Transport Committee on June 3rd, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Members, I'm going to go to Monsieur Laframboise on the same point of order.

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

Mr. Chair, Mr. Volpe knows exactly how the Standing Orders work. The committee is master of its own proceedings. We have the right to overturn the chair's decision. If he does not agree with that, he can take it up with Speaker Milliken when the bill is referred back to the House. These are amendments proposed by the government that hopefully has done its job. We will see how things turn out.

Meanwhile, I hope that we will clear the frustration from the room and move on. We have the right to overturn the chair's decision. If Mr. Volpe is not happy with that, he can just use other procedures.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I have two other people left to speak, Mr. Dhaliwal and then Mr. Bevington.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I'm respectfully looking at this letter that is written by the Canadian Jewish Congress and tabled now, and I have to agree with Mr. Volpe. This is clearly a very vague letter, which does not explain which amendments it supports. We do not have the full story to this letter, and this letter was not written in full discussion with members on this side, the Liberal side, as well.

I would suggest that, with every respect...I think every Canadian, including myself and my children, would feel very proud to be part of erecting this monument for the Holocaust. This is a history, in fact, that we should all be sharing. Not only political people should be able to come in and say that's their duty. In fact, being Canadian, I would personally feel that every Canadian feels as proud.

Those are my comments.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

I thought we had already determined that that letter was not admissible because it was not produced in French. Why are we discussing this letter? It doesn't exist.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

I'll go to Mr. Bevington for a comment.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Well, I've got a copy of the letter here, and it was given to me here, but whether it exists or not in terms of the committee, I'm not sure.

If there are some questions about the support for the direction this bill is taking, perhaps we need to bring some more witnesses forward. If that is the case and if there's some concern about how this is unfolding, I'd like to get to the bottom of it. We're spending a lot of time on this, I know. I have lots of other things I'd like to see the committee move forward on, but there is a basic element here. Is the government responsible for this memorial? Of course, as a Canadian citizen, I want the government to be responsible for the memorial because then it represents the feelings of all Canadians. My father was a war veteran and partook in the bombing of Germany to stop the war and the death of many people, to right wrongs. Should I not ensure that the Government of Canada is fully responsible for this memorial to honour his actions in dealing with the Holocaust? If I asked him what I should do here, I would think he would tell me, yes, it has to be the Government of Canada that initiatives, approves, and puts the monument in place. So for me, this is an important issue, and I thought the private member's bill that is in front of us clearly says it.

The parliamentary secretary asked me to review a document that he said had the considered opinion of a very important group dealing with the Holocaust issue. I want to understand that what he gave me was correct and that it matches with their particular point of view. But when it comes to that larger issue of who is responsible for this memorial, I can't take any other position than the one I have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Before we go any further, I have one more point of order to recognize.

I do want to suggest that we are getting into debate around other issues. I will respectfully ask Mrs. Crombie to make her comments, and then I'll rule on the point of order. Hopefully we can proceed.

Mrs. Crombie.

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Chairman, there is no one more excited about the erection of this monument than I. My grandfather, too, was a prisoner of war in the Second World War and was held in a labour camp for five years. So I was quite excited that we would take this initiative as a government, and as a whole, the taxpayers of Canada themselves would be part of this initiative.

Now, portions of the letter that we're not discussing have already been tabled and read into the record, as a matter of fact. Clearly, there is some uncertainty with respect to the reference to the quote, “the government's amendments”, which are specifically very vague. They don't refer to which government amendments, and we're not certain whether the third party involved, the CJC, is aware that those amendments fundamentally change the essence of the bill as it had been presented.

Now I think we have no other course of action than to bring them forward and ask them to appear as witnesses to provide clarification as to whether they understand fully that these amendments, which they purport to support, fundamentally change the essence of the bill that had been initially tabled and that was supported by this committee.

Perhaps before we can move forward on a clause-by-clause basis, we need clarification from the organization on the letter, which hasn't been tabled and isn't official.

