Transport Committee on May 26th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'm telling you that amendment G-3 as presented would be inadmissible, and it cannot be adopted unless G-4 is adopted.

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

So are we going to deal with G-3 first?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'm just giving you the heads-up that they both are together.

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

Do you want to deal with them both together?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

That's up to the will of the committee.

Mr. Volpe.

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

Mr. Chairman, I'm glad you've raised this and have coupled some of these, because as per our last discussion on amendments that had not yet been tabled but had been received by members of the committee, we had some discussion about, first, the appropriateness and, second, the admissibility of each of those items.

It was our position then, and it continues to be our position, that these amendments presented by the government—because we're talking about amendments G-3 and G-4, I can speak specifically to both—are inadmissible, because as you have said, and we applaud you for making this particular decision, they are beyond the scope of the intent of the bill.

Not only that, but it is our view that what these two amendments, along with the other government amendments, do is go to the heart of the bill itself and essentially remove the government from the House of Commons' commitment to the establishment of a Holocaust monument. That was not the intention of the House, and it is not up to this committee to then accept amendments that would free the government from the commitment the House imposed on the Government of Canada by virtue of its motion in second reading.

I'm a little surprised, as we were when we first discussed this, that the government could actually move in this direction. I think the best thing that could happen, in order to respect the will of the House of Commons, is for these amendments, like the others, to be ruled out of order or ruled inadmissible.

If the government had a position that was different from that which their own backbencher presented, they had an opportunity to express it when and before that bill was presented to the House. Clearly, they moved away from something the House wanted, and they're trying to do something that is not consistent with the will of the House, expressed through a vote just a short while ago.

I think it's unfortunate that the government wants to present these amendments today. They could have done it at first reading and have handed the committee this at first reading, and we could have dealt with it then. That was not the position chosen, nor was it the government's position to support their own backbencher on this issue.

You'll recall, Mr. Chair, that I asked Mr. Uppal, the individual who presented this bill, whether he had consulted with the Prime Minister, and he indicated that he had the support of his government on the bill. I was rather surprised, if you have the support of your government on the bill, that the government would present amendments that reflect a change in every single clause of the bill. In effect, what the government is trying to do is to rewrite the bill that it authorized one of its backbenchers to present to the House for its approval.

Mr. Chairman, once the House has given its approval on an issue in an event that touches all Canadians, and I dare say is international in nature—i.e., that the House of Commons of the Parliament of Canada agrees that the Holocaust was an event unfortunate and tragic in its occurrence, but with implications that clearly define the value structure of a western democracy like our own—that the government would try to change that event, would try to change the will of the House in establishing a monument that reflects the interests of all Canadians in recalling the evil that people can do to their neighbours, be they local or national or continental...

That was the way that we and the Liberal Party perceived that bill when it was presented in the House, and that's why we voted accordingly or gave our consent accordingly. We felt that this was an issue that transcended communities, that transcended people, that transcended victims of genocide, and that transcended all other governments around the world. It was an expression of the Canadian collective. The Canadian collective said, “Okay, we agree with this member. We agree with all members of Parliament, including the members of the government caucus who sit on this committee, that this bill should be given quick and speedy acceptance in committee. Please deal with it accordingly.”

So we came before the committee, and we were surprised a couple of weeks ago when we found an amendment for each and every clause that we had already unanimously accepted in the House of Commons.

Mr. Chairman, I applaud you--and I hope I'm speaking for my colleagues, at least in the Liberal caucus--for the position you have taken in ruling these amendments inadmissible, because we don't think we should erode the principle of establishing a government-funded... I shouldn't say “government-funded”; it is funded by the people of Canada through the representatives they send to the Parliament of Canada and executed through the Government of Canada.

That collective will of Canadians everywhere should be respected, in this instance for a historic event, as tragic in its dimensions as it was. We cannot take that away from anyone. I think the government would probably be best advised--although I'm not an adviser to them--to withdraw both G-3 and G-4, and indeed all of their other amendments, and go with the decision they previously made when the Prime Minister complimented the mover of this bill and agreed with him that he would whip all of his caucus into supporting this initiative so that it would be a reflection of the Canadian collective, rather than a reflection of any individual community, and we wouldn't poison the atmosphere by segregating that event off to only a special interest that might have a special attachment to it.

