Transport Committee on June 3rd, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Okay.

Regrettably, I can't accept that, so we will vote now on the motion to adjourn.

(Motion negatived)

We're back to debate on G-6.1.

Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Is a motion to adjourn for five minutes in order now?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

It appears there is agreement to take a 10-minute recess.

Mr. Jean.

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

I'm just curious. Once you've moved a clause in clause-by-clause and you have it in front of you and it's being debated, can you then move to adjourn?

It's just very interesting. I've never seen it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

A motion to adjourn supersedes the amendment debate. If we have agreement, we can take a 10-minute recess.

We'll recess for 10 minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, and welcome back, everyone.

The debate was taking place on government amendment 6.1. We were, I think, near the end of the debate. But if there's no one else, then I will—

[An hon. member]

Mr. Volpe was still speaking--

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Volpe.

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

Mr. Chairman, this particular amendment by the government is attempting, as I said earlier on, to reverse some of the decisions that had already been made by the committee leading up to this particular clause.

All of this is predicated on the parliamentary secretary reading into the record part of a letter that was not accepted for tabling, for the usual procedural reasons--legitimate as they have always been--by other members of the committee. However, with respect to what was already read into the record, it would appear that a letter of endorsement was produced on the basis of a scenario depicted to the letter writer or to his colleagues responsible for the file that conveyed an impression that might have been, at the very least, incomplete.

On the basis of those conversations and the scenario being incomplete, we voted on accepting or not accepting to continue the debate. We are now here on G-6.1.

I think it always bears repetition that the government is trying to do something through the back door that has already been shut at the front door. What the government is doing is it is essentially saying that anyone who wants to build a monument can go ahead and do it on their own. What this amendment says is we'll establish a council, we'll use the appropriate legal model to ensure that it exists, we'll give it the articles that we give any other corporation, we'll let them--although the legislation doesn't say that--maybe establish themselves as a charitable organization, and we'll let those people go forward who have a direct tie to the Holocaust.

We've already rejected that language. We already rejected that language because Canadians all have a direct tie. But the government doesn't think so. The government thinks that it's only members of those families who have an immediate connection to someone who perished during the Holocaust. And in that thinking, Mr. Chairman, the government is saying that the Canadian public doesn't want to have anything to do with the monument. That analysis is wrong. The Canadian public does want to do this, but there are only so many ways the Canadian public can express itself in favour of a monument that commemorates the tragic genocidal actions committed in our generation.

So the government comes back and it says what they're going to do is establish this council; they're going to conduct a fundraising campaign. They'll cover the cost of planning, they'll cover the cost of designing, they'll cover the cost of construction, they'll cover the cost of installing and maintaining the monument, and they'll cover any of the costs the council establishes.

Well, you know, Mr. Chairman and colleagues, everybody else in the country is asking why we need the legislation for us to establish such a council in the first place. We don't need permission to do that in a free and open country like Canada. If we have the money, we'll do that. We'll do it ourselves. We can buy property here through the National Capital Commission. We can do it on our own. We don't need the permission of the Government of Canada. We don't need the consent of this committee to send out a real estate agent to locate the land for us. We might actually come up with a better location than the one you want to give us. We don't need you to conduct a nationwide contest from an architectural design point of view. We don't need you to give us the money. We just want to do it on our own.

Well, you know what? We can. Every citizen can. Every group of citizens can. So we're not talking about the financing of a concept. We're not talking about permitting a concept to be generated. We're not talking about the abilities of any community to generate the resources necessary to realize this project. There is in fact already a group out there that says it has this project in mind and it thinks it's long overdue and it is already generating funds. It wants to get it done. People have already done that. Why do we need a government amendment to say they have our benediction, they have our approval, they have our consent? Give us a break. In a democratic environment where the citizen prevails, we don't need the Government of Canada to do that.

But here's what we need the Government of Canada to do. We need the Government of Canada to speak for all Canadians—every single one of the 32 million who have subscribed to the census and have identified themselves as legitimate inhabitants in this place. We need the Government of Canada to collectively speak on behalf of those 32 million and to say collectively that it is our will to ensure that such a monument be planned, designed, constructed, installed, and maintained at our expense—because it is our monument, because it is an expression of our experience, because it is a reflection of all the values that make Canada what Canada is.

Do you want to help? You're quite welcome. But the Government of Canada has the resources, the generative resources of talent, ingenuity, even will, and finances. To be able to marshal together all of those elements that collectively give a stamp of Canada on the project, that's what every community would need. They don't need the Government of Canada for anything else. They don't, and the committee has already said, all along, leading up to this amendment, that it doesn't need anything other than an expression of the Government of Canada's will to do this.

