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
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, meeting number 17. The orders of the day, pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, March 3, 2010, are Bill C-442, An Act to establish a National Holocaust Monument.
With us today is the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Tim Uppal, MP for Edmonton—Sherwood Park. Welcome.
Mr. Volpe, on a point of order.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
If you don't mind, just before we ask Mr. Uppal to engage us in this discussion, while I know you might consider this a little bit of a point of business, you're aware, I guess, that we now have a problem with the arrangement of our future hearings, because when we come back, that Thursday, the President of Mexico is going to address the House and therefore pre-empt all parliamentary business. We're not going to be able to have the minister here, whether he'd accept it or not, to discuss the estimates.
I'm wondering whether you've made provisions for us to think in terms of either an additional date, i.e. Wednesday, or to cancel the Bombardier visit on the Tuesday in order to deal with issues having to do with the estimates instead.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I've had confirmation that the minister would be available for the first hour of the Thursday that we come back, recognizing that the president would be here. I was going to address that with the committee. I have set aside a few minutes at the end of today's business to have that discussion.
Liberal
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
We have before us amendments. I noted that some of my colleagues here didn't get the amendments until this morning.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
I had an opportunity to see them last night. I didn't get a chance to go out and have my McDonald's hamburger instead, and I was captivated by the game, so I surfed the net and got the amendments.
I think it is a little irregular, Mr. Chairman, for committee members to be given amendments the night before we're going to go to a discussion. But the more important question is this. I'm wondering if you can ask Mr. Uppal--I won't ask him, you'll ask him--whether on all of these government amendments to his bill to establish a Holocaust monument in the national capital region, (a) the government consulted with him, or (b) they are stepping away from this bill that he's presenting to us. If they are stepping away from the bill, then we have a discussion about his views and not the government's views.
I'm wondering if you could ask him that so that we can carry on with the business of the day.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
On the same point, Mr. Chair, it's highly irregular.... I understand Mr. Volpe's point, but certainly in the first round of seven minutes he can ask that particular question. Maybe we could have Mr. Uppal present his bill and then get on with it and get as far as we can. He can ask any question he wants in relation to the witness at that stage.
Even though it might have been last minute for amendments—I'm sorry, Ms. Crombie, just because I took the time—and I understand that, but we often have amendments from the floor as well. In fact, in every bill we've ever covered in this committee we've had amendments from the floor. So it certainly might be a little bit late, and we understand that. There was all-party support for this. Possibly just because of the fast timeline, it is a little bit under the gun, but if you don't want to recommend the amendments at this stage, then we can do what we can and go on from there.
But I would suggest that we start and let Mr. Uppal carry on with business.
Liberal
Bonnie Crombie Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
Yes, it's the same point of order, Mr. Chair.
I just find it irregular and inappropriate that the amendments be sent out the night before. We don't have an opportunity to analyze them, and then we have to walk into a meeting prepared to discuss them and debate them without having understood the essence of them. As I read them here and now, I think they fundamentally alter the bill, and I don't know that we can discuss the bill without having an opportunity to dissect the amendments.
I don't think this is regular procedure. It shouldn't be regular procedure that we're handed something as we walk in and be expected to come up and begin to debate it. We are here to debate Mr. Uppal's bill on the Holocaust monument, not his amendments. We can't be handed a document as we walk in the door and be expected to debate it.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Just very briefly, Mr. Chair, I'm leaning towards Mr. Jean's recommendation that we get on with the presentation. There's nothing out of the ordinary. I received mine this morning; at least that's when we printed them off this morning. I don't have a problem with proceeding.
Secondly, it's not irregular. I've been in other committees. I remember the special legislative committee looking at the Clean Air Act. The Liberals tabled a stack about yay big the morning of the committee. We certainly had no time to go over it, but we did the best we could in committee anyway.
It's not irregular to have it happen. Would it have been preferable sooner? Maybe, but I don't think this is too difficult to proceed with this morning, and I would encourage the chair that we move ahead.
Roger Gaudet Bloc Montcalm, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I received this document this morning, just like the others, and I sent it to my research team, that has not yet had the time to study it all. At the outset, we were in favour of the bill; there was no problem whatsoever. I would nevertheless like to see the amendments studied in full. I have not had the time to examine them nor to inform myself.
If you allowed Mr. Uppal to provide his opinion before we begin the question period, Mr. Chairman, that would be a very good decision.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
I guess we probably have agreement that Mr. Uppal is going to give us a presentation of a bill that we've already accepted. I think it was unanimous in the House of Commons, so everybody agreed to Mr. Uppal's bill. He could probably speak for three hours on it; he could speak for about 30 seconds. It's not going to change the fact that there was unanimous support for a Holocaust monument in the national capital region to be funded by the Government of Canada. I think it's probably embarrassing for him right now to see that the government, of which he is a member, has submitted a series of amendments that essentially say, we don't want that bill.
Mr. Uppal, perhaps you could begin and just tell us whether you still support the Holocaust monument in your presentation.
Liberal
Bonnie Crombie Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
Wait a minute. We should have the floor here because I don't think we can proceed.
Conservative
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
I'll just say this is the first moment that I've seen these amendments, and I agree with Mr. Gaudet. There's quite a bit in here and quite a bit the government is doing with these amendments that may change the nature of the bill. I don't understand, because this copy just handed to me is the first indication there were amendments. That may be our fault, but those amendments came out very late in the day to our staff and they had gone home, so we didn't see them. That's an unfortunate reality.
In order for us to look at amendments of this nature, we need a little time. In the spirit of cooperation, I'd like to come up with a solution to this that would work. If the government has something to say about this bill, I'd like to understand it. Perhaps we will be enlightened after the presentation is made, but it's going to be very difficult to work on these amendments without that enlightenment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Thank you.
I think before we can have any discussion about the bill we have to have it presented to the committee. I respect the fact that the amendments were issued late in the day--it was about 5:30 p.m. that they were sent out to offices. Nonetheless, the meeting was scheduled to present the bill. We can have debate on every amendment and the committee has the ability to challenge every amendment and discuss it in full. We have had occasion where amendments are brought on the floor, even when they're not prepared in translation. But we do present them, we translate them orally, and they're considered acceptable for discussion only.
Mr. Gaudet.
Bloc
Roger Gaudet Bloc Montcalm, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
For my part, I would make a proposal, namely that Mr. Uppal make his presentation and that we ask him questions, and that the clause-by-clause study of the bill be postponed until after our break week. We would in this way have time to study all of Mr. Jean's amendments. I would like to know what you think of that proposal.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
That will be a decision made by the committee. But I do think in order to even have any discussion, we have to open the debate on it, and that's to present the member's bill.
Members are able and willing to challenge any ruling that I may or may not make, and make suggestions as to how the committee proceeds from here. But in order to proceed, we have to begin.
I'll take one more comment from Ms. Crombie.
Liberal
Bonnie Crombie Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As a point of order, which bill will Mr. Uppal present, the original bill or the amended bill?