That would be wrong, Mr. Chairman. It would be terribly wrong. It would be, in essence, a reflection that we don't think the tragedy is as tragic as it should be and that we as Canadians don't value the lessons that need to be learned from those kinds of world events.

I'm going to tell you that I think our Liberal colleagues see the wisdom of your decision, and I'm hoping that other colleagues on the government side will say, “You're right. These two amendments are ruled inadmissible. Let's get on with the bill.”

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

For us to continue the debate, historically we would have to have a challenge to the chair, but having let one party speak, I'd like to offer the floor to one person in each party. Then if there is a challenge to my decision, we can make it. I should have cut the discussion off at the start; I apologize for that.

In fairness, we will go to Mr. Laframboise and Mr. Davies.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We will not challenge your ruling. This is an important bill. The monument has so much value that nothing justifies challenging it.

I see that you have avoided any partisanship, because the government amendments are interesting. The problem is that, if they are ruled inadmissible legislatively, we have to respect that. I think your decision was a good one, Mr. Chair. It is not a political decision, but a decision whose intent is to make sure that this bill is never challenged and cannot be.

If the result of the amendments is that the bill could be challenged, it would be in everyone's interests, including the government's, to withdraw them, interesting though they are. The basic objective is to have the monument. That is what is important. We must not add things, or add procedures that would allow challenges to the bill. Mr. Chair, I feel that you made the right decision. The bill must never be challenged. We support your decision.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Mr. Laframboise.

The floor is yours, Mr. Davies.

Mr. Davies, you have a comment.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I have just a brief one, Mr. Chair.

Speaking for the New Democrats, we also commend you on your ruling. We think it's the correct one, and I can't but add the New Democrats' voice to the already astute and comprehensive remarks made by my colleagues in the Liberal Party and in the Bloc Québécois. I would encourage the government side to withdraw these amendments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We have a final comment, and then we'll....

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

Mr. Chair, the first act is to challenge your ruling. I'd like to speak about that challenge.

I've had an opportunity to meet the people who gave you the advice in relation to that particular bit of inadmissibility, which is that these amendments were out of the scope of the bill. I'd like to talk about the scope a little bit. The scope of the bill, as it currently sits, refers to bylaws. Bylaws have to be received through an incorporation of some kind, either through a federally incorporated situation or through a provincial incorporation.

The first thing is that if we take a look at proposed clause 5 of amendment G-4, the thing that was found out of scope or inadmissible was that the government wants to have the individuals in proposed paragraph 4(1)(c) made accountable through the Canada Corporations Act and the Revised Statutes of Canada.

What this government is trying to do is make sure that we're perfecting a piece of legislation that's less than perfect, and quite frankly, if these amendments of the government's are not put forward, I would suggest that this bill will not pass, which would be, in my mind, a tragedy. What the government is trying to do is take an imperfect bill and make it as perfect as possible. That is our role here in committee.

Although it may have been ruled out of order and inadmissible because it's not within scope, I would challenge that ruling on the basis that I do believe it is in scope. I think other lawyers around the table can tell you that if you refer to bylaws, there are no other places that bylaws are found except in some form of incorporation document and as something given to you by statute.

I heard the argument that incorporation wasn't referred to in the first place in the first bill, so it's out of scope because it's not referred to. I think that is not at all clear, and I would suggest that a corporation would, first of all, give limited liability for the Government of Canada and the people of Canada and would give directors the ability to have limited liability instead of personal liability.

Second, it would allow funds to be placed in some sort of bank account. Where are the funds going to be placed? Are they going to be put in somebody's pocket? Under this bill, there is no place for the funds to be put. We want to protect the directors and we want to protect the people of Canada, but we also want some mechanism in place through which the funds can be collected, put into a bank account, and spent appropriately, and through which the people who are in control of those funds can be held accountable. We need a mechanism for that.

Also, these sections bring in consistency with other monuments that are currently within the NCC in other acts. I would challenge the ruling. I don't believe it's out of scope. I would certainly argue that. I think that any of the lawyers within the room and any lawyers within Canada could argue the same case very adamantly, because as it currently is, it refers strictly to bylaws.

Let's take a look what else the bill says. Proposed subclause 5(1), as I mentioned, is in accordance with section 155 of the Canada Corporations Act. Proposed subclause 5(2) says that the proposed name of the corporation in the application is the “National Holocaust Monument Development Council”. I don't see very much contention in that.