But do you know what, Mr. Chairman and colleagues? Members of Parliament have already done that. They've done the heavy lifting for the Government of Canada. They've already done all the preparatory work for the Government of Canada. They've done it in the House of Commons, unanimously. They expressed support for a bill presented by a backbench member of Parliament, seconded by an opposition member of Parliament, and everyone agreed that the principle should be the one we've enunciated--everyone. The bill came before this committee, and to everyone's surprise, the government presented an amendment for every single clause in the bill. Just reflect on that, colleagues. Every single clause in the bill was pulled back by the Government of Canada.

The Government of Canada said no, we could not have the expression of the public's desire to support this concept. The Government of Canada said to that community, which is already busily working away to build a monument in the national capital region, to ensure that the Canadian public lends its support to that initiative. Let it stand out there like a beacon, worldwide, and say the people of Canada have done this--not the Government of Canada, the people of Canada. The Parliament of Canada--members of Parliament from every nook and cranny in Canada, from every political stripe, from every religious background, members of Parliament elected in rural Canada, in maritime Canada, in urban Canada, in the north, members of Parliament as remote from the experience of the Holocaust as you can get, collectively joined in and said, “We want our voice stamped on that monument.” There's only one way for us to do it, and that's to say that the people of Canada--the Government of Canada--want to finance, plan, design, build, and maintain this monument. It's a reflection of our will. It's a reflection of our design. It's an expression of our commitment to fellow man.

That's a laudable thing to do. But the government said “uh-uh”. What's going to trump all of this is money. And even though the House of Commons agreed with us wholeheartedly, completely, thoroughly, unanimously, the government, upon reflection, said it doesn't want to do this anymore, that money is an issue. What money? The Government of Canada's annual budget is something like $255 billion. The Government of Canada has that much money at its disposal on an annual basis--$255 billion. I don't know how much this monument would cost. I dare say it probably won't even put a dent in that $255 billion budget.

So really, the issue of money can't be it. Well, maybe it's because we're in a time of constraint. Now we have to reduce the deficit, we have to reduce the debt. We have to balance off all of the woes that have afflicted our finances. So the first casualty will be this monument. Well, is money that significant? To judge by the statements of the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities just the other day, when he appeared before a committee, money is not the issue, and the reason for that is that the budget gave even more money to the National Capital Commission for the conduct of its business, for the management of its real estate assets, and for its operations. The Government of Canada, thanks to votes in the House, was able to transfer to the National Capital Commission additional millions of dollars--additional--for projects just like this one. In fact, they didn't even need this legislation.

I pointed out in a letter to the minister that the NCC already possesses the authority to establish a monument without parliamentary approvals. Indeed, the NCC currently is responsible for, count them, not one, not two, not three, not four or five, but 16 monuments, including the Hungarian monument, the Canadian tribute to human rights, the monument to Canadian aid workers, and currently there's even construction under way of a national naval monument. None of these required legislation.

What makes those people who want to have a national Holocaust monument so special that they require legislation to get it done? Do you know what, colleagues? The National Capital Commission is in the planning phase for the creation of a national monument for victims of communism. I don't want to diminish that because there are countless millions who have suffered at the hands of communism, who died, in the old U.S.S.R. and other places around the world. We're building a monument to them. That's to our credit. But we didn't require a bill. We didn't ask the families of those victims to go out and do the fundraising. We didn't ask them to engage in contributing user fees, because that's what this is. We found the community that wanted one of these monuments and we said, oh, well, maybe they have the wherewithal to pay for it, so we don't have to pay for it. Can you imagine anything so cynical? Can you imagine any member of Parliament on this side of the table or even on that side of the table turning around and saying our cynicism is covered by their willingness to self-tax for a monument we could build just like that? We don't need the legislation. Finances aren't the problem. Could it be greed?

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

A point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Laframboise.

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

I have no problem with Mr. Volpe's filibuster. But he has no right to repeat the same things.

Yes, it is true that the government wants someone else to pay... please can he come up with something else? I have no problem listening to him, but he must not be redundant.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Merci.

I would advise Mr. Volpe that there does seem to be some repetition in his comments. I will respect the point of order.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

So I will begin again in French, because I have to use just the right words to describe the concept...

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Laframboise on a point of order.

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

He can speak in English or French, but he cannot use the same words, the same expressions and the same information over and over again. English or French, no problem, but please can he come up with something else?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I would ask Mr. Volpe to renew his vigour in debate.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I must confess--

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean on a point of order.

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

I want to confirm, Mr. Chair, and I understand why Mr. Volpe is filibustering this today. The Liberal Party made a promise, I think 10 or 15 years ago, to provide money for a Holocaust monument. In another 10 or 15 years they might get in government again and would be able to fulfill that promise. I'm not sure if they would once they get back into power, if they ever do.

I do want to point out, Mr. Volpe, that the Winnipeg museum raised over $100 million from Canadians, a museum, frankly, that is the human rights museum, and all Canadians wanted to be involved.

