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.
7:25 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Chair, I would like some form of opinion in relation to the ultra vires nature of this. I don't think it's in order.
7:25 p.m.
Conservative
7:25 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
I sent the letter to the minister, and I think the parliamentary secretary is in possession of a copy. Bill C-442 is merely calling on the government to do what it could easily do administratively. The NCC already possesses the authority to establish a monument without parliamentary approval. Indeed, the NCC is currently responsible for 16 monuments, including the Hungarian monument, the Canadian tribute to human rights, the monument to Canadian aid workers, the national naval monument currently under construction, and the national monument to the victims of Communism for which the NCC is in the planning phase.
None of these monuments required legislation to move forward. In fact, all that is required is that the minister, with the stroke of a pen, say he is going to finance something--and we've dealt with some of those strokes of the pen in supplementary estimates for the NCC--and it's done. All this amendment does is ask the minister to use the stroke of a pen, as he has been wont to do in the past. I don't think it's ultra vires, and I don't think there is a conflict of laws. It is simply, as my honourable colleagues from the Bloc have indicated, that there is an intention, which is respected in our amendment, that is consistent with everything that's passed before him. We might even talk about whether or not amendment G-8 is in order, but we will deal with that differently.
I don't think any of the arguments about whether or not the amendment is acceptable carry much weight. It's clearly consistent with everything we've done to this point, such that the minister is responsible for this initiative, and that responsibility is consistent historically with other things that have happened, and the NCC is--
7:25 p.m.
Conservative
7:25 p.m.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Let us try to go in order, Mr. Chair.
We must always keep in mind amendment LIB-1 that we agreed to a quarter of an hour ago now. We have given the minister and the council their mandates. The amendment reads as follows, in part: “(b) choose a suitable area of public land in the National Capital Region for the Monument to be located.” That amendment is now passed.
Now we have to move to amendment LIB-2 in order to change paragraph 7(1) of the bill. This paragraph is made consistent by the Liberal amendment that proposes that the paragraph read: “the Minister shall be responsible for the construction and the maintenance of the Monument.” That would be new paragraph 7(1).
In a few minutes, we will get to work on paragraph 7(2). As my colleague Mario Laframboise said, we will have to replace paragraph 7(2) with amendment G-7.
For the moment, Mr. Chair, let us deal with paragraph 7(1) only, by passing the Liberal amendment.
That's it.
7:25 p.m.
Conservative
7:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
That is not a point of order. It is the chair's responsibility to deal with the procedural issues of the bill and the amendments, not the legal aspects of it.
7:25 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Even though, Mr. Chair, what we're proposing to adopt is illegal, and what the Liberals have proposed is beyond the power of the minister and beyond the power of the House and the chair?
7:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I'm saying that you may or may not be correct in your statements, but procedurally, the amendment is in order and is debated as such. The legal side looks after itself.
The judgment of the chair is strictly on the procedure of it. The amendment is acceptable. We've had debate on it. If there is no further debate on it, I will call the question.
All those in favour of amendment LIB-2, please raise your hands.
(Amendment agreed to)
Shall clause 7 as amended carry?
Mr. Lemay.
7:30 p.m.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
With all respect, Mr. Chair, I have to support my colleague Mario's remarks as a matter of great urgency. We have to consider paragraph 7(2). I am with Mr. Jean and my colleague on this. If we were to pass clause 7 as it presently stands, we would have a real problem.
With respect, may I make this suggestion? I have not done it often, but I ask you to deal immediately with amendment G-7, which could replace paragraph 7(2). Then we would be rolling. Do you follow what I am saying? I do not think that we can pass clause 7 right away. We should pass amendment G-7 and replace paragraph 7(2) with it. Then we could finish it off.
7:30 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
It's 7:30 p.m. The notice of the meeting said we' go until 7:30 p.m., so I'm wondering if we're done; it's actually 7:35 p.m.
7:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Mr. Jean has moved that the meeting adjourn.
We have a motion to adjourn. It's non-debatable, so I'll call the question. The motion on the floor is to adjourn the meeting until the next scheduled meeting.
(Motion agreed to)
While people are moving away, I would remind you that the meeting tomorrow starts at 8:30 a.m. for one hour.
7:30 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Just a point of clarification. We have already voted on clause 7, the amendment. We've accepted the amendment and that's where we stopped.
7:30 p.m.
Conservative
7:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
We voted on it. So we have to vote on clause 7 as amended.
The meeting stands adjourned.