If I could add one more point, Mr. Chairman, I find it offensive, to use the word of my colleague across the floor, that the government would share amendments with outside organizations, no matter how wonderful the organizations may be, without bringing them forward to their colleagues at this committee first. That has to be immoral and probably wrong, but it is certainly offensive that they do that and that they tabled these amendments nine hours before we have to come to a decision on them, without giving us the respect to review them properly, to consider them, and to debate them as a caucus ourselves. That is disrespectful and quite offensive, and they should absolutely be out of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

It's not a point of order. It is, in my mind, debate.

We have tabled G-6.1. The decision of the committee is that we deal with G-6.1 and that's what I would ask that the debate open on.

Mr. Volpe, do you have a point of order?

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

I think you're absolutely right, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bevington raised the point, and Madam Crombie raised a similar point, namely, that when we discuss clause-by-clause we typically have the technical experts—usually from the department—here before us.

We've been sidetracked from that because of a letter. I used language that was pretty strong, and I don't mean to get into ad hominem attacks. I never do that. I want to retract the words that were offensive to my colleague, Mr. Jean, but I found it difficult to come up with any other language. I'm sorry for that.

We have, as one of our observers, a representative from the Canadian Jewish Congress. This representative is responsible for the file, wanted to be consulted on this letter, and was probably consulted on what the conversation was about. Even though the letter was not accepted for tabling, the first paragraph was read into the record. We can deal with it because it was read into the record in both English and French.

I'm wondering, Mr. Chairman, whether you would call up Mr. Eric Vernon from the Canadian Jewish Congress. He can appear before us and answer any questions specific to these clauses. He's the only one who can determine whether the letter was solicited or offered voluntarily. He's the only one who can tell us whether it reflects the points that Mrs. Crombie, I, Mr. Bevington, and others have been trying to make. I'm wondering whether you would call Mr. Vernon to the table.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you for that advice, but we cannot entertain witnesses when an amendment is on the floor. We have to address the amendment, and then if the committee consents, we can bring any witness forward that we choose. But because G-6.1 has been brought forward, we have to address that amendment before we can move in any other direction.

I would ask that we open the debate on G-6.1 and move forward.

Mr. Volpe.

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

I come back to the principle that I repeated on many an occasion. I'd like to add another one, which builds on what Madam Crombie said a moment or two ago and was repeated by Mr. Bevington. I think even Mr. Laframboise referred to it. That is that such a monument is important to the history of Canada. It's important to the people of Canada, and it should not be relegated to a particular group in Canada. It is not a monument for 100,000, 200,000 or 300,000 people. It is one that has the full commitment of all 32 million inhabitants of the country, and that's why it's important for this bill to reflect the interest not only of the Government of Canada but the entire Parliament of Canada, and indeed, Mr. Chairman, the entire House of Commons—no exceptions—voted in favour of the bill with those principles in mind.

The government has turned the tables on that process and is now talking about user fees for specific people who might be interested. Mr. Chairman, colleagues, I plead with you to think in terms of what that means. It means that all of us are going to be implicated in stepping back from the commitment by the entire public of Canada to erect a monument to commemorate the injustices done by evil around the world, and that specifically affects all of our values as Canadians—all Canadians.

I can't be a part of that. I'm not sure anybody else would want to be a part of it. I'm not sure the Canadian Jewish Congress would agree to that process, as much as they are excited about having such a monument erected. But such a monument erected according to the principles outlined by amendment G-6.1 by the government would mean that monument is specific to a small group in Canada, financed by a small group in Canada, by their own volition, by their own resources, irrespective of outreach by all other Canadians to share in the tragedy that befell them and affected all of us. We can't have that. They won't have it. I'm sorry that you won't call them, because the rules don't allow it, to come before us during the discussion on this amendment. Perhaps we'll have to consider it on the next amendment.