I understand Mr. Volpe is filibustering, and I understand he's not getting what he wants out of this bill, but we believe on this side of the House that Canadians want to come forward and they want to be part of this. People who were directly connected to the Holocaust want to come forward and make the decisions and oversee it. That's why we believe we should move forward in one way or another, today, to get this done. We can't wait another 10 or 15 years for a Liberal promise to be kept.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Watson, on the same point of order.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Just briefly, Chair, for the benefit of the committee, in terms of past experience, when I've seen people filibustering at committee, at least they had to be relevant to the specific clause that's under consideration. If Mr. Volpe wants to speak about things more broadly that were appropriate at second reading debate and not so much at committee here....

Mr. Chair, if that understanding is correct, then I think Mr. Volpe should stay germane to the clause we are debating here and not a whole lot of other matters.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I thank everybody for their advice. I have suggested to Mr. Volpe that there is starting to be some repetition and I would ask him to continue to stay relevant but with fresh material.

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

The material is always fresh, Mr. Chairman, and I accept the intervention of colleagues. They probably suffered under the mistaken impression that perhaps I was tiring in my energy, and so just to give them an opportunity to think of themselves as having fulfilled something of benefit, I can now assure them that, no, I was not tiring, but that the added moment of freshness in the air is probably going to generate even more energy about a topic on which we should all speak with passion.

I apologize to my colleagues from the Bloc who thought my command of the English thesaurus was more limited than they had expected of me, and I'll try to live up to Le Petit Robert and Larousse, etc., if I can, in order that the repetition not fray any nerves.

But it's important to keep in mind, Mr. Chairman, that repetition is the soul of integration. In fact, if you repeat, yes, in repeating the concept we drive home the point, and the point is still the one I was talking about a moment ago: first, whether it was will, public will, public reflection, public involvement; secondly, whether it was a question of moneys--and we have clearly dealt with the issue of moneys not being the issue.

It must be something to do with authority: in other words, whether the Government of Canada could have, should have, must have the authority to put this forward. Mr. Chairman, colleagues all know that the authority is vested in the cabinet and exercised through the various ministers. Now, the only way that any community—whether it is the Jewish community, the Italian community, the Hungarian community, any community in Canada—can know that the Government of Canada, the people of Canada, side with them is if a minister of that cabinet, a minister of the crown, an administrator of the authority of the people, can actually speak on their behalf. A minister did. The Prime Minister did. The member who presented the bill, when questioned here before this committee, said yes, he had not only consulted the Prime Minister and the cabinet and the minister responsible, but he'd gotten their approval. They've gotten their approval. Can you imagine? The Prime Minister and the cabinet said yes, the bill is great, and they supported it. Everybody supported it.

But then the Prime Minister and the cabinet and the cabinet minister responsible for this pulled themselves back, apparently. So now we're looking at something like this. This particular item says “No, no, it can't be the minister, it can't be the government, it can't be the Prime Minister who is going to incur the costs of covering the planning, designing, construction, installation, and maintaining of the monument. No, it can't be the Prime Minister. It can't be the Government of Canada. It can't be the people of Canada. It has to be somebody else”.

Well, let's pick some people. We'll call it a council, but it can't be the people of Canada. It can't be the Prime Minister. That's what this amendment says. I can't imagine that the government would promote an amendment that would cast such aspersions on the will of its own Prime Minister and cabinet minister.

When the cabinet minister stood before this committee, he was sitting right there by number 18, Mr. Chairman, and I asked him if he was still committed to this. He said there was no doubt. I asked if he was willing to give a royal recommendation in case there were costs associated with this. He said there was no doubt. Well, I don't know who speaks for this government or for the people of Canada anymore. There's no doubt, apparently, that the minister wants to cover the expenses, wants to exercise his authority. There's no doubt. There's no doubt that they will cover all the financial considerations because they're prepared to give a royal recommendation. And the government members opposite present an amendment that says, “No, we don't want to do that. It costs too much money.” We don't know. Nobody's every asked for an estimate. Nobody has done a feasibility study on this. Nobody has looked at the design projects. Nobody has conducted a national campaign to find out who's interested, which architectural firm, what's going to be done, and where it's going to be done. Nobody has done that, so we don't know what the cost is.

Members opposite must know the costs, because they're saying they want the council to cover all this. We don't know whether it's $10 or $10 million. It doesn't matter because it's all the same to them. That $10 or $10 million is going to break the bank. It's going to ruin the finances of a government that has $255 billion in expenditures. Can you imagine that?

Well, we can't imagine that. We can't. We have to take all of our colleagues at face value. When they presented this particular bill...and I'm going to ask my colleague from Mississauga—Streetsville or my colleague from Newton—North Delta what their understanding might be when in the House they voted for something completely different, i.e. that the minister would be responsible and that the minister accepted that responsibility.

Now think about this—just to change topic for a moment; the word “responsible” is there for a very specific reason, Mr. Chairman, and that specific reason is that we live in a parliamentary system that says the government is responsible—responsible—and accountable to the people for everything it decides.

So here, now, is something novel: the government members are presenting an amendment that says the minister can no longer be responsible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

A point of order, Monsieur Laframboise.