volpe, obviously he has some amendments, and he understands that these amendments may be challenged as a result of a royal recommendation or in fact the scope of the bill itself. I would ask that the legislative assistant or the clerk provide to the committee, if possible, the predetermination in writing as to what their position is on these amendments and the original bill. If we need to move the bill first, before we can receive that, I think it's quite ludicrous, but I understand there are procedures here. Really, the government only wants to get this bill put forward.

I understand Mr. Volpe's concern, and I simply want to make mention of this. It was suggested that the government and the minister are trying to distance themselves from making decisions. I think Mr. Uppal made it very clear that the people who are most affected, the families that are most affected, by what took place some 65 years ago are the people who should make that determination. I think this government is showing sensitivity in relation to that by at least allowing the council to be appointed based on a merit principle, as Mr. Uppal has said, and to move forward to make that decision as to the content and also the location of the memorial itself. On that basis, I would like that determination.