Transport Committee on May 26th, 2010

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I understand, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

It is the opinion of the chair that this is a new concept and that it is beyond that scope.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

What is the new concept? To take it from the minister's hand and make it so that the minister works in cooperation with the council?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Yes, it is actually shifting the responsibility from the minister to the council, and giving a new mandate to the council.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I challenge, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

The ruling of the chair has been challenged. There's no debate on that.

Bonnie.

[The Clerk]

Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

The ruling of the chair has been sustained, and we will move to amendment LIB-1.

Mr. Volpe.

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

We're back onto clause 6. Being ever mindful of the procedural advice that you have received, we do not take any authority or power away from the minister. What we are attempting to do with this is to reinstate part of the initial genesis of this bill, which essentially wanted the minister, in cooperation with the council, to oversee the planning and design of the monument. In other words, there would also be the constant executive oversight to reflect the will of the Canadian collective, as expressed through acceptance of this bill at second reading, that the monument be located on an area of public land chosen in the national capital region.

It's important, from our perspective, that we reinforce the principle of the minister being involved in selecting and allocating land--in other words, on behalf of the government, making land available for this monument--and then holding public consultations together, to take into account the recommendations of the public when making any decisions under paragraph 6(a) or 6(b). So from our perspective, this amendment is very consistent with the other two bills that have been presented in this regard.

Some members might object to the fact that it was Liberal members who proposed it in the past. From our perspective, that's no longer material. What is material is the fact that the House of Commons has essentially directed this committee, following a unanimous decision by the House of Commons and the Parliament of Canada, to have the minister implicit and implicated in all of the decisions, in cooperation with the council, to ensure that the decision of the Canadian public and collective, together with its values and its wills, be reflected in the act. We think our amendment doesn't take anything away. What it does is explain it in even greater detail.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

The amendment is in order, and I'll take debate if there is any.

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I am curious. If we look at amendments G-3 and G-4, there was apparently new scope, and that was challenged, obviously, and we failed on that challenge. However, I was told that it brought in a new concept, which was that the minister was delegating authority.

If we look at the original clause 6, it says:

The Minister, in cooperation with the Council, shall oversee the planning and design of the Monument and shall choose a suitable area of public land in the National Capital Region for the Monument to be located.

And subclause 7(1) says

The Minister shall be responsible for allocating the public land for the Monument and for maintenance of the Monument. `

Yet here apparently—I don't know why, and maybe it's because it's a Liberal amendment—it seems to be in order and within scope, because here they're allocating that the council shall--and it's a mandate that the council shall:

(a) oversee the planning and design of the Monument;

(b) choose a suitable area of public land in the National Capital Region

--which is directly contrary to clause 7, which would have been in contrast to amendments G-3 and G-4, and the council would also hold public consultations, which is a brand new concept.

So how do we reconcile all of that? I just don't understand it. I would like some clarification.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Liberals--my goodness, they're everywhere.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Jean, you asked if there was a lawyer in the room. I am one, I think.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

There are three or four.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

No, there is a very big difference. Under the Liberal amendment, the minister remains in charge of the project, the design and planning of the monument, in cooperation with the council. But under your amendments, the minister does not do that any more. Let's not go over this again.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Chair--

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I just want to point out that, under the Liberal amendment, the minister remains in charge of the project in cooperation with the council.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Do you have another comment?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Well, yes, Mr. Chair. It says that the council “shall choose a suitable area of public land in the National Capital Region for the monument to be located”. It doesn't say that the minister does. Am I missing something?

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Wait, you have to read the clause together with the amendment. When you do that, you see that it reads, and I quote: “The Minister, in cooperation with the Council…” Then you add what is in the amendment.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Sorry--

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

It is important.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

This might help, Mr. Jean, because I think I may have had the same original reading as you did. I thought it was replacing the entire clause 6, but it's not. It still says, “The Minister, in cooperation with the Council”, and then it carries on. So--

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

But it also says--

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I think the basis for the ruling of the chair previously was that it sought to replace the minister's oversight with the council's. The current amendment that is before us, if I am reading it correctly, retains the cooperation between the minister and the council, and simply just breaks out what they oversee jointly in a different manner. I think that's the difference.