Evidence of meeting #21 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
If I may then, I'll try it again.
We would submit it “to the Minister and the appropriate committee of the House”. So that is how the subamendment reads.
(Subamendment agreed to)
(Amendment agreed to)
We have to go to the next amendment.
Mr. Jean.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Chair, just as a point of clarification as I introduce this, if I may, these can be subclauses 11(1) and 11(2). Is that correct? I just had some confusion when I was....
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
We have to vote on proposed clause 10 as amended, which was what the previous discussion was on.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Now we're going to move to proposed clause 11, and there are two parts to it.
Mr. Jean.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
This is more of a housekeeping matter than anything. It indicates the government's intention that this monument, after the funds have been raised and after it has been installed and built and properly located according to the terms of the act, will then become the property of the National Capital Commission, which obviously means the National Capital Commission at that stage will be dealing with most of the requirements of the monument itself.
The second part of that deals with the fact that once it becomes the property of the National Capital Commission, any additional funds that would be raised would become the property of the National Capital Commission at that time.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Mr. Chairman, I don't think we can be in opposition to proposed subclause 11(1). At the very least, both 11(1) and 11(2) now take us full circle to all the arguments we have been making all along; that is that the Government of Canada, through its minister of transport, be responsible for the planning, the designing, the building, and the maintenance of this monument on behalf of all Canadians.
New subclause 11(1) really says, you know what? This monument does revert back to Canadians. New subclause 11(2) says, and by the way, if you've raised any money--which we've referred to as an additional fee, a tax on a particular community--it comes back to the Government of Canada.
I think anybody who has listened to this debate or watched it all along would agree with our assessment, that the intent we had presented with our amendments in support of the original bill was that the Government of Canada do everything for the people of Canada. The government has dragged the Jewish community along and deceived the regular public, and now it's coming back and saying, by the way, we did do all of that, but the monument is going to come back and be a Canadian monument.
We applaud the fact that it's going to be a Canadian monument, because that's what we thought it was going to be all along. But the government fought it all the way along, and finally, with an amendment, it says mea culpa, we're sorry, you're right.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
And by the way, if there is any special spare cash, we're going to bank it. That's great, but at any rate, at least the end objective is resolved.
We're sorry that the Jewish community was deceived through all of this, and that the Canadian public was manipulated, but we're happy to see that the monument is going to be built. It's going to be resident in the national capital, and the Canadian public can call it its own.
I think we can call the question.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
We now refer back to clause 2, which we moved to the back at the start of the review. There were two government amendments, G-1 and G-2.
G-4 was not adopted, which was contingent on that, and G-6 was not adopted as well.
I look to Mr. Jean for any comment. I assume they are no longer relevant.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Chair, I would ask for unanimous consent to have a five-minute adjournment.
Actually, I see it's question period in five minutes, so if we can suspend until after question period, that would be appropriate.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
I don't know how we can do that. Are we allowed to sit after two o'clock?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Yes, we can. By the amendment that was approved in the previous meeting, we come back and sit right after QP.
Monsieur Laframboise.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
I want to ask the law clerk whether the clauses that have not been dealt with yet contain information that is now irrelevant or contradictory, given the amendments and decisions that have been made.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
That is the difficulty, Mr. Chair. I see we have two clauses left to deal with. And certainly in my mind, we probably do have G-1 and G-2.
The difficulty is that we have been going back and forth for two days, and I want to make sure that we actually adopt a bill today that is not just relevant but makes sense. That's why I wanted the five minutes, just to go through each clause that we have done, and that's what I'm asking for. It's just a couple of minutes to be able to go through and make sure we have a bill that's proper before us and that we're not missing any clauses that need to be there, because we have had some issues going back and forth between us.
I'm a little confused, bluntly put, in relation to the content.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
I could do some filibustering, as well. I gave Mr. Jean a chance to—
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Go ahead, Mr. Jean, make your calls.
In the meantime, it is important for the law clerk to give us her opinion on the clauses that have not been dealt with yet.