How about proposed subclause 5(3), which says, “The applicants are to be listed in the application as the first directors of the Council”? What's the problem with the scope within that?

How about “The Council is not an agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada”? We're protecting the people of Canada. How about “The applicants are not entitled to be paid any remuneration for incorporating the Council”? It makes sense to me. How about proposed subclause 5(6), which says, “The directors of the Council are not entitled to be paid any remuneration for acting as directors”? That makes sense to me.

How about proposed subclause 5(7), which says, “The members of the Council are not entitled to be paid any remuneration for acting as members”? That makes sense, so what's wrong with clause 5 as proposed in these amendments? Does anybody see a problem with proposed clause 5? Is that not contained within the purpose and the intent of all the members of this committee and of all the House that voted for this? What in this section is outside the scope of our understanding of the original intention of the bill?

Let's look at proposed clause 4. It says, “Within one year after the day on which this Act comes into force, the Minister shall”. This is a direction to the minister.

Mr. Volpe, I listened attentively to you; I would hope that you'd listen, because my argument is very persuasive, so I'm hoping that you're listening.

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

In terms of persuasiveness, it might be a different story.

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

Proposed paragraph 4(1)(a) says that they will “hold an open application process that allows members of the public to apply to the Minister to become members of the Council”, so it's not going to be a government unilaterally imposing the desire of Canadians on this monument; it's going to be people.

What kind of people? Look at that. Proposed paragraph 4(1)(b) says that we're going to “select from among the applicants at least three and at most five individuals to be members of the Council”. These are Canadians, but for people to be eligible, they have to “possess a strong interest in, connection to, or familiarity with the Holocaust”. Otherwise, they will not be eligible.

I read every single part of those two sections. First of all, if they are out of scope, I don't understand why, but even if they are, they certainly fall in place with what is necessary in order to perfect an imperfect bill and to give what the House voted for, which was unanimous support to get a Holocaust memorial and monument built.

That is what we need to do, and we need to put aside the politics and start looking at reality. We need to perfect an imperfect bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

The rules state that if the chair has been challenged, there will be no debate. I opened the floor simply because we started with debate. I allowed everybody to speak. The chair's decision has been challenged, and we'll go immediately to a vote.

[The Clerk]

The question is 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 is sustained. Now I will put the question on clause 4 as presented.

Shall clause 4 carry?

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

It's presented in the bill? Yes, I see.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

It's presented in the bill.

(Clause 4 agreed to)

(On clause 5--Selection process)

I'll ask Mr. Jean to speak directly to amendment G-4, and then I'm prepared to make a decision on it.

Actually, I already have. I'm sorry.

Does clause 5 carry as presented?

Mr. Jean on a point of order.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, did the challenge relate simply to clause 4 or to amendments G-3 and G-4 as well?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

It related to both, because one was connected to the other.

(Clause 5 agreed to)

(On clause 6--Design and location of Monument)

We have amendment G-5.

Mr. Jean.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Here's another very reasonable motion by the government. This motion actually requires the council to oversee, in consultation with the National Capital Commission, the planning and design of the monument and to make the required arrangements for the monument's planning, design, construction, and installation, which seems reasonable.

Certainly, here we're doing something that was unheard of in previous Liberal governments, and that is to remove some of the minister's discretion and involvement in the planning and design of the monument and in choosing a suitable place for the monument. Instead, the government is proposing assigning responsibility to the council, the eligibility requirements of which would have been established by the previous motion, to choose a suitable site for it. The motion does that in consultation, of course, with the National Capital Commission, but with the council making that decision. This is also again consistent with the National Capital Commission's mandate and its commemoration policy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Mr. Jean.

The advice I have been given and have accepted is that it is inadmissible in the sense that it introduces a new concept.

Mr. Jean.

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

I would challenge that, but I would ask for clarity on what new concept it would be installing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Bill C-442 requires the minister responsible for the National Capital Act to establish and work in cooperation with the national Holocaust monument development council to design and build a national Holocaust monument. The amendment attempts to require the council, instead of the minister, to oversee the planning and design of the monument and to make arrangements for its construction and installation.

The House of Commons Procedure and Practice, in the second edition, on page 766 states:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.