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.
7:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
The amendment is in order, so I'll open up the floor for debate.
Mr. Jean.
7:15 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Well, what surprises me, Mr. Chair, is... I've only been in this place for six years, but of the last 50 years since the Holocaust happened, the Liberals have been in power for 40, and it's amazing that during that entire time no Holocaust monument has been set up in all of Canada. In fact, it took this Conservative government to come forward and this Prime Minister's support of a private member's bill from the Conservative side to do this.
7:15 p.m.
Conservative
7:15 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Even though we disagree on some things on occasion, we try to maintain a particular relevance to the issue at hand. I might remind the parliamentary secretary, as I indicated during the course of my presentations earlier on in the evening, that there were other motions and bills presented. They were authored by Liberals. I took pains to indicate that the partisanship associated with the presenters had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the House accepted this.
I'm not going to reflect on people's views of history and the past. What I do want to do is move forward and indicate that the House of Commons has accepted that the Government of Canada would initiate this as a reflection of the values of the Canadian public. It has nothing to do with partisanship, and I think you would be well advised to stay away from that.
7:15 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I'm still dealing with my point of order, and I will rephrase it and say “most of which were Liberal majority governments”.
7:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Are you debating the point of order? If you aren't going to debate the point of order, I'll rule on it first.
7:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I won't rule it a point of order, but I think it does have to be relevant in the discussion--
7:15 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Absolutely.
As I was saying, most of which over the last 40 years were Liberal majority governments, and I apologize for missing that. So of course they had any sway they wanted in government with finances, etc.
In this particular case, I see that what the real issue is, notwithstanding that a lot of people have come forward and said... In fact, I've been told that enough money has already been committed to pay for the entire project. People wanted to donate to this project.
But what I understand, Mr. Volpe, is that in essence you want to take it away from the hands of those people who want to donate money for this Holocaust monument. You want to take it out of their hands, make the government pay for it, make the minister responsible for deciding where to put it, and make the minister responsible for deciding how to design it and what it should be, instead of, as the government wants, leaving it in the hands of those people who have been most greatly affected. Is that what I'm to understand?
7:15 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Since I've been asked the question directly, I'm willing to answer that anybody who wants to make contributions to worthwhile causes has a plethora of choices in which to express his or her view with finances. They are charitable organizations. They are funds. They are community organizations. They relate to the Holocaust. They relate to Canadian tradition. They relate to a newer tradition emerging.
What I've said--and I want to be consistent about this--is that this is an opportunity for the Canadian public to see this initiative as its own. The only way the entire Canadian collective can see this as its own, the only way the Canadian collective can give an expression of its commitment to that event and recall for the entire world that it decries these types of historic circumstances that led to the tragic event of the Holocaust, is for the Government of Canada to back, on behalf of all Canadians....
This doesn't preclude anyone else from taking whatever funds, energies, or resources they have and putting them in other situations where they, too, can reflect on the event, but that would be a personal or a small community decision. It is not the Canadian collective decision.
From our perspective in the Liberal Party, our support for this bill goes to the heart of the collective's interest in expressing its collective view. You can't do that by going to a few select people who have some money at their disposal to do this. You go to the Canadian public through the arm of the Canadian government and you execute this result.
That's all it is, Mr. Chairman. It has nothing to do with depriving people of the opportunity to contribute.
7:15 p.m.
An hon. member
Or participate.
7:20 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Are we talking about the point of order, Mr. Chair?
7:20 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
I would say that the Liberal amendment is in conformity with what we agreed to previously, that the minister is responsible for overseeing the construction and the maintenance of the monument. But we cannot pass clause 7 as it stands if we are going to discuss amendment G-7 later.
In paragraph 7(2), it says: “The Council shall spearhead a fundraising campaign to cover the cost of constructing the Monument.” Here is what the government is proposing in amendment G-7: “The Council shall spearhead a fundraising campaign to cover the cost of planning, designing, installing and maintaining the Monument…” So amendment G-7 would take care of the maintenance.
We have to be consistent. We should have a friendly amendment, meaning that we should support amendments LIB-2 and G-7 as presented and we should replace clause 7 of the bill completely, if we want to be consistent. We should discuss both of them at the same time so that we are sure that we have got it straight.
7:20 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I would like some indication. I just noticed something. Quite frankly, I can't believe amendment LIB-2 would be in order. I think it's ultra vires. It's beyond the minister's power, I would think, in this circumstance. I don't know if I'm correct or not, but the NCC has jurisdiction over all of the lands as an arm's-length body. If the NCC has jurisdiction for the NCC and they are asking for the minister to be responsible for the construction and maintenance of the monument, I would see that as a conflict of laws. As a result of that, it would not be in order. I would like some indication of that.
All the sitting members here have had experience with the NCC, with the act itself. We've been here. We've gone through the act. The NCC--the commission--is responsible for the commission. Are they suggesting that the minister is going to be responsible for this one particular monument, which I think is beyond his jurisdiction?
I've just received word from a little birdie on my shoulder that the minister is not actually allowed to make any orders for a crown corporation, so I think this particular Liberal amendment is beyond jurisdiction.
7:20 p.m.
Conservative
7:20 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Brian, the minister has to be responsible. The object of the bill is for the minister to continue to be responsible. I know what you want to do; you want to change it all and put the responsibility on the council. But that changes the meaning of the bill. The bill came from Parliament, and, as we have already said at committee, we cannot do what we like with a bill like this.
Clearly, Mr. Chair is correct. Perhaps he is starting to raise his game in order to become the next Speaker of the House, because he is quite even-handed.
But we still all have to be consistent, in terms of amendment LIB-2. The minister must be responsible for the construction and maintenance of the monument. But your amendment G-7 says that the council is going to have fundraising campaigns.
I understand what you are saying. You do not want the government paying for it. However, it is best if amendment G-7 harmonizes perfectly with the goal of the bill. So I think that we have to pass amendment LIB-2 and amendment G-7, and replace clause 7 completely. Actually, amendment LIB-1 replaces paragraph 7(1) and amendment G-7 will replace paragraph 7(2) automatically, and clause 8.