Evidence of meeting #18 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 chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
7:05 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I don't really understand the difference, but the chair is challenged... We'll deal with it, I guess.
7:05 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
If I can have the floor for a minute, my understanding is that we brought in new concepts. Even though it said “bylaws” in the original bill, we brought in new concepts. Wow. Bylaws have to be under an incorporation of some kind, and that's outside of the scope, but... Yet here we have public consultations, which weren't referred to at all in the original bill, and that's not out of scope?
7:05 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Are you challenging the chair's decision that this is in order?
7:05 p.m.
The Clerk
Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)
7:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
We have already started the debate on page 7.1. We can continue the debate or call the question.
7:05 p.m.
An hon. member
Call the question?
7:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Shall the LIB-1 amendment carry?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 6 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 7--Public land and maintenance of Monument)
7:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
We have government amendment number 6, which is in order, but I do want to advise the committee that amendment LIB-2 cannot be moved if amendment G-6 is adopted, because it is amending the same lines.
Mr. Jean.
7:10 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
This amendment requires the NCC--because obviously this is going to be placed on NCC lands--to be responsible for identifying a site, which would be accessible to the public at all times, where the monument would be located so Canadians could utilize it as necessary. The site would have to be part of public lands in the national capital region as defined by the National Capital Act.
7:10 p.m.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
A point of order, Mr. Chair. With all due respect to my colleague and to your ruling, Mr. Chair, it seems to me that amendment G-6 should be ruled out of order because we have just agreed to clause 6 as amended. That creates and mandates the council according to the amendment that the Liberals prepared and passed. It chooses an area of land.
If you go back to the amendment we agreed to not two minutes ago, you can read the following:
“Council, shall: (a) oversee the planning and design of the Monument;
(b) choose a suitable area of public land in the National Capital Region for the Monument to be located;”
With respect, Mr. Chair, the amendment that is now being proposed would say the opposite. If you declare this amendment to be in order—I am a little confused—the National Capital Commission would be responsible for identifying a site that is accessible to the public at all times. That is the opposite, in my view. With respect, Mr. Chair, it is out of order.
7:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Thank you, Mr. Lemay. You've challenged the ruling of the chair in your opening comment.
7:10 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
7:10 p.m.
Conservative
7:10 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
7:10 p.m.
The Clerk
Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?
(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 6; yeas 5)
7:10 p.m.
Conservative
7:10 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Mr. Chair and colleagues, we took the intent from the just accepted motion, amended as it was, for clause 6. We felt that we would be consistent with the intent, so that the minister would be responsible for both the construction and the maintenance of the monument. That's an expansion. We think it's a logical extension of the intent of the bill, because we've already accepted that the minister would be responsible for allocating the public land as part of the commitment by the House of Commons to the principle of establishing a monument to this tragic event, which would be reflective of the interests of not only a few people who might have an attachment to the Holocaust but all people who want to decry this absolutely tragic and murderous event in the history of mankind.
We wanted to make sure that the Government of Canada, reflecting the interests of all Canadians, would take responsibility not just for allocating the land, which it has already accepted, but also for building and maintaining the monument. We've already accepted the principle that it would be guided in some of this by the council, the concept of which has been accepted in previous clauses as amended, but we wanted to make sure that the principle of the minister being responsible for all of this was maintained. That was, after all, the intention of the mover of the bill, and it was supported by the House. We want to ensure that everybody understands that's really what the House wanted to do. It wanted the executive branch to be in a position such that it would always reflect the interests of all Canadians in this monument.