But, Mr. Chairman, I think I reflect the views of all colleagues, not just the government members, to stay true to the principle that we have accepted so far. This amendment rejects that principle. I'm not going to implicate or allocate a motive of false intent, malicious intent, or even oblivious intent. I just think it's wrong. It's wrong to turn our backs on the principles that make this a worthwhile project that had all Canadians interested and involved and now are turning a portion of the population into a wedge. That's never been the intent of this legislation. It's not anything that my caucus colleagues on the Liberal Party could ever support. We couldn't support this amendment even if we wanted to comply with the government's desire to go out there and involve Canadians in a fundraising exercise, to get user fees, by any other language. The money is there. We saw the minister agree to it. We saw the minister agree when he came before the committee last week and said that the royal recommendation is not a problem. Those are his quotes. We'll offer; the money is there. Finances are not an issue.

The principle is an issue. This amendment not only erodes the principle, it destroys the principle, turns its back on the people who are most affected, and it turns its back on the values of the Canadian public that wants to be at one with all the people who are affected, because the Holocaust affects us all.

I urge everybody to turn this amendment down.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Laframboise.

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

Mr. Chair, it is funny, but I am in favour of amendment G-6.1, as I would be for amendment G-7.1 and the government amendments. Let me explain why.

It is true that the law clerks have recommended that you do not accept these amendments. I would just like to challenge the position they have taken. The objective of the amendments is to make the bill better. We are coming up against the limits of a private member's bill. A bill like that has limits. We have already talked about them here.

When it tabled amendments G-6.1 and G-7.1, the government confirmed that the minister would remain responsible but would delegate that responsibility. Personally, I feel that that is allowed. That is why I said earlier that, if the Liberal Party is not happy, it could get the Speaker of the House involved and ask him to decide. With all due respect to the law clerks advising you, I feel that he would rule in favour of the decision that was just made to overturn your decision. I feel that the minister is going to issue a power of attorney. It is a kind of proxy. He keeps the responsibility, but he is delegating part of his authority. When you delegate part of your authority, you always remain responsible. To me, this is a legal debate.

I understand the Liberals. They have been trying to filibuster for a while. They can do that. They know very well that it is another way, another strategy, to get the original bill passed. If they can filibuster until June 11, it will be passed as is.

We have to give the government amendments a chance. Personally, I am going to support them. If there is ever an objection, if the Liberals and the NDP vote against, fine; the Speaker will decide. That is where the debate will be. As for the amendments, the government has the right to delegate its authority. The law clerks are against it doing so. So I feel the decision will have to be made by someone else, and that someone is the Speaker of the House.

But I would prefer not to have a political debate about whether we will or will not have a monument. I want us to have a monument and those people to have the recognition they deserve. If that is a problem legally, let us support these amendments on division if we want to, and the Speaker will decide. I have no problem with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Volpe.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to continue with this discussion, and I will, but first I think I'd like to move for adjournment until we can get witnesses to clarify some of these issues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Volpe, are you asking that the meeting be adjourned or debate?

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

That the meeting be adjourned until we can call witnesses to address some of these issues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

The call for the meeting to be adjourned is admissible, and it's open for debate.

For clarification, the motion is acceptable and open for debate because it has been qualified with the comment that we receive further information from witnesses. It therefore becomes debatable, and then we'll vote on it.

Mr. Volpe.

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

Mr. Chairman, all I want to do is to simply say, adjourn the meeting. I only wanted to give an indication as to why, but there's no need for me to add the why. I think everybody knows it, so I move to adjourn the meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Now there is no debate because it's a direct motion to adjourn. I will call the vote.

Mr. Laframboise.

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

Mr. Chair, I would like to make an amendment to the motion. I suggest that we adjourn for five minutes. If they want to have a discussion, I see no problem with us adjourning for five minutes and coming back. Otherwise, I will vote against.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Are you acceptable to that?

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

I accept that there's no debate, no amendment.